What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?

[Yellow_Cartman]

God (or Not), Physics and, of Course, Love: Scientists Take a Leap

This was the question posed to scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers by John Brockman, a literary agent and publisher of Edge, a Web site devoted to science. The site asks a new question at the end of each year. Here are excerpts from the responses, to be posted Tuesday at www.edge.org.

There are some really good ones here. Not for the superficially inclined.

My favorites:

1. Irrational Choices
2. Darwinian natural selection
3. "I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. " David Hoffman, Cognitive scientist, UC Irvine
4. God, proof
5. “free will” (i.e. “Lord of the Flies”)
6. True love

[Satellite_TV]

I can’t prove that there must be intelligent life far more advanced than our own planet.

There must be some other intelligence in those billions uon billions of other galaxies that far outstrips our paltry human existance, cause there’s bugger all down here.

[Yellow_Cartman]

[quote=“Satellite TV”]I can’t prove that there must be intelligent life far more advanced than our own planet.

There must be some other intelligence in those billions uon billions of other galaxies that far outstrips our paltry human existance, cause there’s bugger all down here.[/quote]

Yeah, absolutely true. If there’s other life out there, then there ought to also be other intelligence out there.

…and that Star Trek is out there for other life out there in the universe.

[Matchstick_man]

The world is round.

[Danimal]

Darwinian natural selection?

[Tigerman]

I believe that behind all science there is magic. I mean, we can explain the nuts and bolts of the fermentation process … but we cannot explain, with science, the WHY?.. Why should it be this way? Magic.

[system]

I beleive we are all magicians!

[914]

I believe there is a supreme being out there.

[system]

@914

I believe there is a supreme being out there.

It’s here. It’s all around everywhere…

[Tetsuo]

Me.

I’m serious. How can any of us actually prove that we even exist?

[Danimal]

@Tigerman

I believe that behind all science there is magic. I mean, we can explain the nuts and bolts of the fermentation process … but we cannot explain, with science, the WHY?.. Why should it be this way? Magic.

Maybe there is no why. Oh… we can add, “Why” to the list, too.

[system]

[quote=“Tetsuo”]Me.

I’m serious. How can any of us actually prove that we even exist?[/quote]
I believe you…

[Fox]

I believe there is no matter without consciousness.

[Danimal]

[quote=“Tetsuo”]Me.

I’m serious. How can any of us actually prove that we even exist?[/quote]

Maybe we’re not really here.

There is still a more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity or electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult) then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy generated by the new pair of particles can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp – curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, an their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy.

Paul Davies – God and the New Physics

[bob]

I believe I’ll have another beer.

[banshette]

I believe its getting late. And in the amazing power of music.

[bob_honest]

Read somewhere, nobody could rule out we would be just parts of simulation. Because you only have to start with a few basic chemical elements, set up a few nature rules (some are even constant numbers determining the basic structure of the universe) and let all the rest run in a simulation.
The outcome could be a 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 dimensional universe or whatever. Maybe with suns and planets or something different.

The article concluded, even WE could run such a simulation now. Let it run faster than in real life and see if we can talk to the tiny simulated inhabitants one day.

Guess they would be shocked to see God is 35 year old computer nerd with greasy hair…

[Edit]: if they run on Windows, they are screwed…

[yeti]

R Kelly believes he can fly.

[skeptic_yank]

i believe that children are the future. teach them well and let them lead the way.

[Fox]

I believe our children are older than we are.