What Religion is Book?

POSTED BY: Lukasaurus
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:38
VIEWED: 16494
PAGE 1 of 1

LUKASAURUS

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:28 AM

First off, just want to say straight up, that I really don't want any bashing or arguments :) Just a discussion based on the show. For the record, I'm a Christian.

From the episodes I've seen, Book appears to be a Hybrid of Roman Catholicism and Baptist beliefs. In Our Mrs Reynolds, he is seen to be giving some sort of "last rites" to the dead men, a Roman Catholic tradition, but in other episodes, namely, Jaynestown, he speaks with River about faith changing a person, not works or things like that, and doesn't appear to be very ritualistic.. this leads me to believe he is of a protestant denomination.. likely Baptist. However, he did go to an abbey, and never married (although, he never says he isn't allowed to Marry.. just that he didn't.. Paul the apostle chose not to as well)

Anyway, discuss :)

There is a special level of hell reserved for people who talk in the theatre ;)

STATIC

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:39 AM

I'm thinking for the purposes of the show and the notion of a 'conglomerated' future where MANY cultural things have all meshed together. . .

The religion that Book follows is a mish/mash of several Christian denominations, to include Catholicism, Episcopal and Protestant. This is probably also an effort on JW's part to avoid rocking a boat he doesn't need to rock. . .or it could very well be that the nuances of the religion are not important and he doesn't want us to 'over focus' on THAT aspect instead of just simply noting. . ."Okay. . .Book. . .man of some sort of cloth. Got it."

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:07 PM

I believe Static has the right of it. Book is not of any one religion, but rather the result of what appears to be several religions blended together.

I think Joss did this to further emphasize that the future the show takes place in is a melting pot of cultures.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

ZEKE023

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:52 PM

Not too many protestant religions have monks, or celebate priests at all. Truth be told, I've never heard of a non-apostolic religion that has monks. If I had to choose, I would say Anglican/Episcopal or Catholic.

However, that being said - I agree with STATIC. We're probably not supposed to tear this apart and analyze it. He's a christian, and that's all that's really important (he may even have the "shady past" that most Christian saints are known for before they turn to a life of spirituality).

DELIA

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
Not too many protestant religions have monks, or celebate priests at all. Truth be told, I've never heard of a non-apostolic religion that has monks.

Aren't there Buddist monks?

I grew up Catholic, and Book doesn't strike me as being especially Catholic (of course, that may be because most of my priests were old white men who didn't have to worry about their hair killing their brains). But I agree with the general impression everyone else seemed to get of some kind of Christian, not necessarily one we've got now. Religions evolve and change, new denominations appear and die out all the time. It makes sense that a religion from 500 years in the future wouldn't look exactly like one we have now.

LUKASAURUS

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:48 PM

Yeah, I agree.. I think we are just meant to say.. okay, Book, man of faith.. voice of reason, conscience of the firefly. However, it would be interesting to know more about the religion(s) in the FF universe, as well as some of the cults and sects.

There is a special level of hell reserved for people who talk in the theatre ;)

KNIBBLET

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:08 PM

I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Perhaps there are religions built around stoneworks, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrical work and maybe even painting.

I think I'll go say 10 "Hail Kilz" and go to bed early. I've got a wax and buff on the morrow.

** For all the uptight folk out there, I'm kidding. Take another prozac.**

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Perhaps there are religions built around stoneworks, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrical work and maybe even painting.

I think I'll go say 10 "Hail Kilz" and go to bed early. I've got a wax and buff on the morrow.

** For all the uptight folk out there, I'm kidding. Take another prozac.**

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

LOL @ Knibs!

Leave it to Knibs to make us laugh about religion.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:16 PM

Catholic all the way! You have to realize that after Vatican 19 in 2437 things get a little interesting...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

RANGER

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:56 PM

Well, it is clearly a mixture. Heavy Catholic elements (Monastic brotherhood, Celebit, dressing to make his status clear to others), but in one of the comentaries someone says that Joss had to force Ron (who is a Budist) to take the character in a more American Protestant direction (heavy reliance on the word). Then there are the eastern elements (meditation is refered to rather than prayer in Arial).

Perhapse Book is a member of a secret sect of Warrior Protestant Monks, a combination of Templars and Shou Lin(sp) with an Evangelical philosophy?

Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the Law commands.

EMBERS

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:33 PM

Well 500 years ago the Vatican was a world power involved in all kinds of political plots and Luther was just getting published...

so 500 FROM NOW it would be hard to say what Christianity will look like; I think Joss is wise to keep it vague and not let any one group 'own' Book (because they may be disappointed when they learn more about his past!). I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...

THEFOP

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:56 PM

Religion DOES tend to change over time. Look at how much the Catholic church has changed in the past 500 years. Think how much it might change in the NEXT 500.

Though, incidentally, there are Anglican monks, and i think some of other denominations as well/

once the snow got so deep you almost couldn't hear margaret atwood

ZELDA

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:11 PM

I think we're definitely looking at Christian mishmash. They've done some really nice, subtle things with how religion is transformed, the funniest of which is Saffron's sexually-suggestive quotations from the Bible, and Mal's response: "Whoa. Good Bible"

Hilarious? Yes. But also gives the idea that there are several "Bibles" in existence at that time. There's actually a lot of stuff in that episode - like Book looking up the locals' marriage rituals in Simon's encyclopedia - that points to religous growth & fragmentation that must have accompanied the settlers out across many planets.

"Whoa. Good Bible." I love that line!

LTNOWIS

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:34 PM

I agree that he's a Christian mix. Possibly formed when Chinese Christians settle new planets and mix in some Buddhist elements, like the meditation.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zelda:
...that points to religous growth & fragmentation that must have accompanied the settlers out across many planets.

Good point! When settlers went out to the rim not all would have a preacher from what ever religion.

The religion would then continue from the memories of the settlers and/or what they wanted to put in there. Which (as we all know) wouldn't be all that reliable and probably contradictory, sick, twisted and/or with various levels of restrictive lifestyles. Plus, imagine what a few hundred years of telephone would do!

After all, look at the range we have here now and we're living right beside eachother!

