The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Taj: Did I say all that?

Taj: No, I didn't.

Taj: Well gee whiz, now I'm talking to myself.

Taj: I like to think then that you're having an intelligent conversation.

Taj: Thanks. But what I would have said is that keep in mind Trinity said science assumes the universe is deterministic. That has to be the basic assumption in order for science to proceed.

Taj: But it is an assumption based on inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. If the universe was deterministic then the factors responsible for this post and for lkwdblds error which got you talking to yourself was set in motion when the Big Bang happened.

Taj: That's right.

Taj: But if that is right, then there is no such thing as Free Will.

Taj: Who told you you could say that?

Taj: Well, I believe in Free Will.

Taj: I saw Free Willy in the theater, but I don't believe in Free Will. It is a deterministic universe. You only think you make your choices because you don't kow the factors that are behind it.

Taj:

Taj: Well, answer that.

Taj:

Taj: Why aren't you answering.

Taj: I chose not to. But now I will.

Taj: Very funny.

Taj: If there is no free will and only pre-determined factors for everything, then how can we say someone is responsible for a good or bad thing?

Taj: We can't.

Taj: Are you crazy?

Taj: Well, I'm talking to myself, ain't I.

Taj: Well if you are right, then there is no such thing as justice? Because if no one is responsible for anything then there are no good or bad acts, just effects from prior causes.

Taj: That's right. Good and bad are subjective constructs.

Taj: What is a subjective construct?

Taj: A subjective construct is simply and idea that people have created. Good and bad, Free Will, are all simply ideas people have created.

Taj: So isn't the idea of a deterministic universe a social construct?

Taj: Well, it is a scientific idea. It is the consensus of those scientists whose ideas are supported by mathematics.

Taj: So it is a social construct.

Taj: Well. yeah.

Taj: So we're back to square one.

Taj: I guess so.

Taj: No wonder I'm talking to myself.

Taj: Freud has a theory for that.

Taj: I don't believe in any of Freud's theories. What did he know? He last direct descendent just died last year. He was eighty-tits years old.

Taj: Oy Vey!

The Anabaptist Jacques and
The Anabaptist Jacques

Mark A. Baker

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Pearl from the past

[video=youtube;BS8RZsOZ1Dw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS8RZsOZ1Dw[/video]

I was thirteen or fourteen when I first heard this.

I miss folk music.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: Pearl from the past

[video=youtube;BS8RZsOZ1Dw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS8RZsOZ1Dw[/video]

I was thirteen or fourteen when I first heard this.

I miss folk music.

I bet he hated having all those girls screaming.

It smothers the art.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No screamers.

[video=youtube;j2klh2cTa_Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2klh2cTa_Q&sns=em[/video]

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Woman stuck on waterslide sues for $400k
Gold Coast Bulletin
June 14, 2012

http://mobile.news.com.au/travel/ne...de-sues-for-400k/story-e6frfq80-1226395088272

WET AND WILD AUSSIE STYLE

 

[Hatshepsut]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

deleted

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

What both of them are doing is each one is presenting a different side of the argument.

Although it runs deeper, that is the basic view of each side.

And also they show that the argument is unsolvable at this point in our knowledge, wisdom, luck and molecular mosh pit.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

Is that what he is saying? I hear Big Bang proponents debate Bible proponents every chance I get. Dennis Prager often has them on his show for debates. One professor from England, with a Phd, was on Prager's show last year; he was the most objective Big Bang advocate whom I have heard so far. He said that there was one thing about the Big Bang Theory that really puzzled him and that could not be explained.

He stated the problem as follows: In the primordial ball of matter that exploded, all the blueprint for all the constants which exist in Physics had to be present. For example, the blueprint for all the elements in the periodical table had to be present, the freezing and melting points of water, the velocity of light, Avogadro's number, freezing and melting points for all the elements, you name it and its code had to be present in this densely packed ball of matter before the matter exploded to start this universe. This physicist could not get around that without admitting some sort of principle of intelligent design. How were these constants preset before this random explosion occurred?

This physicist and all others whom I have heard espoused randomity and evolution as the motivating factors in how the Universe developed and reached its present state.

Perhaps in the year and a half since I heard Prager's program, whatever theory TAJ is using to explain things has come into existence to explain how all the constants were preset into the primordial ball.

