Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumI'm going to do something a little different here and a bit of a book review.
I thought about posting this in the mental health support group, then thought that maybe the skeptic's group might be more appropriate, then decided on here. I'm going to take some psychology, a little science, and some religion and kind of mix it up all together and hope it makes sense.
I just read Lawrence M. Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing. The book is about theoretical physics and cosmology with a little atheistic skepticism thrown in. Simply stated, Krauss explains how the universe came from nothing and did not need any supernatural force or prime mover to do so. It was a hard read for me, not because of what I said in the previous sentence, but because we're talking physics here and I have no training in that regard; but I think I got the general idea. When I consider that the book is popular science and therefore has been made simpler and easier to understand than the reality of the hard science behind it, it humbles me a bit. And that got me thinking about human intelligence and the possibility of becoming more intelligent as we age, and also just how far I've come in my own personal development.
When I was four years old, my dad started taking the family to a fundie church. I didn't fully escape until I was sixteen. That church had a profound effect on my psychological development and I didn't fully escape it in my mind until I was thirty, when I started to become skeptical of supernatural claims. I'm thirty-nine now and I've come a long way. But why is it that I could kick the church habit and see through all of the crap when I was young, even after having grown up in that church, while others never even question religion or actually may even convert to it at an older age after having been skeptical? I think that happens to people who are much smarter than me. Is being skeptical a function of intelligence? It would not necessarily appear so.
Can we get smarter as we age? Can we get dumber as we age? Is intelligence and the ability to learn fixed at birth? I'm a trucker and I am going to college part time to finish my degree. I'm doing well in my class this summer; better than a lot of students half my age. I've heard it said that the ability to learn deteriorates as we age, but I'm doing just as well or better now in school than I did at earlier times in my life.
Maybe it's all just about having an open mind. Someone who is open to new experiences and ideas may grow personally more than someone who on paper may be more intelligent, but is otherwise rigid and unchanging due to belief in a regressive world view and no desire to question his or her established model. Maybe it's about courage.
Could a courageous and open-minded person be smarter than people who have a higher I.Q. but have otherwise allowed themselves to be cowed into a view of the world that, on closer inspection, appears to make no sense? Can an uneducated trucker be smarter than the pope?
Anyway, buy the book. It's a good read.
daaron
(763 posts)Sounds like a good read, based on the glowing online reviews. I'm in particular intrigued by Krauss pointing out that now is our best chance to study the aftermath of the Big Bang - since the accelerating expansion of the cosmos will red shift distant galaxies and cosmic bg radiation 'out of existence', as another reviewer put it.
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)Yes, he says that as the universe expands, any cultures that may evolve elsewhere in the far distant future will have no clue about the kind of universe we live in because there will be no evidence in the night sky to show them. Things will have gotten so far apart that all they will know is their own solar system.
DreWId
(78 posts)But if there's no observable universe in part because everything is so vastly expanding, how can we be sure "something came from nothing" instead of "something came from something that we cannot observe"?
Tobin S.
(10,418 posts)what you have described. There would be no way of knowing. We can know now, though, because we can see the evidence. But the brilliant minds we have now working on this don't have it all completely worked out. There are still many mysteries to be solved. As for the question of how something can come from nothing, I'd suggest the book. It took a guy with a Ph.D. in physics 200 pages to explain it. Check it out.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)As I understand it, nothing in Krauss' book is particularly revolutionary. Physicists have known that you can (and do) get something from nothing for a very long time.
The old maxim of "you can't get something from nothing," simply isn't true. The physics involved is a bit complicated, but suffice it to say that it's been thoroughly checked out for decades.
A recent direct experimental demonstration of this is here: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110603/full/news.2011.346.html
daaron
(763 posts)Our own event horizon for light lies how many light-years distant? Assuming the cosmos is about 13.75 billion years old now and not taking the Hubble parameter into account, the most distant light sources we could see would be a linear 13.75+T LY away, where T is the ticking of the solar annual clock starting now. But since the cosmos IS expanding, the light horizon is moving closer to us relative to expanding space (confusing, but put another way, the light horizon stays at 13.75+T unexpanded LY away, while what constitutes one LY gets bigger 'around' it). Since the expansion is accelerating, we'd have to figure out a differential equation to get the light horizon at any given moment in time, since the rate of change of what constitutes one LY is accelerating! Groovy. There's still another way of thinking about this: what is the diameter of the observable universe? The light horizon will be half that distance!
I was going to set up the ODE to solve in order to compute this distance, but found this WikiPedia article on the 'particle horizon' and event horizon, which includes a hand-waving solution to the underlying ODE in question (it's only fun to reinvent the wheel when you haven't seen one before): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Particle_horizon
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We actually get dumber as we age, in the sense that our cognitive processes diminish, but we have acquired all this personal history of cognition along the way. To be trite, we can be wiser than the young, but they have more nimble brains.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)It's important to note that Krauss' point isn't that the universe DID self-start but that there's a plausible mechanism which allows it to have self-started.
We don't know what actually happened, and it's possible that the mechanism Krauss describes didn't actually happen. It's entirely possible that the universe's flat topology is a more recent phenomenon resulting from inflation, and that the universe could have had a different shape in the past. I don't know how likely that is, but I'm pretty sure that it can't be ruled out yet.
Yeah, I guess I should have qualified my statement when describing Krauss' book- that it's a possibility and maybe not how it exactly happened. From what he described, though, the evidence is, at the least, compelling.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)the mindset we were brought up in is based on our emotional IQ over intellectual. Those who never develop emotionally past varying points of childhood will certainly not have the ability to look at that which they've always been taught to believe objectively.
Of course some intellectual ability is helpful on the journey.
Just my .0125
Julie