I think that this would account for the fact that Book had to reference an encyclopedia and no-one knew that Mal was married, etc.

I would think that Book follows a desendant of Christianity. But, as was said before, Joss did say he had to get Ron to be more Protestant.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:40 PM

Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Browncoat1:
Leave it to Knibs to make us laugh about religion.

Amen brothah! She's a hoot, isn't she?

I have access to the family tree of Religions, which opens up all manner of ideas about which Christian religion Book could have been a part of.

On Babylon 5, Stephen Franklin was a "Foundationist." The Lurker's Guide says that the Foundation apparently borrows customs and beliefs from various cultures, perhaps in the belief that no one people has all the right spiritual answers. During an episode called "Walkabout" Franklin went walking around the station in the hopes that he would "find himself." In Australian aboriginal cultures, a "walkabout" is a ritual in which a young man goes on a solitary journey through the wilderness in an attempt to learn more about his own character and strength.

Sounds a bit like what's going on with our favorite preacher man, doesn't it?

Incidentally, Episcopalian is Protestant - in the US, anyway. It stems from the Anglican, which stems from the Reformation.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

MELEAUX

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:01 PM

When Book says he follows the teachings of a carpenter I jumped to the conclusion that he meant Jesus as it is understood that Jesus was a carpenter prior to his ministry and crucifixation. Also, I am pretty sure that Saffron was totally blowing smoke when she quoted the bible. Its NOT in the King James and I'll bet not in any other versions now or ever. It was just a hot story to bother Mal...and it worked.

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

CHANNAIN

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:34 PM

Well, there is a big old book loaded with rules of conduct in the OT. I forget which one at the moment. She may have found it there and rearranged the words to the Really New Living Translation.

Knib was kidding, Meleaux - she caught the reference. She was just pulling a Succatash.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

THOREAU

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:38 PM

My opinion on this comes from two things.

1) the comment Book makes about having following a carpenter. Seems too obvious and casual a Jesus reference to be a red herring.

2) the hair, and the line he started to say about 'all members of my order...'

I don't like this idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if his faith is based on the a combination of the teachings of Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein. Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.

This also fits perfectly with River going through his Bible and making corrections. Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things" and River's a good a fictional character as any to do so.

t

Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law.

Not true, at least for physicists... mostly, there all the string theorists

. In the Physics, community they believe in what can be proven first theoretically, second experimentally. And if only the first, it is considered highly suspect.

Basically, physicists go with whatever works now until it is proven wrong or needs fine tuning. Then the next best thing is used. It's been that way for a long time. Religions on the other hand will hold onto what they think is right pretty much no matter what, based on faith.

Please note that my comparison goes only so far as to try to explain that these are mutually exclusive areas. I'd also like to say that neither is necessarily wrong as they both attempt to explain different things for the most part.
Physics: How do things work? What are they made of fundamentally? etc.
Religion: Where do we come from? How should I behave? etc.

I really don't think that one should lump all "scientists" into one pile.

Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things"...

They have. Look up the EPR paradox. The question isn't totally answered yet, but, people have basically decided that it isn't really a paradox at all. That it's just some of that really messed up quantum stuff.

I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my

One other note, the physicists know that Einstein was wrong many times over, but, the general public does not. They still think he's a hero. I think we stumbled on a problem here

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

BADGERSHAT

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:10 PM

A few words from The Hat--

1) I think Book's religion HAS to be a form of Christianity, simply because of the Bible (River goes through it, speaking about some of the Bible stories--Noah's Ark, etc). Also, the carpenter reference is too casual, I agree, to be a red herring.

That being said, i don't think it's a form of Christianity that exists now, much like Christianity NOW isn't the way it was 1000 years ago, and so on backward.

2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)

3) There's no guarantee here that "Firefly" even really follows our own reality. Christianity might have developed differently in this world. The carpenter's name might have been Juan, or Bob, or Esmerelda for all we know... similar, but differing in details.

I like to think that Joss created this entire world, and as such, he's sort of a carpenter... maybe he's the reference?

Or, then again, maybe I don't have the slightest idea what the hell I'm talking about...

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

That's certainly debatable, although I don't want to debate it.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)

I have found that the general publics perception of science is pretty much what you say. Unfortunately, it couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is that people in science are continually looking for these new answers or verifications of what they think. Since everyone wants there personal theory to be true it takes alot to convince people that yours is true. Thus the community has developed it's own BS detector by its very nature.

Basically, if it is accepted as true for now it has already gone through alot of rigorous checking, most of the time. There are exceptions, after all we are human. But those exceptions are found out later and then taken back.

Of course, anyone working in any field wants there theory to be it or at least work. But, when someone comes along and proves it wrong they just suck it up and move on. Doesn't mean they are happy about it though.

I think that this perception is just a very telling sign that we as a society have not educated ourselves to the point that we know anything about what goes on in the scientific community. Sure people learn some stuff in high school but that EPR paradox I mentioned is well... old. Meaning 1935 with subsequent work in 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

That stuff this old isn't at least known by someone in any circle of friends, IMHO, is proof of out poor education now adays with regard to science. Which, of course, leads to this misinformation, etc.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

ZOID

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:01 AM

SigmaNunki wrote:

Quote:
I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my (posterior?)

So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist? Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of complementary particle pairs violates the speed of light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster than the information 'light cone' of the cause can travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and subsequent experimentation proved it.

Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the tachyon. String theory, or some variant thereof is the most promising route to resolving the mutual exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until someone can devise a working theory of quantum gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities -- neither theory can be thought of as complete or correct.

Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

HAPLO721

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:56 AM

I can guarantee you that Book is not a Mormon.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:40 AM

Since this is starting to pass my understanding of physics I sent an email to the wife and I present this slightly edited reply.

First off, I am pleased to see that someone is interested in how scientists think and work and the validity of there work. Too many people have blind faith in what scientists say either/or are completely dismissive.

Well, information cannot travel faster but you can have velocities faster than the speed of light.

There are alternatives to string theory, namely loop quantum gravity. Both have pros and cons. Funny thing is that only string theorists themselves claim that string theory is the most promising approach and the journalists seem to love it.

As for glaring inconsistencies. They don't hang onto them. It's all they got. But, they continue to work to fix them.

zoid:
> So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist?