On a related topic, speaking of randomity, it used to be said that if a room full of monkeys pounding on typewriters could type randomly; given enough time, all the novels of mankind, all the scientific discoveries, the history and in short, all of everything ever written would eventually be written on typewriters by the monkeys by random chance.

A couple of years ago, I heard a story where a room full of monkeys and typewriters was actually uncovered. The monkeys had been banging away on the typewriters, unsupervised, for an extended period. Finally someone became aware of this and came to feed the monkeys and clean up. The typewriter printouts were examined to see if even one sentence or clause of intelligible writing had been done by any monkey, just by chance. They didn't find anything like that. What they did find was that all the typewriters froze up because they were clogged with monkey feces. The monkey shit all over the lab had quickly brought any typewriting to a halt! So much for that theory about monkeys randomly typing!
Lakey

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Is that what he is saying? I hear Big Bang proponents debate Bible proponents every chance I get. Dennis Prager often has them on his show for debates. One professor from England with a Phd, which he had on last year was the most objective one I have heard so far. He said that there was one thing about the Big Bang Theory that really puzzled him and that could not be explained.

He stated the problem as follows: In the primordial ball of matter that exploded, all the constants which exist in Physics had to be present. For example, the blueprint for all the elements in the periodical table had to be present, the freezing and melting points of water, the velocity of light, Avogadro's number, freezing and melting points for all the elements, you name it and its code had to be present in this densely packed ball of matter before the matter exploded to start this universe. This physicist could not get around that without admitting some sort of principle of intelligent design.

This physicist and all others whom I have heard espoused randomity and evolution as the motivating factors in how the Universe developed and reached its present state.

Perhaps in the year and a half since I heard that physicist on Prager, whatever theory TAJ is using to explain things has come into existence to explain how all the constants were present in the primordial ball.

On a related topic, speaking of randomity, it used to be said that if there existed a room full of monkeys pounding on typewriters randomly, given enough time, all the novels of humanity, all the scientific discoveries, the history and in short, all of everything ever written would eventually be written on typewriters by the monkeys.

A couple of years ago, I heard a story where a room full of monkeys and typewriters was actually uncovered. The monkeys had been banging away on the typewriters, unsupervised, for an extended period. Finally someone became aware of this and came to feed the monkeys and clean up. The typewriter printouts were examined to see if even one sentence or clause of intelligible writing had been done by any monkey, just by chance. They didn't find anything like that. What they find was that all the typewriters froze up because they were clogged with monkey feces. The monkey shit all over the lab had quickly brought any typewriting to a halt! So much for that theory about monkeys randomly typing!
Lakey

There was a philosopher and a Nobel Prize winning physicist having a discussion about the Big Bang.

Physicist: There was nothing, then a spark, and an explosion that created the universe.

Philosopher: You can't get a spark out of nothing.

Physicist: I am a Nobel Prize winning physicist and I know a lot about many, many things. I am am telling you that a spark came out of nothing.

Philosopher: Well, I am merely a philosopher, and I don't know a much about a lot of things. But I do know a lot about nothing.

My point here is to explain to you that neither you nor I are physicist. That doesn't mean I'm saying they know everything. But they do know at least about what they are talking about.

I know a little about philosophy. and much less about physics.

But I wouldn't presume to say I know more about the physics that they are talking about than they do.

Also, you sometimes confuse me with others.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Feb 9, 1964, the Ed Sullivan Show, the Beatles opened with Paul singing "All My Loving"
Today is Sir Paul's 70th birthday

[video=youtube;-TPcWmllJsA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TPcWmllJsA[/video]

 

[Student of Trinity]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Our expectations and intuitions derive from what our senses have experienced at the ranges of speed in which we are conversant with. Extrapolation does occur; I would call it extrapolation of the most logical type possible based on our limited sensory perceptions. ... Newtonian physics was based on that extrapolation. It described our universe well for hundreds of years. As science pushed it's boundaries further out and those extrapolations continued to be used, they finally started to break down. Einstein was able reformulate physics to explain and correct the shortcomings of Newtonian physics. I see nothing wild there.

Okay, I'll agree with that.

The Big Bang theory was developed after scientists discovered that our universe was expanding, every galaxy was moving away from every other galaxy and the rate of separation was proportional to the distance between galaxies, the further apart the galaxies were, the more rapid their separation.

I believe that the concept of curved space came into existence as part of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity of 1916 (11 years after his Special Theory of Relativity). This portion of his theory deals a lot with gravity and introduces the concept of curved space.

