Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Irving Oyle quoted Einstein as saying is the universe friendly. in a 1979 book.
But just because it does not show up on the internet before that does not mean it was not in a newpaper or magazine or an interview.
and note you posted a similar quote from someone else.
so cut the shit.
You certainly have not proven Einstein never said it.
If you wish to say it is disputed...fine.
Wikiquote has it down as mis attributed because of the book you linked too... but, if find their reasoning or lack thereof far from convincing on this subject.
so I wondering if you had any proof einstein never made the quote so many attribute to him.
But just because it does not show up on the internet before that does not mean it was not in a newpaper or magazine or an interview.
and note you posted a similar quote from someone else.
so cut the shit.
You certainly have not proven Einstein never said it.
If you wish to say it is disputed...fine.
Wikiquote has it down as mis attributed because of the book you linked too... but, if find their reasoning or lack thereof far from convincing on this subject.
so I wondering if you had any proof einstein never made the quote so many attribute to him.
sorry that should have read is the universe is friendly.
here is what the wikiquote page had...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
A variant is found in Irving Oyle's The New American Medicine Show (1979) on p. 163, where Oyle writes: 'There is a story about Albert Einstein's view of human existence. Asked to pose the most vital question facing humanity, he replied, "Is the universe friendly?"' This variant is repeated in a number of books from the 1980s and 90s, so it probably pre-dates the "friendly or hostile" version. And the idea that the most important question we can ask is "Is the universe friendly?" dates back much earlier than the attribution to Einstein, for example in Emil Carl Wilm's 1912 book The Problem of Religion he includes the following footnote on p. 114: 'A friend proposed to the late F. W. H. Myers the following question: "What is the thing which above all others you would like to know? If you could ask the Sphinx one question, and only one, what would the question be?" After a moment's silence Myers replied: "I think it would be this: Is the universe friendly?"'
here is what the wikiquote page had...
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
A variant is found in Irving Oyle's The New American Medicine Show (1979) on p. 163, where Oyle writes: 'There is a story about Albert Einstein's view of human existence. Asked to pose the most vital question facing humanity, he replied, "Is the universe friendly?"' This variant is repeated in a number of books from the 1980s and 90s, so it probably pre-dates the "friendly or hostile" version. And the idea that the most important question we can ask is "Is the universe friendly?" dates back much earlier than the attribution to Einstein, for example in Emil Carl Wilm's 1912 book The Problem of Religion he includes the following footnote on p. 114: 'A friend proposed to the late F. W. H. Myers the following question: "What is the thing which above all others you would like to know? If you could ask the Sphinx one question, and only one, what would the question be?" After a moment's silence Myers replied: "I think it would be this: Is the universe friendly?"'
"Profound" has meaning only in the human context of course. There is no scientific view of the concepts of forgiveness or the Christian commandment "thou shalt not kill." {The latter is of special interest to me, not because it is ignored by the vast majority of Christians, but because the breaking of this commandment is celebrated and lauded by mainstream Christian denominations. The Baptists have an entertaining way out. They contend that the commandment applies only to the taking of "innocent" life, so naturally anyone they kill is, therefore, by definition, not innocent.
} These are not just religious concepts, but humanist as well. The humanists, however, seem to be somewhat better at following them. One must separate the viewpoints of scientists from science itself. In my opinion, Karl Popper had what was science, and what was not, correct, at least for the most part. Any assertion held to be scientific must, at the minimum, be testable, falsifiable.
The "mumbo jumbo" I referred to are ideas of man held to be scientific, but nevertheless don't, and can't, meet Popper's requirements.
I know you don't have much common sense but this is still a bit surprising.
I link to a book citing the quote by Myers back in 1912.
The earliest cite you can come up with is 1979, decades after Einstein's death.
So either your 1979 source is bullshit, or Einstein was plagiarizing somebody else he read decades earlier.
In either case, it is not an original Einstein quote, which is what people mean when they say a quote by Einstein.
And you wonder why so many people despise lawyers.
A Multiverse "Tuner" from Bernard Carr. A Gravity "Tuner" from Stephen Hawking.
Both amount to the same thing.
Both incorporate each other.
Both scientific explanations based on the laws of physics, math and the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.
All in all the "Tuner" you keep referring to as described and explained by the scientists you keep pointlessly quoting, misquoting and taking out of context as you do with Hawking above, is naturalistic. It's Gravity.