Not at all. Just because I'm working on related stuff, it does not mean that I agree with what they say. If I did, what reason would I have to do more research?

zoid:
> Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of
> complementary particle pairs violates the speed of
> light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster
> than the information 'light cone' of the cause can
> travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding
> cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and
> subsequent experimentation proved it.

There is no such thing as complementary particle pairs. They do not violate the speed of light (what is that suppose to mean?). But the meaning is right. The light cone does not travel. Bell's theorem and subsequent experiments proved, in their regime of applicability, that quantum theory is correct (I hope that is what you meant). But today, the problem with information being spread faster than light is not considered the problem anymore. It is a very serious problem, and some people are working on how to define the "paradox" exactly, if there is one, and how it could be resolved. On the other hand, there are many physicists who don't care as they consider this philosophy.

> Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated
> graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the
> tachyon.

EPR and related problems have nothing to do with the graviton. The guide wave was "invented" by Bohm, not Einstein. The tachyon is from a completely different area of physics. I would appreciate if you would not make sarcastic remarks on other peoples work. In fact you don't even know what exactly I'm working on never mind being in a position to evaluate said work.

> String theory, or some variant thereof is the
> most promising route to resolving the mutual
> exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until
> someone can devise a working theory of quantum
> gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities --
> neither theory can be thought of as complete or
> correct.

As I said above, only string theorists believe that their theory is the only way, and there are alternatives. They do *not* only return infinities, in fact, there is a lot of progress, but there are indeed problems with infinities. And of course neither theory can be thought of as complete (it cannot be, refer to Goedel) or correct, since this is science, which always tries to improve, and not religion, which sticks to a fixed system of truths.

The whole point of science is to improve on someone else's work and thus by definition we can never achieve a perfect theory. This typically makes the people doing the work very humble as they are very aware of the limitations of what they create.

> Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto
> their faith in their theories, even though there are
> glaring inconsistencies?

Yes, and that is exactly the reason why science has made so much progress in the past decades. People who believed in the beauty of their theories have contributed a lot (e.g. Dirac). The crucial point is to know how long you should believe in your theory and when you should give it up. T

TJACK

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:50 AM

As long as we're on religion now...
Last week,some friends and I were at dinner, talking about Easter when I said. "That's when Christ comes out of his tomb,and if he sees his shadow there'll be six more weeks of winter."
when they got done laughing they told me I was going to hell for that one.

Don't blame me, I'm just the new guy.

ZOID

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:06 AM

SigmaNunki:

Please thank your wife for her candid reply. Assure her that it was never my intent to make "sarcastic remarks" about her work, and have no clue where she would've gotten such an idea. My understanding of the current state of research into producing a graviton is that it's a dim prospect at best, even though quantum mechanics requires it as a force carrier of gravity; and which "force" it cannot adequately explain otherwise. That is -- speaking as plainly as I can -- quantum mechanics cannot currently explain gravity, an effect every human is familiar with, without the postulated graviton or introducing 'normalization' into equations to avoid returning infinities (any number divided by zero returns an infinity).

On the other hand, quantum mechanics is very good at explaining the world of the very small. It is so good in fact, that were it wrong, computers wouldn't work, nor cell phones, nor a thousand other devices of modern life that we take for granted. Relativity is as inept at describing the very small, as QM is at describing anything except the very small.

My understanding is that a "particle pair" is one whose constituent particles are "entangled": if one has spin 'X' the other has spin 'Y'. As weird as it may sound to the layman (myself), these particle pairs can and have been produced in the laboratory. According to quantum theory, since these particles are irrevocably tied, knowing the state of one particle leads to 100% certainty of the state of the other.

The problem is that Neils Bohr's 'Copenhagenist' QM assures us that there is no state until a measurement is taken. Taken to extremes, there is no particle, only the particle's wave function. There is only a probability that the particle will be found to be in one specific state or the range of other possible states. So, according to EPR (as I -- the layman -- understand it) if we capture one of the paired particles without measuring it (ala Schroedinger's cat), while allowing its entangled 'twin' to travel halfway to the other side of the universe; then measure the captured particle's spin, the probability waves of both particles collapse simultaneously, even though they are separated by billions of light years. That is: Particle A1's wave function collapses, fixing it's spin (or other 'complementary' attribute) as 'X'; this collapse somehow simultaneously 'informs' the other particle A2 and it's spin becomes 'Y' even though its light cone (which doesn't travel, no, it propagates, but why be so picky?) of information cannot 'travel' faster than light.
Einstein was arguing that the individual particles were not probabilistic after all -- as QM insisted -- but were in fact in fixed states all along ("God does not play dice with the universe").

My opinions are my own. I do not read periodicals, except occasionally Scientific American. In addition to sci-fi (which authors generally avoid QM because it's stranger than any fiction), I also read general science novels, 'dumbed down' to my level. Some of these, related to physics, include:

"The Elegant Universe" - Brian Greene
"The Meaning of Relativity" - Albert Einstein
"God's Equation" - Amir Aczel
"Quantum Reality" - Nick Herbert
"The End of Time" - Julian Barbour
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" - Gary Zukav
"A Brief History of Time" - Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and "Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory" (which I think I've got loaned out to someone, since it's not on the shelf)

Again, please thank your wife for her responses. If she gets more time, and wouldn't mind, I would appreciate any illumination on the current state of her research (no equations, please) in as plain English as she can manage.

If, on the other hand, she has come to the belief that I'm a moron (or journalist?), I'll understand and labor on in my present state of ignorance, taking the word of the authors I've mentioned, as I am able to comprehend them...

Respectfully,

zoid
____________________________________

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:30 AM

As currently we don't live in the same city and it being late, email is the only option for contacting her. I'll pass it on and post the reply when I get one.

Until then.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

KERNELM

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.

And you're basing this on what exactly?

KERNELM

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?

Amazing, isn't it, that scientists test and refine their theories? If scientists really just wanted to hold onto their "faith" they simply wouldn't conduct experiments. You work with a theory that works, until you get evidence that it's wrong, and then you try to refine that theory if possible or throw it out and start anew if necessary. That's (part of) the scientific process.