The tie in to Einstein's theories and curved space is because the speed with which the galaxies separate increases the further apart the galaxies are. It this went unchecked, the velocity of light would have to be exceeded. To keep this from happening, science has to postulate curved space.

It would be possible to have a Big Bang theory in linear space but only if the idea that material objects can not equal or exceed the velocity of light with respect to one another is given up. Thus curved space sort of comes in the back door to shore up the Big Bang Theory.

Actually it was quite the other way around. General relativity doesn't just deal with gravity; it IS the modern theory of gravity, replacing Newton's old 'universal gravitation' law. It is very well approximated by Newton's theory, as long as speeds are slow compared to light, gravity is not too strong, and distance scales being considered are not too vast.

But it was not long after Einstein formulated his new theory that he and a few other theoreticians started investigating what it might imply when applied to the universe as a whole, over length scales so unthinkably vast that the new theory might give drastically different results than Newton's. Much to their surprise and dismay, they found that Einstein's theory seemed to imply, almost unavoidably, that the universe had begun in a singularity at some finite time in the past, and that space itself was currently expanding.

At the time there was no evidence either for or against this bizarre notion, but it went sharply against the grain of all physicists' preconceptions. Einstein himself, making what he afterwards called the biggest mistake of his life, found a way of altering his theory, that seemed to be able to eliminate the Big Bang. It was soon determined, however, that his fix didn't really work very well: it could technically allow an eternal universe, but only as a precarious balance between collapse and explosion, and nobody was prepared to take seriously the idea that the universe was so precisely fine-tuned as to have exactly hit this unstable balance. More importantly, though, observational evidence from new kinds of telescopes started coming in, showing that the universe actually is expanding. Einstein kicked himself for the rest of his life.

So the historical order of ideas was not that the theory of curved spacetime was postulated to save the prejudice-favored Big Bang theory, but that the Big Bang theory was very reluctantly accepted in the face of the uncanny correspondence between the theory of curved spacetime and astronomical observations, both of which had been developed without any idea that a Big Bang might be involved.

WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE BIGGEST FALLACY IN THE MODEL PRESENTED HERE
Current science denies the existence of God but more importantly it denies the existence of "intelligent design". This denial is so strong in the practical world that adherents of science will fight very hard to keep "intelligent design" from being taught in any public school. They discourage it from being taught anywhere but if it has to be taught, they want it restricted to being taught only in religious schools.

Science certainly does not deny the existence of God. Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence. Nor does science actually deny the existence of intelligent design as such. It is again neutral on this topic. What most scientists do deny, strongly and in my opinion quite rightly, is the claim that evidence for intelligent design exists. That's why they don't want intelligent design being presented as science. But just because they think there is no evidence for it, doesn't mean they think there is evidence against it.

I am not TAJ, and I haven't followed this discussion about intelligent design. I was just trying to correct a few technical misconceptions about Big Bang cosmology. As a physicist, my own views on theology carry no more authority than anyone else's, but just to give an example of a possible view, I happen to be a fairly traditionally orthodox Christian. I believe the universe has meaning, that God created it, and even continues to control it in minute detail. I believe that we may be able to understand some of God's purposes, at least in part.

But I would say that I believe in trans-intelligent design, rather than intelligent design. God's intelligence is so much vaster than ours, that it seems absurd to me to imagine that we could ever find smoking-gun evidence proving that an anthropomorphic deity must have left a clumsy thumbprint on the canvas of creation. The ideology that calls itself 'intelligent design' seems to me to be terrible theology, as well as ridiculous science.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Okay, I'll agree with that.


Actually it was quite the other way around. General relativity doesn't just deal with gravity; it IS the modern theory of gravity, replacing Newton's old 'universal gravitation' law. It is very well approximated by Newton's theory, as long as speeds are slow compared to light, gravity is not too strong, and distance scales being considered are not too vast.

But it was not long after Einstein formulated his new theory that he and a few other theoreticians started investigating what it might imply when applied to the universe as a whole, over length scales so unthinkably vast that the new theory might give drastically different results than Newton's. Much to their surprise and dismay, they found that Einstein's theory seemed to imply, almost unavoidably, that the universe had begun in a singularity at some finite time in the past, and that space itself was currently expanding.

