I'll quote myself: "uses will include wildfire prediction and modeling, biomolecular modeling, material behavior modeling, dark matter cosmology, and climate prediction models"

Nuclear bomb function was simply the first intended computational project... They bought the thing. It's theirs. If someone else wants one to do other things, they can build one themselves. Anyway, that is only one of the projects. Molecular folding IS one of the others... as I mentioned and as the sited website mentions... but honestly, that may be a waste since distributed computing is more ideally fit for those functions. Computational protein folding has not been considered as all that informative by the biological community anyway. Too many variables, no chaperones, no post-translational modifications... many of these computed folding patterns are likely bunk.

"the entire weather pattern for the entire universe" -- this gentleman has some basic cosmology problems.

Keep in mind, as you read this response, that I've been drinking. Any errors, I hope, can be blamed on the pernicious evils of that blackgaurd Jack Daniels, whose intoxications cloud the minds of men, but (happily) sometimes open the thighs of women.

That said, I spoke briefly with someone from my department of study on the topic of Aquinas' proofs of God before my graduation ceremony (B.A. in Philosophy) this last Saturday.

I feel fairly confident in what I learned, since the individual I spoke to had spent a semester studying Aquinas at Oxford last year. He explained to me, after my mentioning the utter failure of Aquinas' Five Ways, that they were severely misunderstood by modern thinkers. As it turns out, Aquinas did not say that time, or even causality, cannot infinitely regress. That claim, which is simply false from a logical standpoint, was never stated by Aquinas. Indeed, he is famous for stating that, without faith, there is simply no reason to believe that the universe has not existed, as Aristotle claimed, forever, infinitely reaching into the past. (This was, of course, prior to Big Bang cosmology) I felt rather stupid when this was pointed out to me; it's such an obvious contradiction that I couldn't believe I had overlooked it. Aquinas certainly wouldn't have.

The version Dawkins proposes is actually the Kalam cosmological argument, not Aquinas'.

The version Aquinas presents is far closer to Leibniz's cosmological argument, which depends on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)--the claim that everything has a reason for its existing and being the way it is. Alcohol floods my brain ever stronger, so I can't hope to do justice to the argument. I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say that, if one accepts the PSR, the existence of God ineluctably follows--or at least the existence of an Ultimate Reason for Everything, which amounts to the same thing.

Note that I have not claimed that the existence of the Abrahamic God is proven this way. Not only do I not believe in such a God, I do not believe that this kind of argument could prove such. Nor did Aquinas. Which is why he said it was a matter of faith.


In short, Dawkins fails because he utterly misunderstands Aquinas at a basic level. Which is somewhat forgivable, because everyone does. You have to understand Aristotle in order to understand Aquinas, and that is something that few attempt these days.

>> ^Kraz:
Not to sound cheeky, but can you kindly point out where the bible states that the Earth revolves around the Sun? I've heard this before and it piques my interest because I know of no such passage.

It doesn't say anything about it, which is why the first popes took the most recent and celebrated work on geography and cosmology at the time, that of Ptolemy, as the base of their temporal doctrine. Later some Aristotle was thrown in retroactively by Thomas Aquinas, on the epistemological level. To make an analogy, this means that if the Christ would have been born in the 17th century, the first popes would have used Newton's Laws of motion and gravitation. They would have then condemned Einstein as a Heretic for his special and general Relativity.

>> ^Dadeeo:
This is what happens when "scientists" accept theory AS fact.

Theories explain known facts and predict (as yet) unknown facts. Theories are not facts, but their predictions can be taken as such until proven otherwise by experiments.

Too bad the theory's are constantly changing, yet every new one gets embraced as the truth without ever acknowledging the error of accepting the now former "defunct" theory.

Accepted scientific theories are never "defunct": they are expanded, generalized, etc. For example, euclidean geometry still has good predictive value under certain circumstances, as when the surface you examine is sufficiently flat. So are Newton's Laws of motion a good appromixation when speeds are not near the speed of light. Pythagoras' theorem still holds and his divisions of the octave still divide the octave.

How could you ever trust anyone that refuses to admit their errors?

