Neil deGrasse Tyson Tests His Ability to Persuade

He opens the first chapter of his book “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry” with:

In the beginning, nearly 14 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the period that ends this sentence.

Are you persuaded?

Views: 200

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Joan, cosmology is perhaps impenetrable.  I don't PRETEND to have ultimate answers.  Stay tune as the advent of AI spawning general intelligence is nearly upon us.  Or so some say.  Maybe AI will make sense of it. 

And i think what Krauss says is misleading.  Predictions of big bang agree with SOME observations. 

I like your response, Frankie, "cosmology is perhaps impenetrable." That makes more sense than anything I heard or read! 

Thank you Joan.

Joan and Frankie, cosmology is penetrable. Krauss’ remark is not penetrable.

Whatever his “predictions of big bang agree with observations” means, it’s not science.

If he were to describe what cosmologists do, he might say they do mathematics.

First, they use Newton’s inverse square equation (1/ r^2) to predict what the cosmos should do.

Second, they find the cosmos not doing it.

Third, they invent something and add it to the cosmos so they can say the equation predicts observations.

Dark energy and dark matter are two of their many inventions.

And importantly, searching for what they’d invented, they spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars that could be spent doing science.

Tom Sarbeck, you love to be contrary. 

Like hell it is penetrable.  Krauss on the other hand was as pellucid as a mountain stream. We are lucky if we are seeing the tip of the iceberg protruding from the sea. 

I doubt humans will ever have ultimate answers unless it is by virtue of birth of general intelligence in AI. 

Frankie, I agree!

Like you, I doubt that homo sapiens will ever have ultimate answers.

However, unlike you, I have little if any faith in AI.

Fifty-plus years ago, when we in computer applications were working on getting to the moon, AI failed in what some of us hoped would be its ultimate triumph: translating languages.

Twenty-plus years ago, when I was teaching mathematics, a man asked my view of AI.

”When we know what real intelligence is,” I replied, “we might have an idea of what artificial intelligence is.”

Do we now know what AI is?

Language translation software works rather well. Grammar checking software?

We have redefined the term, dumbing it down until several years ago AI in a device that can move about on floors in homes can sweep those floors.

We can define AI to include the software for autonomous automobiles. Disabling the brakes in such an auto recently cost a woman her life. (See today’s NYT.)

Your thoughts?

Tom I agree with you on this. AIG is so far off, if even attainable. The amount of hardware needed is astronomical. Check this out.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/163051-simulating-1-second-of-h...

Not only that, but some people at MIT are saying the brain may not even be computable.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/511421/the-brain-is-not-computable/

I believe that, at least in the next century or so, we will not be seeing AIG. Standard AI has a future in driving cars and turning your lights on. Maybe somebody will figure it out sooner, but the approach will probably be so abstract it will take a psychopath to figure it out.

Back to cosmology.

I know what Big Bang cosmologists do. I find their cosmology penetrable. 

Krauss’ language, in his recent everything from nothing book?

You disagree with the NYT review last year, by a reviewer with a doctorate in phiosophy, who criticized it harshly. I downloaded the review but recently tossed it.

A search will probably find it.

Correction. Frankie.

NYT published the review of Krauss’ book in 2012, and moments ago I found it easily. It rakes Krauss’ book over very hot coals.

Sadly, I continue to sit on the back of a turnip truck. I don't know which one is accurate, true, and infallible! I do know I don't have to know. I only hate reading belittling language on Atheist Nexus when there are so many other ways to disagree. 

Sure, I can now use the word, "fuck" without throwing up, but personal attacks continue to churn my whole gastric system. Is this progress or regression?

Joan, in the subjects you studied—I don’t recall your identifying them—I’m riding your turnip truck. In the subjects I studied—mathematics, economics and physics—you are riding my turnip truck.

I would happily heap profanity-laden scorn on Tyson’s statement but here will paraphrase Frankie’s and your turnip truck metaphor. Tyson’s claim is as unsupported as religious claims I hear, so IMO only the dimmist theists are riding his turnip truck.

No personal attack made by me Joan. 

The absurdity of the line quoted that begins...In the beginning..made me interpret Tom's question as rhetorical. Thus...fuck no bla blah blah is in agreement with his position. 

Words like fuck piss shit etc as Carlin pointed out are only words. And you probably know that a science experiment concluded those who curse tend to be more honest.  I distinguish racial epithets which are intended to harm. As to those,  fuck that shit royally.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service