I agree that it implies it but I don't know about the "almost unavoidably" descriptive. I'm sure you have read the example of raisins being glued onto a deflated large balloon. When you start blowing up the balloon, the clusters of raisins all begin moving away from each other at increasingly rapid speeds. This implies that all the raisins were clumped together before the balloon started inflating. It's really a simple solution to the problem and simplicity often leads to the best answer. Other scenarios can be constructed but science has chosen the most simple one, the one that most approximates what our senses and logic tells is most likely. Certainly nothing wrong with that. its very sound to base a theory on.

At the time there was no evidence either for or against this bizarre notion, but it went sharply against the grain of all physicists' preconceptions. Einstein himself, making what he afterwards called the biggest mistake of his life, found a way of altering his theory, that seemed to be able to eliminate the Big Bang. It was soon determined, however, that his fix didn't really work very well: it could technically allow an eternal universe, but only as a precarious balance between collapse and explosion, and nobody was prepared to take seriously the idea that the universe was so precisely fine-tuned as to have exactly hit this unstable balance. More importantly, though, observational evidence from new kinds of telescopes started coming in, showing that the universe actually is expanding. Einstein kicked himself for the rest of his life.

So the historical order of ideas was not that the theory of curved spacetime was postulated to save the prejudice-favored Big Bang theory, but that the Big Bang theory was very reluctantly accepted in the face of the uncanny correspondence between the theory of curved spacetime and astronomical observations, both of which had been developed without any idea that a Big Bang might be involved.

So far so good...

Science certainly does not deny the existence of God. Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence. Nor does science actually deny the existence of intelligent design as such. It is again neutral on this topic. What most scientists do deny, strongly and in my opinion quite rightly, is the claim that evidence for intelligent design exists. That's why they don't want intelligent design being presented as science. But just because they think there is no evidence for it, doesn't mean they think there is evidence against it.

This is where I tend to break away from you. I am talking the real world now, how things are out in society. You can't claim that Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence and on the existence of intelligent design and then in the next sentence state that what scientists deny strongly is the claim that intelligent design exists.

If a human landed on Mars and found a working automobile parked there, that would be evidence that intelligent design exists or had existed on Mars. Similarly here on Earth, all you have to do is to walk out your front door and look and all manner of evidence abounds. If you deny intelligent design, then I thought the only other possibility was random chance along with survival of the fittest. Basically that was all I ever heard until TAJ's last post.

He alluded to other things in his last post, things which were beyond human understanding and comprehension. You are doing the same thing now but you are expressing it much clearer and given it a name, "trans-intelligent design". This would be acceptable to me and be a valid basis for a new theory depending on what you mean by "trans-intelligence". If you mean a much higher intelligence than human intelligence, a God-like intelligence, then I am on board with your post. However, "trans" suggest beyond. If you mean beyond human intelligence to something different so that it is no longer even considered intelligence then count me out!

This does seem to be the way you see it. It looks to me as if you are saying that the design and order of all that we see in our rather complex environment is not at all the result of intelligence nor even super intelligence but rather it is the result of a something which is beyond intelligence. Pleas see my extensive comments at the end of your post.

I am not TAJ, and I haven't followed this discussion about intelligent design. I was just trying to correct a few technical misconceptions about Big Bang cosmology. As a physicist, my own views on theology carry no more authority than anyone else's, but just to give an example of a possible view, I happen to be a fairly traditionally orthodox Christian. I believe the universe has meaning, that God created it, and even continues to control it in minute detail. I believe that we may be able to understand some of God's purposes, at least in part.

But I would say that I believe in trans-intelligent design, rather than intelligent design. God's intelligence is so much vaster than ours, that it seems absurd to me to imagine that we could ever find smoking-gun evidence proving that an anthropomorphic deity must have left a clumsy thumbprint on the canvas of creation. The ideology that calls itself 'intelligent design' seems to me to be terrible theology, as well as ridiculous science.

Thank you very much for your fine post!

I have a B.S. Degree in Math with a minor in physics and worked 9 years in aerospace. I have a strong interest in this field, having read several popular books on the subject, and tracking the subject in the newspapers and on radio and TV. I am not a pro but am a fairly well informed amateur

I appreciate your point about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity not just dealing with Gravity but being the modern theory of Gravity. I suspected that was the case but did not want to say that for fear of being wrong so I used a much softer term by saying that it dealt with gravity. By doing that, it did not effect the point which I was making.