Scientists admit their errors all the time. Einstein admitted that the cosmological constant was the biggest mistake of his life. When they're stubborn, death makes their outdated views irrelevant, as with Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics. In religions, being dead makes you a Saint, and your opinions that of God himself (or close enough).

The Bible speaks of them is "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".

Wow, postmodernism at its 1st century's best! It's true that ultimate, absolute knowledge by observation is now thought to be impossible, but careful observation over many centuries has shown that those who don't learn can't know and are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

Of course a baby's eye develops as it grows from egg to full term, but does that prove the theory of evolution? No! Do creatures with varying degrees of eye function prove evolution? No! Does a blind cave fish prove there is no God? No!

Maybe they don't prove anything, but they don't need to, since empirical science doesn't need and can't have "proofs" in the same sense as logic and mathematics. There are facts and theories that explain the particular facts. The theory that explains all of the particular facts and that is consistent with the greatest number of other accepted theories in other fields of knowledge, is said to be the most adequate. It is not impossible that new facts should reveal a hitherto less adequate theory to now be the most adequate &mdash it happens &mdash and sometimes two or more theories will seem equally adequate. But not all theories can fit the facts and be globally consistent. Of course, if you reject all of science or all of empirical science, then you may as well go live with the Amish, 'cause it's not God that gave anyone the knowledge required to build the computers we both used to transmit these electronic messages.

"Absolutely a science sift. Whether or not it's wrong, it discusses science, and more importantly, it gets people asking questions." MarineGunrock

-You know what, you've completely changed my mind, the post should stay and the debate should ensue.


1. These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. - Irishman

So unless MIT is some fly-by-night operation handing out jobs to any lunatic off the street, I believe you are mistaken.


-- MIT like all institutions has hosted more than a few fly-by-night cosmology studies.



2. It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims. - Irishman

Did you not see Dr. Wong experimenting with lasers and splitting photons, or do you think that was all for show? I'm sure they just let him shoot lasers all day without presenting any data.


-- Yes I did see them shooting the lasers, and I wondered how they were going to measure it over a distance of the light years necessary to get anywhere near as accurate a measurement as was performed in the 1940s. The curvature of space time is an absolute principle which affects all of our modern technology.



3. Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel? - Irishman

If you're so dismayed by the quality of science sifts here, I don't believe anyone's created a ScienceSift.com web site yet. Don't let me stand in the way of your greatness.

-- Not dismayed; surprised, and somewhat amused.




The evidence is not compelling and the flaw in the experiment is easily pointed out. Saying that, plenty of theories have survived for quite some time with misinterpreted results from studies.

Guys, this is how science works. People have to look at what is being claimed and if they don't agree with it they have to be able to back up their reasons why. That's exactly what I'm doing and I'm happy to be swayed to a different opinion. I'm not in the slightest bit swayed by anything so far.

Sigh, I had typed up a half a page worth of comment and realized I needed another half page more so decided to just give up. Now I see SDGundamX's comment and wish I had posted mine.

So here's the short version. This video is misleading; in at least one spot it is misleading to the point of spouting hogwash. It mixes together separate phenomena from cosmology, quantum mechanics, and plain probability without clearly labeling them or distinguishing between them. Their "parallel universe theory" is not a theory, but an interpretation, of which there are multiple, of quantum mechanics; it's not even the most widely accepted interpretation. If you're interested in the phenomena they fumble over in this video then google, or just wikipeida, these terms: Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds intepretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality.

you can tell colbert really is a cosmology fanboy. he's had Neil deGrasse Tyson on a couple times, and tons of other physicists.

>> ^Raigen:
I'm curious why the title is calling him "Reverend"!

I found that a little weird myself, black man behind lectern =/=> preacher. I had to check wikipedia, but he is apparently non-religious in any aspect, so I see no grounds for such a label, unless the poster wants to claim to revere him, which seems a reasonable enough position.

Rev. is a particularly problematic title, as it requires no qualifications, and has no discrete meaning. I won't even call preachers Rev.

GH: I think it is absurd to argue that atheists hope for the nonexistence of god, we simple extrapolate the nonexistence of god. Many atheists in fact wish that there was a god, but they can't bring themselves to believe that there is one.

