Carlton Supporters Club

That statement is incomplete and you cannot possibly draw any logical conclusion from it (ooo, there's another one to add to science, spirituality and philosophy - logic!). Why? It begs the question, 'What is Rees' definition/understanding of what God is?"

If Rees was talking about an Old Testament fire and brimstone malevolent man in the sky with a long white beard, well, then you can understand his comment. Better complex, mind-boggling options than that God. However, if he was talking about God as a metaphor for some mysterious, omnipotent, intelligent energy of some sort, then he's a goose. We just don't know until he clarifies what God is to him... didn't Sheldrake or someone else think to ask him this question?

I think Rees is smart enough and familiar enough with Sheldrake, both on a personal and professional level, to know that Sheldrake is a proponent of the "omnipotent, intelligent energy" God. I'm sure Rees knew exactly where Rupee was coming from.

If that's the case, then Rees is a goose. Must be one of these 'if I can't see it, smell it, hear it, touch it or taste it ... it doesn't exist' types. And there's no arguing with people like this... like fundamentalist (insert any religion) types - 'my frame of reference is all there is.' There are those of us who are happy to say, 'stuffed if I know', to not be threatened by ambiguity or mystery or even the unknowable.

There are many things in this experience called life that have a variety of modalities that attempt to help us explain and understand what is happening around us. From psychology, to logic, to spirituality, to science, to philosophy... and the list goes on. Each brings their own gifts and mysteries and even contradictions. Knowing when to discern is probably the key. So, in a way, we may agree PP... perhaps philosophically 

Let me give you my understanding of this cosmological boob job that we're discussing.

The idea that the amount of matter and energy is conserved is originally a theological and philosophical idea, from the Ancient Greek materialist philosophers, who like their modern counterparts were atheists, and thus had no need for God. In their eyes, there was no mystery, no funny buggers, no weird forces, everything was just matter. This idea was taken up in the 17th Century scientific revolution, when it was proposed that the Universe was made up of a fixed amount of matter, put there by God at the beginning, and therefore unchanging. As for energy, the idea was that God basically started the whole universe going by pressing the start button and so all movement that we observe and all energy is unchanging because it is divine and god given. There is in fact no evidence anywhere that matter and energy in the universe does not change. This is an assumption. This assumption is just a part of science and is not really questioned.

In the 1980's, it was noticed that the stars of certain galaxies were revolving around the centres of those galaxies much too quickly based on the amount of matter within them, and certain galaxies were attracting each other far too strongly for the amount of matter present. AT this point there are two options :
1. the theory of gravity / galaxies is wrong and there may be other explanations
2. there must be some other extra matter there that we can't detect i.e dark matter.

Why was the first option never investigated ?

Following on from this, now that we have all this extra matter in the universe, it follows that the forces of gravitation must also be much stronger. According to the calcs, this extra gravity meant that firstly the rate of the expansion of the universe should slow down, and then once its stops expanding it starts to contract and becomes smaller and smaller and eventually ends up as the big Crunch. Around the year 2000, it was discovered that galaxies at the edge of our universe were not slowing down as the model expected, the rate of expansion was in fact speeding up. So once again, rather than looking at alternative explanations for this mismatch, physicists said there must be some form of energy that is pushing against all this extra mass to keep the universe expanding, and we'll call it dark energy. Once again, no evidence for this at all.

I can tell you, in all honesty, I really want there to be dark matter and dark energy, because if it's true it means that the universe has a deep dark subconscious that controls the bits we can see, just like us. An idea that I find incredibly appealing.

"Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."

Whatever Rees may think personally, publicly he needs to toe the line.

Rees openly admits that he, like Dawkins, "pokes the bear".

They do not want to shut down debate, they both want it all out on the table so it can be debunked.

They lay baits to expose the cynics and crackpots

Rees and Dawkins cannot have it both ways. They either state what they genuinely believe or they don't.

Science makes no claim that there is some grand ledger for energy and matter in the observable universe. Science doesn't even claim that the observable universe is the limit.

They are using the tactics of their critics, it's called mirroring and the critics complain about it endlessly.

Maybe you missed the first law of Thermodynamics ?

They're either materialists or they're not.

OK then perhaps you'll help us by explaining it to everyone, hopefully in plain language?

Avoid the highfalutin stuff if you can, but make it relevant to the everything, you know cosmology, and not a closed system!

In fact I'm happy for your to talk about any of the laws of thermodynamics, can we start by declaring how many there are, 3 or 4 it's a 50/50?

PaulP, the deeper you go the bigger the goose you make of yourself, not to everyone because not everyone cares or wants to discuss it. But you obviously do, so if you want to do so at least make an effort to get the basics right.

This is the point of the debate when most give up, you've made a spurious claim exposing your ignorance on the subject matter. Rees and Dawkins don't, they continue to dig deeper and if you persist they actually hope they can push you in the sensible direction, they won't give up on you because even if they can't save you from yourself PaulP, they can use the experience as a learning curve to save others!

So do I take that as an answer to my earlier question, there are apparently material scientists and "others?"

Oh that is funny, coming from the guy who made a Hitler/Sheldrake comparison.

You cannot, and will not, explain anything simply because it will mean people might actually understand you, and therefore work out you have nothing to say.

So you aren't helping us with the laws of thermodynamics then?

If you offer it as a proof you have to defend it, that is part of the scientific method.

How's that dark energy / dark matter proof going ? Nearly 100 years, tick tock, tick tock.

You keep making the same mistake, the evidence and data is the proof, the explanation is the part that is lacking.

We do not need all the answers of how and why to know something is real, but we do need some evidence to start!

Afterwards,we can make a hypothesis of why and then look for further proof, like the prediction of the existence of Einstein Rings and their ultimate detection.

Further if we look in wavelengths invisible to our eyes, we can see things like the bullet cluster, and how the interaction between normal visible and dark matter has changed the flow of dust and gas. Wikipedia gives an excellent plain language explanation as to why.

It might even help you with that earlier point No.1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter

Of course if you do not trust wikipedia, it's very good to be sceptical, then have a browse on the Arxiv for any number of hundreds of in depth papers including published data on the matter. Pun intended!