It's well known there's problems with aspects of relativity, QM, etc. I don't see anybody (not actual scientists anyway) saying "No no no no no, Einstein is right, he'll always be right. I won't listen to the evidence, I can't hear you." People are working hard every day trying to come up with new theories and experiments to test those theories. Don't you think there's lots of scientists who'd love to be able to say they one-upped Einstein?

There really aren't _any_ set in stone theories in science (something many "evolution is just a theory" types don't understand). The closest you're going to get is some classes of mathematical theorems, but even there you'll get debates on the validity of certain axioms. (And yes, most of modern mathematics is based on "faith" in certain axioms. But we certainly don't pretend it's the only possible way for things to work, and there's branches of mathematics that explore the consequences of altering those axioms.)

Sure, you'll always have bad apples, people who hang on to outdated theories for whatever reason, outright frauds, etc. But in the end, truth will out.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:03 AM

I like Channain's "pulling a Succatash"

STATIC

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:23 AM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

You buncha goobers. . .is OBVIOUS!!!!

Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .

The small but fervently devout faith that Joss Whedon's best creation, "Firefly", will be put on Sunday Nights at 8:00PM between "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy"

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

KNIBBLET

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .

With a Catholic/Jewish mother and a Lutheran father, I always saw myself as a Hindu: Believing that every face of God is just another face of the same God. If you believe in any god, than you believe in the same god as everyone else.

Now, I'm embracing the Seventh-Day Whedonists.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 8:11 PM

Here is her response. If she doesn't get back to you in acouple of weeks send me a message through,

http://www.fireflyfans.net/showprofile.asp?un=SigmaNunki

and I'll remind her.

Zoid,
I will be happy to reply to you when my time allows, which will probably not be before next week. I like talking to interested laymen, because it forces me to word science in a comprehensible way and to take a different point of view. But to do this in an appropriate way requires some time and some thinking.

Best regards, the wife.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

ZOID

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:30 PM

SigmaNunki and honorable spouse,

Thank you very much. I am truly looking forward to any elucidation she may provide for those of us who frequent FFFn, and who are interested in actual science as well.

Please post in a new thread -- since I think we're getting somewhat outside "What religion is Book?" by this point. A thread title including "quantum mechanics", perhaps? Also, please feel free to repost any of my statements she wishes to address specifically; along with her comments, corrections and criticisms of any misleading or mistaken statements I may be making.

On the other hand, if she wishes to start afresh with what details of her own work she can freely divulge (some stuff is classified), those would be equally welcome and appreciated.

For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It is critically acclaimed, and its explanations are highly approachable to the layperson. Sort of tying this back into Book's religion: I guarantee you'll find the governing concepts of quantum and n-dimensional physics stranger than the most fantastic religious mythology you've ever heard. Just remember, as strange as it sounds, it describes something fundamentally true about our universe and 'reality', otherwise you'd not be reading this on your computer (because there'd be no computers, or magnetic resonance imaging, or...). And for those who are familiar with Ancient Greek philosophy and Far Eastern religions, you will see obvious parallels between those and QM. For a deeper comparison between QM and Eastern religions, read also the excellent, aforementioned "Dancing Wu Li Masters".

See ya' around the 'H-Bar'...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

MILESLONG

Thursday, April 15, 2004 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...

I have to agree with this. The facts regarding his skill with firearms lend not only to that, but suggest a small possibility that he isn't dedicated to one faith for the people that he ministers to, very like an Army Chaplin who has a faith of his (or her) own, but should set aside conversion dogma to better care for the people he is responsible for.

Good Thread

HEB

Monday, April 19, 2004 4:26 PM

Quote:

For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. ]

Great book!

Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?

ZOID

Monday, April 19, 2004 9:25 PM

Heb wrote:

Quote:
Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?

Nope. I was at Border's today (in fact I just got back) hopeful of finding something else by Dr. Greene; however, they had nothing of his. Instead, I seriously considered David Bohm's Thought as a System, but purchased Ian Stewart's Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So, based more or less on its 2001 publishing date, compared to Thought's 1990. Next buying cycle, perhaps...

I really enjoy reading sci-fi (in fact, it is the only fiction I read) but I also enjoy reading popular treatments of scientific study, by reputable and pedigreed authors. Some of my favorites in both genres are listed in posts above. I forgot to mention -- and would be remiss not to correct the oversight -- Fritjof Capra's excellent The Tao of Physics, which likewise provides a strong correlation between QM and Eastern religio-ideology.

My fellow Browncoats have many differing opinions on "science as a religion". My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession. While it's true that scientists will stress that no theory can ever be ultimately considered complete (Gödel), and that they are constantly updating, refining and even reorganizing theories and models, there are nevertheless basic, fundamental and underlying assumptions that they are 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic, not holistic or even (gulp!) mystical. Faith in science, itself, is the religion of the scientist. And it's a faith predicated upon assumptions that are every bit as convoluted and contradictory as the wildest deistic religion you've ever heard of.

Occam's Razor cuts both ways...

I personally believe that God created the universe and gave Humankind an intellect equal to the comprehension of its (fractally deep) mysteries. To seek the truth of our physical existence is to pursue God's highest goal for our minds, especially since such pursuit leads invariably to a Spiritual conclusion -- or at least an undeniably metaphysical one (see again, Gödel), that is perhaps infinitely more complex than "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession.

I will say this, you are completely wrong here. If they did they would not trust the math to describe things, but, would construct as they saw fit. We will discuss this further when the wife has created what I call "the starter doc" in a more appropriate thread.

Religion, not true. This is your misconception. I'll now go over what you think you know about that light-cone, which is wrong.

Here's the deal. I will deal with only 1d space. On a xy-graph you can think of the x-axis as space and the y-axis as time, thus creating a space-time diagram. It must be noted now that such things are typically only used for pedagogical purposes.

By default we start at the origin. If someone was to go at the speed of light they would travel along a 45 degree line in this graph. The cone does not travel as you suggest. It merely marks a boundary of where a particle can exist at that certain point in time (moving along the y-axis). That mark on the graph is just some representation of where that particle is within the confines of space-time.