What exactly are you ranting about?
kut2k2,
I think you should be made aware that Jem was from the get go and for quite a while after, using the word 'site' for 'cite' up until he was eventually, after numerous attempts, educated right here on ET. It is therefore doubtful to say the least, he was ever a lawyer. A wannabe lawyer yes. If he was however, law school has a lot to answer for. To actually go through law not recognizing that word might throw some light on why his intellectual ability to understand the flaming obvious is so apparently wanting. Along with one or two others that come to mind, ranking him in the ET silly buggers league, and so in my opinion, you mustn't expect too much in the way of common sense.
I think you should be made aware that Jem was from the get go and for quite a while after, using the word 'site' for 'cite' up until he was eventually, after numerous attempts, educated right here on ET. It is therefore doubtful to say the least, he was ever a lawyer. A wannabe lawyer yes. If he was however, law school has a lot to answer for. To actually go through law not recognizing that word might throw some light on why his intellectual ability to understand the flaming obvious is so apparently wanting. Along with one or two others that come to mind, ranking him in the ET silly buggers league, and so in my opinion, you mustn't expect too much in the way of common sense.
this is consistent with my research on the commandment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ
, is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
Contents [hide]
1 Hebrew Bible
1.1 Retzach
1.2 Justified killing: due consequence for crime
1.3 Justified killing: in warfare
1.4 Justified killing: intruder in the home
2 Jewish interpretation
3 New Testament view
4 Roman Catholic Church
4.1 Modern Catechism
5 Reformation and Post-Reformation views
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links
Hebrew Bible[edit]
Retzach[edit]
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
The commandment against murder can be viewed as a legal issue governing human relationships, noting that the first five commandments relate strongly to man's duty to God and that the latter five commandments describe duties toward humans.[8][9] The commandment against murder can also be viewed as based in respect for God himself.[10][11] Since man is made in God's image, the shedding of innocent blood is viewed as a direct offense against the Creator.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, KJV Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ
, is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
Contents [hide]
1 Hebrew Bible
1.1 Retzach
1.2 Justified killing: due consequence for crime
1.3 Justified killing: in warfare
1.4 Justified killing: intruder in the home
2 Jewish interpretation
3 New Testament view
4 Roman Catholic Church
4.1 Modern Catechism
5 Reformation and Post-Reformation views
6 See also
7 Notes
8 Further reading
9 External links
Hebrew Bible[edit]
Retzach[edit]
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
The commandment against murder can be viewed as a legal issue governing human relationships, noting that the first five commandments relate strongly to man's duty to God and that the latter five commandments describe duties toward humans.[8][9] The commandment against murder can also be viewed as based in respect for God himself.[10][11] Since man is made in God's image, the shedding of innocent blood is viewed as a direct offense against the Creator.[12]
Quote from piezoe:
"Profound" has meaning only in the human context of course. There is no scientific view of the concepts of forgiveness or the Christian commandment "thou shalt not kill." {The latter is of special interest to me, not because it is ignored by the vast majority of Christians, but because the breaking of this commandment is celebrated and lauded by mainstream Christian denominations. The Baptists have an entertaining way out. They contend that the commandment applies only to the taking of "innocent" life, so naturally anyone they kill is, therefore, by definition, not innocent.
One must separate the viewpoints of scientists from science itself. In my opinion, Karl Popper had what was science, and what was not, correct, at least for the most part. Any assertion held to be scientific must, at the minimum, be testable, falsifiable.
The "mumbo jumbo" I referred to are ideas of man held to be scientific, but nevertheless don't, and can't, meet Popper's requirements.
you need to deal in fact.
When people are asked questions they respond with what they think. Which is frequently an amalgamation of the best thoughts they have been exposed to on the subject coupled with their own filters or ideas.
in short just because a similar quote was in written in a book in the early 1900s does not mean that einstein did not respond to a question with a similar answer. ( for instance - Do people always credit Reagan or an old Russian proverb before they say trust but verify. )
just because no book on google books wrote of the quote prior to 1979 does not mean there were not other sources for the quote that existed at the time. You are complete over stretching.
In short... you have a reasonable argument that there could have been mis attribution. However, you are over playing it.
When people are asked questions they respond with what they think. Which is frequently an amalgamation of the best thoughts they have been exposed to on the subject coupled with their own filters or ideas.
in short just because a similar quote was in written in a book in the early 1900s does not mean that einstein did not respond to a question with a similar answer. ( for instance - Do people always credit Reagan or an old Russian proverb before they say trust but verify. )
just because no book on google books wrote of the quote prior to 1979 does not mean there were not other sources for the quote that existed at the time. You are complete over stretching.
In short... you have a reasonable argument that there could have been mis attribution. However, you are over playing it.