While everyone is ignorant in the broadest sense, I find it disingenuous to argue that "god" is unfalsifiable. Many holy books make deity based cosmological claims which we can prove to be false, these aspects of the deities in question are falsified. The claim that some parts of the official definition of a given god can be discarded when convenient is not a particularly intellectually honest position. Moving the goal posts is more ignorant(or dishonest) than accepting the disproof.

He said that in no other area besides religion do we "respect each others beliefs", we demand proof. Not true, scientists DO respect each others beliefs even when they disagree with them, this is particularly true in cosmology, quantum physics, string theory, etc. etc.

And what was that at the very end about a quality of spirituality in life. He believes in something called "spirit" yet he condemns people for holding religious beliefs?

Lastly, Mr. Harris is a closet Buddhist, he extols the virtues of meditation and "looking within" to find some magical mystical introspective "consciousness" when logical rational 1st person thought fails to answer every question.

Sam Harris - Hypocrite.
http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001340.html

The statement in the video about the speculated cause of the big bang is incorrect - the author is confusing two objects colliding with M-theory branes colliding in higher dimensional space, giving rise to a big bang.

The statement about Einstein's blunder is also incorrect, the blunder being referred to is Einstein's fudge of the cosmological constant - which was since proved wrong, then proved correct, then proved wrong again. 'Empty' space in the universe is in fact expanding exponentially.

The origin of the spin of galaxies (and all particles in nature) is inherited from the spinning of the entire universe - this is a controversial theory but can be demonstrated mathematically.

The domestication of the banana info is completely accurate!

...

What can I say? I mean, you yourself have just denounced logic. That makes argument impossible by definition. Feel free to believe whatever you want, just do your best to not indoctrinate your children, or like, shape public policy that affects the real world, which actually does function on logic.

I guess my only question is this: why God and not Allah? Why not Zeus or Thor? With so many Gods to choose from, are you CERTAIN that yours is correct? How certain are you? Certain enough to try and spread your view of God to others? Certain enough to teach it to innocent children?

Anyway, sorry if I seem combatative, I really don't have any beef with you, and I know some very nice people with deep religious convictions. I don't happen to share these convictions, and that's fine. That's called living in an open society. Far be it from me to try and deny your belief that your neighbor is from another planet, or that your imaginary friend created the universe and loves you very much. But if you want to convince me that these things are true, an ancient book of tribal mythos won't help you. Especially not the bible, which has some very VERY nasty anecdotes in it indeed.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

I believe that God is perfect. Perfect. Humor me for a second and imagine a Perfect God. In six days (or in other words six periods of time), couldn't He have created (or "organized" if you translate it literally) binary stars, black holes, and Hawking radiation. Couldn't he have programmed the world to develop and "evolve" however he wanted it to, over millennia. Couldn't God have caused the "Big Bang."

My faith is not disproved by science, nor can it be. My faith is not based on logic, nor can it be. I believe in God because I have seen His hand in my life and have felt His spirit in my heart. No amount of Astronomy will ever change that. On the contrary, the more I learn of stars, planets, comets, and galaxies, the stronger my faith becomes. I realize more and more everyday how small and insignificant I am without my Faith in God, the Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ. Without Them, I am nothing.

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Does it involve a set of forces that explains the behavior of matter that is consistent on scales from 10 to ten to the power of 40?

Does it cover binary stars, black holes, and hawking radiation?

Does it say anything about neutron stars? I'd be interested in reading an ancient text that can tell us about objects in the universe that are SO dense, that a tablespoon of them weighs as much as the entire himalayas.

My point is, the universe is WAY more amazing than any mythos that has been dreamt up by man. We're just not configured to be able to imagine this stuff. Why would we be? A study of evolutionary psychology reveals much about why we are the way we are. Being able to intuitively grasp the dynamics of relativity is NOT adaptive for ancient man. We needed to develop math to figure out this shit.

So, tell me about your text. Does it have mind-bending philosophy? Does it want us to spend our lives looking at our navels? Count me out of those, please.



In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

Have you read the ancient text I study from?

In reply to this comment by djsunkid:
Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.

Holy fucking shit. Modern cosmology is totally the religion killer. OK, virgin birth, yadda-yadda what ever. You think YOU'VE got miracles? Your ancient texts don't have SHIT on modern science, yo.