But, when I say "go at the speed of light", that is both right and wrong. Because the theory only states that one cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. The theory doesn't specify anything other than that. So, if someone found away to move without accelerating, then that would be beyond the scope of this theory. Things are a touch more complicated than that, but, we'd need calculus and.few years of study to really understand it.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
... 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic...

3 is just plain wrong. No-one beyond Newton would believe this.
2 is trivial. ie I can pick up my remote control
1 is the basis for all scientific study. But, doesn't exclude the possibility of other things, like you claim.

I'd just like to throw this out there before people start believing what you have said further up - with regards to physics - is true. I can't have misinformation spread when I have the power to stop it.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:26 AM

Just to state it before you post a reply. Sorry for the tone. My mood... isn't good right now. I'd fix my last post, but, I haven't the time. Again, sorry.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

ZOID

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:02 AM

SigmaNunki, at al:

First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

Second, for the sake of brevity, and because I've already stated my case above and cited reference materials from which I've drawn my conclusions, I will simply let my statements stand. I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. I am a layman; but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis. I have read extensively the considered opinions of experts in the field. They warn -- as I warn you now -- that our spoken language cannot fully describe these concepts; only in mathematics can these be properly comprehended. Even so, if Capra, Einstein, Greene and the others I have cited have seen fit to put these ideas into words, who can say they were intrinsically wrong to do so? Certainly, I would not deign to argue their qualifications or motivations.

If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

When I say that science is a system of beliefs, or at least that it engages in metaphysical investigations, please don't mistake my meaning. I am not anti-scientific. As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect. I do not expect to lift a piece of sod and find "Made by God" written on the substrate beneath it. Our universe is a riddle, an enigma designed so that our Intellect must necessarily question it, must necessarily dig ever deeper only to find increasingly more depth. And what may ultimately lie at the furthest depth we can reach without the energy of another Big Bang?

From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :

Quote:
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

That's what I meant by implying that 'real', 'mechanistic' and 'manipulable' were fallacious concepts. At reality's ultimate level -- as Art and Philosophy have long held -- we are all "shadows and dust", and there is nothing solid from which The Matrix's spoon might be made.

This is right and good. I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics. Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

Here are some final few thoughts:

How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist? I'm talking about Einstein versus Bohr, EPR versus the entire QM school, Bohm's response and John Bell's rewrite.

There are several other intriguing arguments, which I don't have the temerity to open, that have all been posed by scientists, not theologians. Scientists challenge the beliefs of other scientists. Both sides have math and models and observation to support their theories. There are different 'schools' within the physical science community, and these schools of thought can oppose each other with as much vehemence as any Catholic v. Protestant or Christian v. Muslim ideological disagreement (although typically without the physical violence prev

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:13 AM

Zoid:

Having taken 4 years of University college physics, scores of comparative religions classes, anthropology classes, and studied in philosophy on my own. I offer an supporting viewpoint in a metaphysical sense. From human being's viewpoint, all Religions, in all of its ultimate glory seeks to explain nature, to in some way allow us to control nature - eventhough its thru some intermediary, and to explain why human's exist.

Science ultimately is a system of believes that allows people to do these very same things. Science comforts us in allowing us to believe that we have a beginning from the Big Bang theory (much debated within the scientific community - especially as of late), to the EM theory that allows us to build wondrous things as microwaves and cell phones, TV, satellites, etc., , to the now almost classical STR without which we can't geocache thru the use of GPS. But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

Today, we don't have the equation, everytime we add something to it or find something new that upsets the current approximations, there is a new fury of studies to find out what new model, what new particle to plug in that can help with the new equation.

I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

And neither am I saying that science don't work - the proof is right in front of my eyes - literally. But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

Every single tribe has their own explanation on why they came to be, why do all of these *weird* things around me happen, and what can I do about the rain that isn't coming? We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

Actually all the question "Is the universe real" is, is a metaphysical discussion. It has no place in science. But, scientists will routinely engage in these discussions. It gives them a chance to see the bounds of what has been done. But, this is all philosophy which I don't care to discuss and is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. ... but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis.

No, you are not one of them. You do not live in there field nor do you interact with them. So then, how can I see anything but hot air when you talk about how they think. You have heard from the mouth of the dog that science is not a religion. Yet you stick to that way of thinking for some unknown reason.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

Yes. But, only to a certain degree. One must understand for there to be a benefit. Reading pop books doesn't do it. You must actually learn it.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I am not anti-scientific.

Never said you were.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect...

God does not belong in a scientific discussion. That is theology or philosophy.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :
Quote:
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

This is a perfect example of philosophy. Just because a scientist says it, doesn't make it science.

It must also be mentioned that there are many other schools of thought as well. And they all disagree with each other to one degree or another. It is also all philosophy. I'll only talk about the science.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics.

Me too. I love when someones arrogance ends up like that. Hmmm, I hope that isn't a self fulfilling prophesy

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

There is no current connection between QM and GR (in fact they contradict each other), therefore one should not make such assumptions. I think we can both say that stranger things have happened.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

Neither of us knows what is actually meant by these terms in context of the physicists work, so, I don't think that that question can be answered by either of us.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist?

All this means is that we don't understand. When we d

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

True, for some people.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

ZOID

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:52 AM

SigmaNunki:

Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference.

As to your assertion that you have disproved that science is a belief system (you specified 'religion', I said 'belief system')... I am not satisfied that you have. In fact, your tenor would appear to indicate a deep emotional attachment to your belief that science is not a belief system.

There's more, but why bother? As far as your self-cited self-quote about airports is concerned: If I catch you in mine, I'll have you cavity searched. Really. I may not have a degree in abnormal psychology, but you don't have to make too many references to mental instability in an airport these days to get a 'finger wave'... Don't worry though, the marshals are gentle enough, as long as you don't provoke 'em by insulting their intelligence.

Good luck with that, and in all your future endeavors!

Farewell,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

RAVENDAVE

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

No, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) are NOT Christian. They call themselves Christians because Jesus Christ is a part of their religion, but they have re-defined too many terms to be included in the religious designation "Christianity".