Trans-intelligent design? I am not familiar with that term. If I understand you correctly, you are implying that God's intelligence is so much more vast than mankind's that it is beyond our comprehension and God would not be so clumsy as to leave a thumb print or clue for us which would reveal his existence or participation in setting up the universe.

This is a totally sound premise to base a theory of origin on. As long is there is some form of intelligence and not just random chance, then I'm okay with it. To me, "trans intelligence" would just be a higher form of intelligence than what we now know of. The key thing is that it would still be "intelligence". As long as you agree to some sort of intelligent design, call it "trans-intelligent design", then I have no problem working with your theory. If it totally transcends intelligence and is no longer even considered intelligence then I totally part company with you at that point.

This would fit in well with the Progressive political movement which is starting to take over our country. Up until recently, the liberal arts fields were easily taken over by Progressive Professors in the University but the Natural Sciences were bastions where pure science remained relatively uncorrupted by Progressive thought. "Trans-Intelligence" which is beyond intelligence and no longer called intelligence is a means of now getting the Natural Sciences to march lock step with the humanities in taking over the Universities and the Public schools K-12.

The above is an excellent example of Intelligent Design in action. The Progressive Intelligencia is outlawing the use of the term "Intelligent Design" so as to impose their views into the domain of the Natural Sciences. If this is what is going on, the purity and independence of the Natural Sciences will soon be done away with and those sciences will become corrupted and meld in nicely with other parts of the Progressive University curriculum.
Lakey
P.S. - I don't want to originate any more on this topic for awhile but will probably respond to critiques by others if I have something to say. This particular critique was especially well written, had some valid corrections and merited a major response. I just formulated the last part about the Progressives taking over the Natural Sciences in the Universities as I was writing my closing remarks. "Trans-Intelligence" - that concept definitely gives that movement the tool to take over the Natural Science Dept of the Universities.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am not TAJ, and I haven't followed this discussion about intelligent design. I was just trying to correct a few technical misconceptions about Big Bang cosmology. As a physicist, my own views on theology carry no more authority than anyone else's, but just to give an example of a possible view, I happen to be a fairly traditionally orthodox Christian. I believe the universe has meaning, that God created it, and even continues to control it in minute detail. I believe that we may be able to understand some of God's purposes, at least in part.

But I would say that I believe in trans-intelligent design, rather than intelligent design. God's intelligence is so much vaster than ours, that it seems absurd to me to imagine that we could ever find smoking-gun evidence proving that an anthropomorphic deity must have left a clumsy thumbprint on the canvas of creation. The ideology that calls itself 'intelligent design' seems to me to be terrible theology, as well as ridiculous science.

I am Taj and I haven't been discussing intelligent design.

But now that I am I would say that intelligent design is certainly not science.

It violates one of the foundational rules of science as a disciplined approach to the study of nature.

For science, nature must be treated as a close system.

A scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon cannot invoke a supernatural causal agent.

It is simply not science.

Intelligent Design is an interesting philosophical or religious approach to understanding the universe, but it is philosophy or religion, not science.

Intelligent design also does not suggest any research programs to test the theory, nor are their any predictions that follow from the theory.

And it certainly isn't able to be tested or able to be falsified.

What intelligent design does do is address a legitmate scientific problem.

And that is design does seem to manifest itself in what we know of the physcical world.

But Intellegent Design theory does not explain that phenomenon but rather just explains it away.

I don't know why anyone would or should expect their religious or spiritual views to be legitamized by science.

It seems that those who do really have so little faith in their own convictions that they need a physicist or an astronomer or a chemist to tell them that their beliefs are right.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Just for my education here, Taj and Trinity, not as any challenge to what you say, but didn't Godel prove that there is no such thing as a closed system? Have I got that wrong?

Because it seems to me that with little we do know about the big bang, is seems to violate the closed system idea and is in alignment with Godel.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

... Science certainly does not deny the existence of God. Science is entirely neutral on the question of God's existence. Nor does science actually deny the existence of intelligent design as such. It is again neutral on this topic. What most scientists do deny, strongly and in my opinion quite rightly, is the claim that evidence for intelligent design exists. That's why they don't want intelligent design being presented as science. But just because they think there is no evidence for it, doesn't mean they think there is evidence against it. ...