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

You miss my point entirely. If you have read books on automobiles, by my argument, you can't make any judgment on how they conduct themselves, how engines are manufactured or how there research is done, etc. Nothing more. You are making a direct comparison between something that is applied and something that is theoretical. In greatly different fields as well. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Yours is a moot point.

And if you're going to listen to someone that is describing physics from about a century ago, then you can live in the past. Things have changed since then you know. Even some of what Einstein did has been corrected and people have said some is wrong. And not all has been proven, frame dragging for instance.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

No, the logical conclusion is that people shouldn't make judgments about people in a field they don't know anything about. As I said before I know things about architecture, but, I won't even think to question an architect as I realize that (s)he knows far more than me there. I don't have the basis for any opinion of how they conduct themselves or there work.

You know nothing about the physicists that do the work. You know nothing about how they conduct themselves. This is clear. Yet you persist in saying you know and still cling to you obviously flawed beliefs.

It is also clear, by my example above, that your understanding of the subject is flawed as well. This isn't a comment on you. But, one of a couple of things is happening here:
1) You didn't understand what you read.
2) You didn't understand what you read because the book didn't describe it properly.
3) You understood at one point but that understanding has become corrupted over time. Human memory is flawed.

It's become too complicated. You need more than just pop books. You need math. That idea that you can just understand things is so Newton. The world doesn't make that kind of sense anymore.

Many Physicists say that physics is a humbling discipline. It is the fact that physics pretty much makes you think you are stupid on a daily basis. If you think you understand it, you don't and physics will show you that shortly. The subject is quite fleeting. And that's the experts talking about there field of specialty.

So, how do you think that you can pretend to understand such thinks with no background. As I have said, people can get and idea about physics from those pop books, but, they must understand that they are just ideas. It isn't true understanding.

I do encourage that though. People don't nearly know enough about the world around them. They just must accept the limitations stated above.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

JASONZZZ

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)

Not going to disagree with anything here.

The big thing is Science and Physics are by its own definition - the study of nature and how it behaves. I don't know how you can dispute that. The fact is also that studies such as Science and Physics are very much rooted in Metaphysics: from Pythagoras, Aristotle, to Plato, Copernicus, Newton (Sorry if I skipped a few, but you get the idea). Even the present day study of mathematics is rooted in Pythagoras's math cult. From the very beginning, every human society has had their own concept of explaining what things are, why nature is, and each of them were also absolutely convinced that not only do they have the answers or they have the correct answers, but the answers to absolutely everything (only if they can find that last equation). Pythagoras had his "all is numbers", Plato attempted to explain how everything derives from one. The purpose of physics today are all rooted in exactly the same goal - to define a simple single grand theory that explains everything - 20 years ago the GUT, today the TOE.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.

There are plenty of natural phenonmenon that neither science nor physics can attempt to explain. Yet the natural properties continues to work.

The fact is, the "stick in the air" might not work for a non-believer. But to the tribal people, whose system of beliefs has concluded that "stick in the air" in an exact precise (perhaps even mathematical way) does in fact - work. And I am sure there would be plenty of prevailing theories within that system of beliefs on why the "stick in the air" fails sometimes - "you didn't wave it exactly like so" , "you hooked instead of swoosh", "you must have ate something yesterday that displeased the natural balance"...

The study of science or physics is not exact either, it's always been "exact enough". Look at something simple as calculating artillery trajectory, classical physics is taught with parabolic paths when it is at best an approximation. And yet, even with our perfect and exact understanding of nature and the universe,

DUCESTECUM

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:28 PM

Surely you jest... lol

"And I'm thinkin' you weren't burdened with an overabundance of schooling"

ZOID

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:36 PM

SigmaNunki wrote:

Quote:
This just tells me what kind of person you really are.

No, it just tells you the kind of job I really do. I hold a job "in the public trust", which means I have a legal and moral responsibility for the safety of public transportation.

If I were you -- and thankfully, I'm not -- I'd check my attitude at the (airport) door. That's not a threat, that's the reality of post-9/11. Take your own advice, and trust that the people who actually do the job know its details better than you do. ...Or don't, as you wish.

You may now have the final word, or a string of them if you wish. I will continue to say what I want, when I want; but, I will not further respond to your posts on this or any other topic. I promise.

Have a nice life,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

HEB

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 5:49 PM

Quote:

Nope. I was at Border's today

Aaaaah! Don't say that!

Sorry they've just built a Border's in my town and our poor little Waterstone's book shop (where I work) is having a job competing. The poor people at Border's have been very vilified at our store.

Ok sorry. I'm over it now.

Anyway.
Thanks for the recommendations Zoid.

If people don't mind can I offer up a Richard Feynman quote?:

'The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: 'The test of all knowledge is experiment'

I don't really know if that adds anything to the discussion or not but in my opinion that although scientists may subscribe to beliefs in a unified theory, for example, it does not necessarily mean that the belief in a unified theory is a faith that science itself has.

However perhaps the one assumption that 'the test of all knowledge is experiment' is enough of an assumption to be classed as a faith, or perhaps people do not condsider that to be an accurate definition of science. I don't know, I guess I haven't thought about it myself all that much. I'll have to get around to that.

Any book recommendations for someone about to start their undergraduate physics degree please SigmaNunki? (simple ish is good)

Also, if someone could tell me how to get this post into non-quote font, then that would be good.

Thanks.
heb

ps. (edited to say - I think I finally figured out how to get this in the right font. Perhaps really simple would be best SigmaNunki)

ZEKE023

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delia:

Aren't there Buddist monks?

Yes. :) But Book calls himself a Christian (in the cut scenes from serenity. I always thought it was interesting that the cut that line from the final cut. In fact that whole conversation he has with Inara in the final cut of Serenity is kind of trite compared to the version that available on the internet.

FOURSKYS

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Any book recommendations for someone about to start their undergraduate physics degree please SigmaNunki? (simple ish is good)

As someone who recently completed undergrad in physics (Well, Astrophysics, but it's close), and someone who's just starting their grad school career (2nd year in Grad student in Physics), I can highly recommend the Math Physics book that Sigmanunki recommended. The book by Boas has proved extrodinarily useful for me, throughout both undergrad and grad school. Easy to read, and quite a good reference.

Also, I'd like to comment a bit, if I can, on the whole "the metaphysics of physics" argument that's been going on. It seems that Zoid was trying to argue from the metaphysical standpoint, which is always something that scientists (like myself) like to debate, but something that is definitely not brought into physics literature. True progress in the sciences is made through refereed journals, where a commitee of your peers evaluate your results for their factual and lagical corectness. Whereas the popular science books are not corroborated by anyone. While the authors are certainly well respected members of the scientific community, that does not mean that those books, as a whole, represent the views of the whole community. If the philosphy behind the equations were to ever be sent to a scientific publication (The Astrophysical Joural, The Physical Review, etc.), the reviewers would most likely ask for its removal before its publication. The actual science most always tries to avoid the philosophy and the metaphysics. While the individual scientist might believe it, the community, as a whole, is designed to remove those beliefs.

Like I said, I'm a scientist, and I have fairly strong personal and religious beliefs, but when it comes to a scientific discussion, the facts are on the table, not the philosophy. There's a big difference, and its not always easy to differentiate between the two, but it is always important.

P.S. - SigmaNunki, if your wife has any published papers on EPR, or even some good reviews, I'd be very interested in taking a look at them. GR's always been one of my pet subjects, and EPR sounds really cool, but I don't know much of the theory behind it. If you wouldn't object to posting a link or a journal, I'd love to read something on the subject.

Thanks

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
I don't really know if that adds anything to the discussion or not but in my opinion that although scientists may subscribe to beliefs in a unified theory, for example, it does not necessarily mean that the belief in a unified theory is a faith that science itself has.

Thank you.

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Any book recommendations for someone about to start their undergraduate physics degree please SigmaNunki? (simple ish is good)

A lot of universities use this book for the first 2 years of study. You can get it as a huge back breaking hardcover or you can get it as a set of softcover books.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0030317169/ref=pd_sim_bo
oks_1/103-0993404-5570265?v=glance&s=books

Fundamental University Physics
by Marcelo Alonso, Edward J. Finn
Again, you can get it as a 3 volume set or as one big book. It is the one that the wife learned from and she says it is quite good.

You might also look up "The Feynman Lectures on Physics". There is a couple of editions of this one. It is quite famous. People say he just was able to explain things clearly. Rare among physics books. Haven't used them myself, but, they come with high regard. Haven't heard anything bad at all.

All these tend to start off with no calculus, but, will require it after a couple of chapters.

For calculus I have "Calculus: A complete course" by Robert A. Adams. It isn't really good for learning, but, according to a consulted math prof a good one to hang onto for reference if you end up in math or the sciences. So, I suffered through it.

My university used "Calculus" by James Stewart for the first two years.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/053439339X/qid=1082494012/sr=2-
1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0993404-5570265

I advise that you pop into the local university library so you can look through them and why not pop by the physics department and ask what book they use. So, if you are tight on funds, you won't waste ~ $100 - $150 on a book. That is assuming your local library doesn't have any of these.

University libraries typically (in Canada) don't allow the general public to take out book unless they pay a yearly fee (usually a large one at that). But, they can't regulate who comes and goes. So, you could also just walk in and study there if you can spare the time.

But, when it comes to picking out a book, it is somewhat of a personal choice. Page through a couple and see what you think. That physics department would be able to offer more options that I can

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Also, if someone could tell me how to get this post into non-quote font, then that would be good.

Not sure what you mean. Replace <> with square brackets and remove the spaces.

end quote is which you are clearly using. If you mean the bold. There is a < B > tag at the beginning of all quotes. If you delete the end of the quote then the bold stays on. So, delete the < B > at the beginning or before the end quote add a < /B >. I hope that helps.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

HEB

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:14 PM

Thanks SigmaNunki and FOURSKYS I appreciate all the recommendations. If I can just get my A-levels out of the way, then maybe I can get down to trying to learn some of the interesting, proper physics rather than the rather deadly syllabus I'm learning at the moment.

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
P.S. - SigmaNunki, if your wife has any published papers on EPR, or even some good reviews, I'd be very interested in taking a look at them. GR's always been one of my pet subjects, and EPR sounds really cool, but I don't know much of the theory behind it. If you wouldn't object to posting a link or a journal, I'd love to read something on the subject.

First off, thanks for the back up.

From the wife:

Reasearch on that topic has just started again afew years ago. Since it is a current research topic there is no review articles and certainly no books about it, pop or otherwise. If I come across something I'll have SigmaNunki send it to you.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

SIGMANUNKI

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
...than the rather deadly syllabus I'm learning at the moment.

LOL

Seriously though, good luck

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

SUNDERWOOD

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

My wife is somewhat a former Mormon. They don't have Priest. They have Bishops that are chosen from devout and studious congregation. The Bishop usually has a day job also.

Plus Mormons, though recognize the Bible, view the Book of Mormon as the latest teaching. Book has a Bible and no Book of Mormon.

Mormons marry (once) and have a large family. Book is celebate.

Book never mentions Joseph Smith though he refers to Jesus often.

There are many other items that show he's not Mormon.

I think Static has it way the heck up there when he said that Book is a mixture of Religions with maybe a few unknowns thrown in. This takes into account changing beliefs around a central core and keeps it more generic and to the point.

ZOID

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:54 AM

Sunderwood wrote:

Quote:
I think Static has it way the heck up there when he said that Book is a mixture of Religions with maybe a few unknowns thrown in. This takes into account changing beliefs around a central core and keeps it more generic and to the point.

Based on the conversation Book has with Jayne in OiS on the topic of celibacy, I'd say there had been some sort of merging of the Christian sects into one religious entity. Book states that some orders allow marriage, but that he follows a stricter path (paraphrased). It seems supportable that Catholicism and (some of?) the various Protestant sects have been reunited, but that he follows the more restrictive Catholic path. Alternatively, the Catholic Church itself has reformed, and 'Jesuits' -- just as a f'rinstance -- practice 'old school' celibacy, while other orders analogous to 'Franciscans' or 'Dominicans' have eliminated the practice of celibacy.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

HEB

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:17 PM

Thanks!

FOURSKYS

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

From the wife:

Reasearch on that topic has just started again afew years ago. Since it is a current research topic there is no review articles and certainly no books about it, pop or otherwise. If I come across something I'll have SigmaNunki send it to you.