... But I would say that I believe in trans-intelligent design, rather than intelligent design. God's intelligence is so much vaster than ours, that it seems absurd to me to imagine that we could ever find smoking-gun evidence proving that an anthropomorphic deity must have left a clumsy thumbprint on the canvas of creation. The ideology that calls itself 'intelligent design' seems to me to be terrible theology, as well as ridiculous science.

What is genuinely absurd is the belief that any 'god' who fit the definition of creator as laid out by the abrahamic religions would be of such a character as to be fully comprehensible by the limited human intellect. Clear evidence of human hubris.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

"The most important things to do in science is to figure out who the human is and how he operates biochemically. We're never going to understand how the brain works. I always say that my brain is a big palace, and I'm just a little rodent running around inside it. The brain owns me, I don't own the brain. A large computer can simulate totally a smaller computer but it cannot simulate itself, because if it did there wouldn't be anything left except the simulation. Consciousness would stop there."

- John Lilly

True or untrue?

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

A Little Housekeeping Chore

I read some weeks back on this Thread a post that was historically inaccurate…nothing earth shaking…just a piece of minutia that I feel needs to be corrected for the record so that the historical information parts of this Thread are as accurate as possible.

The post stated that the Bolivar and the Excalibur were WWII Sub Chasers.

I've been on the Bolivar and the Excalibur, as well as the Apollo. While I’m not going into the specifics here, I was SO Sea Duty Trained/Rated and was an Apollo Sea Duty Watch Member with a fairly responsible position. I am quite familiar—bow to stern—with all three vessels.

The Bolivar WAS a WWII Sub Chaser with a minimum of superstructure...sleek, fast, responsive and remarkably maneuverable yet stable. The Excalibur WAS NOT a WWII Sub Chaser. It was a Convoy Escort with a large, high superstructure and conning tower, flying bridge, radar tower and although more tonnage than the Bolivar, less powerful engines. While the Excalibur was far more “tight” than the Apollo, it was “loose” and “goosey” compared to the Bolivar.

After the early ‘70’s the Bolivar and Excalibur were rarely taken out to Sea and spent their time moored to a dock in San Pedro. The SO didn’t want to spend the money to keep them Sea Worthy, pay for the fuel and commit the full time operations personnel.

Many of Sea Org members of that era had never been near a ship and, if they had, it was for a few weeks of SO Indoc courses and the vessels were moored to the dock the entire time…even most of the ones on the Apollo knew little to nothing about sailing or ships.

The Bolivar and Excalibur were as similar as a Ford Mustang GT 350 and F150 Pick up…the Apollo, in comparison, was like a bus/cattle truck. Just standing in the wheelhouse of each vessel plainly showed they were all different breeds of cat. Bridge to Bilge, Foc’sle to Fantail, Engine Room to Ward Room all three ships were built for different purposes.

How’s this for irony? When I was out at Sea on the Bolivar I got all stoked on the idea that I was experiencing being on the Bridge at Sea of a Sub Chaser, like El Ron did. All these years later I sit here knowing now it was all a lie. Every SO Member that ever stepped aboard the Bolivar did something Hisself never did—stood on the deck of a WWII Corvette that saw combat (El Ron never set foot on the Bolivar).

Face

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Just for my education here, Taj and Trinity, not as any challenge to what you say, but didn't Godel prove that there is no such thing as a closed system? Have I got that wrong? ...

You have that wrong.

Godel's work is confined to the realm of mathematics & systems of formal logic. His work does not directly relate to the physical sciences. Moreover, his conclusion is not that formally closed systems may not exist, merely that not all expressions which may exist in such systems are necessarily provable by the rules of the system (i.e. it's 'incomplete').

Mathematical systems are often usefully applied to better comprehend physical systems, but they do not define the properties of the physical world; they are used to model them. Mathematics is an attempt to abstract relationships from a variety of sources, some logical, some based on 'self-evident' principles. There is no necessary relationship between the development of mathematical principles and their manifestation in the (or indeed a) physical universe.

One of the key logical assumptions behind the empirical method as it applies in physics is that of a closed system. Specifically, conservation of mass & energy and all that implies. Eliminating that assumption is not only contrary to observed physics and insupportable by existing observations but it also would have far reaching logical consequences with regard to understanding the physical world.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

OK. Thanks for that.

Another question - Does the phenomena of As-is-ness (presuming that it is real) violate the law of conservation of energy/mass?