Excellent, I'll look forward to it.

PARADIGMSHIFT

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 7:21 PM

While I agree that, from the vestiments and celibacy, Book is highly influenced by Catholic doctrine, and that his religion is probaby a conglomeration, I wouldn't discount elements of Taoism, Buddhism and other Eastern religions mixed in. After all, Joss specifically noted the combinations of the east and west, and i doubt that religion stayed out of this coming together.

"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land someplace and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchfork . . ."
-McCoy and Spock

HOWDYROCKERBABY1

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 10:28 PM

its futuristic Catholicism. and i like it much better than the Catholic of today! just trust me. i go to a catholic school

Well isn't that...special

JASONZZZ

Thursday, April 22, 2004 12:41 AM

Might be interested in this then...

An Austrian project by Dr. Anton Zeilinger claimed they have made the first secured bank transfer using Quantum Cryptograpy based on Entangled Protons.

http://www.quantenkryptographie.at/

Quote:
Originally posted by FourSkys:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

From the wife:

Reasearch on that topic has just started again afew years ago. Since it is a current research topic there is no review articles and certainly no books about it, pop or otherwise. If I come across something I'll have SigmaNunki send it to you.

Excellent, I'll look forward to it.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:56 AM

Jasonzzz: Thanks for the heads up.

edit, found the rival teams paper. This is the one.

quant-ph/0404115

Seems the other team is going after the distance records and this one is applying it "real world". Looking forward to new developments.

Any comments FourSkys?

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

HOWDYROCKERBABY1

Thursday, April 22, 2004 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Book saying this could also mean, that Book had been following the teachings of a carpenter, a very famous carpenter, i would go far as to say the most famous carpenter of all time... (and no i'm not talking about Ty pennington from Trading Spaces)....Jesus. Book could have been speaking figuratively.

Well isn't that...special

FOURSKYS

Thursday, April 22, 2004 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Jasonzzz: Thanks for the heads up.

quant-ph/0404115

Any comments FourSkys?

Definitely interesting on both accounts, but as my knowledge of Quantum information systems is little at best, I'm not going to have much more insight than you will. They do seem very interesting, and I hope to give them a quick look over in the next couple days. When I find some free time, I'll let you know.

Thanks both

ZAFTIGZOE

Sunday, July 11, 2004 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
I agree that he's a Christian mix. Possibly formed when Chinese Christians settle new planets and mix in some Buddhist elements, like the meditation.

Actually, elements of Zen Buddist practice(particularly meditation) are being used by Catholics and Anglicians worldwide. Nuns, in particular, seem to think that it a cool thing.

a culturally Roman Catholic Pagan
ZaftigZoe

SCOTTISHBROWNCOAT

Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:06 AM

Time for this Practicing Catholic to shed some light on the concept of celibacy in the church.

The Catholic church proper(The Catholic Church as led by our Holy Father Pope John Paul II) is comprised up of 27 distinct Rites with the "Roman rite" being the largest, the Priests in the Roman Rite cannot marry no matter what order; Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, etc. None of the priests can marry....
With the EXCEPTION of those priests who were Anglican at one point and Came back to the Holy See, those former Anglican Priests that chose to remain priests and that already have families may stay married and stay a priest, so Yes the Roman Rite does have a handful of married Priests.

Now there is also the Eastern Rites, still under the Pope, these are Rites that at some point broke away from their Orthodox Patriarchs and rejoined the Family of Catholics.
A few of these rites are....

Byzantine Rite, Armenian Rite, Ukranian Rite etc.

These priests can marry as long as their were married before they became a Deacon.

Now the Rites of the East are just as Catholic as the Western Roman Rite, and any Catholic can receive communion in any Church under the Vatican.

So, I can give confession and receive communion at a Byzantine Catholic Church and Byzantine Catholics can go to Roman Rite Churches and do the same.

You can also Change rites once in your life with the permission from your Bishop, but this is frowned upon.

The Differences between the rites vary, but you will find that Eastern Catholic Churches tend to look and feel more Orthodox.

My Godfather is a Eastern Catholic Priest and I can say that the differences are only asthetic, the loyality to the Holy Father and the legitimacy of the Mass is what is important.

So in short, Yes some Catholic Priests can marry, just not the Roman Rite Priests, but they can if they used to be Anglican Priests...lol....confusing?

Hope this clears up...somethin'

~SBC

P.S. I think Book is part of some kind of New Christianity as well, blending elements of all kinds.

However in the script for Serenity doesn't Book go up to a ship and as the man says "No Catholics or Asians" he leaves and heads toward Serenity.
It wasn't in the final cut, and I don't think it was even filmed, but I do remember reading that scene.

RHUTTNER

Sunday, July 11, 2004 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ScottishBrownCoat:
However in the script for Serenity doesn't Book go up to a ship and as the man says "No Catholics or Asians" he leaves and heads toward Serenity.
It wasn't in the final cut, and I don't think it was even filmed, but I do remember reading that scene.

You are correct, it is in the shooting script:

BOOK
I'm not a grandpa.

The guy just looks at him like he's crazy, let's him move on past the
next barker, MAN #2. The guy is fancy, with people gathered around --
his ship is clearly high class.

MAN #2
-- three berths left, junior suites,
we are not interested in Asian or
Catholic passengers, thank you, we
will be bidding for the last three
berths --

Also in the shooting script, as well as the original unaired version of Serenity, Book tells Inara he is Christian:

BOOK
Ma'am, I'm sorry to tell you that I
have no interest in your body, or
what you do with it. It's true, I'm
a Christian, and we don't exactly
celebrate the flesh trade, but that's
your business. It's perfectly legal.
And I'm beginning to suspect it's the
only business on this boat that is.

Are you an official Browncoat? If not, go sign up gorram it! http://browncoats.serenitymovie.com/serenity/?u=rhuttner

JAYNEZTOWN

Wednesday, May 21, 2025 4:38 PM

a Christian of an unknown denomination, a US Pope now but I would assume the corrupted perverted expansionist Catholics are still around... Book might be Ex-Something but still a Man of 'Faith'