Religous debates and questions [2]

No, the Iraq war and the "Coalition of the Willing" first showed the chinks beginning to open up. It may not have been retreat yet, but it showed the plateau was beginning to crumble.

Im not sure we can give any tips Eldo. We arent the empire any more but have still been at the top table for a while. I think we will struggle to work out our place over the next 100 years too.

petty - talking about you saying other countries also got the choice of retaining the head of state. I assume there would be rules like staying in the commonwealth or something. Sure we couldn't force you to keep the monarchy.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Didnt someone- Russia or Syria- say Obama's decision to go to Congress and the lack of international support for them marked the beginning of the American retreat?

I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily agree with that.  I think Obama going to Congress is indicative of shaky support for military action within the US, which is more directly due to war weariness from Iraq and Afghanistan than our international standing IMO.  It's all related though, since the decision to go into Iraq in 2003 demonstrated a couple of things.  It proved that the NATO countries were not going to blindly follow the American lead in the post-Cold War era.  It also proved once and for all that the United Nations, despite being largely set up by the US and intended to serve Allied interests in the aftermath of World War II, was independent from the United States, albeit still severely lacking in enforcement powers.  The ongoing wars in the Middle East also served to squander US money, lives, and political capital while the center of global power continues to shift towards East Asia.

That said, the United States was still the most powerful country in the world in 2003 and still is today.  Imperial decline takes time.  But 2003 showed that our days of flying high as "the world's only superpower", a catchphrase that was very popular in the 1990s, are numbered.

I imagine Lance we would remain a Commonwealth Country, which is made up of sovereign states, I cant imagine the Commonwealth countries turning us away. Besides we are hosting the Commonwealth Games.  

Sure we couldn't force you to keep the monarchy. - Lance

Not sure if thats a question or not, but forcing Scots into anything doesnt tend to go down to well here. Why is why there is overwhelming support on all sides in Scotland to get rid of the nukes- independence or no.

Which is another interesting feature if Independence happens- what will England do about the nukes? You have no facilities for them, no money to build them, no time to build it in even if you find the money, and who in England wants them in their backgarden?
You'll probably force them onto the Welsh this time- England wants to be a nuclear power, just not on its own soil!

Eldo - does it not resonate that this time around, not even the U.K wants to bloody their hands? The French under Hollande seem up for a fight with whoever but that is about it.

I imagine that educated people like yourself must realise that if you do it, it may be alone this time.

Petty - not many people like stuff forced on them. Plus we couldnt since your law would be your law.

Re nukes... we used to have them on our soil. In fact I believe we had free fall bombs that would be delivered by jets as late as 1998.

The issue is around the vanguard class submarine and supply/refit of them. There will be plenty of sites that could be made ready to store the warheads if need be.

I'm opposed to intervention in Syria but yes, I do recognize the significance of the UK refusing to join us. I think that's a very important milestone, but I don't think it's the beginning of the decline of American power. At first I thought it was a little odd that France was willing to get involved this time but then I remembered that Syria is a former French colony and France is fond of getting involved in the affairs of their former possessions...

No... I think there are many things that make up the current decline. Credit crush has killed the economy with ever increasing debts. Too many wars are eroding the public will and created divides in the establishment. Plus many other things.

Dont get me wrong... I dont think anyone is going to want to mess with you guys for a line time except crazy bastards like the Kims. But I imagine the world we start to balance out more... which may or may not be a good thing.

France are always very keen when its a clear French interest- and generally posted missing when its not.

the vanguard class submarine and supply/refit of them. There will be plenty of sites that could be made ready to store the warheads if need be.- Lance

I think you might be underestimating the scale of the nuclear shipyards and docking/refit facilities required and which are here, not to mention you need lochs deep enough for submarines to get all the way into dock without surfacing and giving their position away- thats one of the reasons Scotland was ideal- we have very deep sea lochs (and the same reason the US navy had their nuclear subs based here too during the Cold War)
The other main factors are time and expense- it costs a lot and takes along time to build facilities like that (the hill at the nuclear docks here is hollow for example, its like something out of James Bond) theres a lot more to it than you see on the surface.

You're right, Lance, there are definitely a lot of factors at play here.  I think the US was able to weather previous international economic turmoil better because the pressure of the Cold War gave a lot of countries an incentive to stick with the US.  Though of course the sheer size of the "Great Recession" is notable too.  But I agree that the world is gradually moving towards a more multipolar alignment.  As a former international relations student, I'm very curious to see what things look like in a couple of decades.

Oh I know Petty. I meant the warheads themselves could be moved easily enough.

A fully functioning base is something else all together.

Its ok Lance- until you build your own facilities we can rent you ours- sure it will be a fair price.  

they can use the Manchester ship canal, I dont mind if the sailors like their eels wrangling i could make some extra wonga.

I doubt the canal is deep enough for nuclear subs! You may need to relocate to wrangle.

 

The concept of "being" has its origin in something, and if you believe in "good" and "consciousness" so do they also - they are defined by it. Not even the ancient Greeks accepted an infinite regress on this level, and had their own conception of a source. You can call "it" whatever you like, but some people call it God.

And this is ignoring the fine tuning of the laws of our universe, a multiverse that defies Ockam's Razor, a multiverse generation mechanism (back to square one), and a reason why any one of these universes should actually have minds (when according to current paradigm biological evolution works just fine without them, along with our self-sufficient brains).

This gets us into the anthropic principle (is it Scottish too? ) which says the universe we see must be capable of supporting intelligent life, else we wouldn't be around to be seeing it.

The "strong" anthropic principle posits that any universe needs an observer, so therefore it MUST be constructed to harbor intelligent life. I must say this is sheer nonsense, for we know it takes millions if not billions of years for intelligent life to develop (after which it likely just blows itself up), so what maintained the universe's existence until then? Only makes sense if time is not unidirectional, but that's a whole philosophic discussion in itself.

I hold with the "weak" anthropic principle, which makes the universe we see part of a selection process: many different universes are possible, the one we are in just happens to be capable of supporting intelligent life.

The fine tuning realization really is quite wonderful, and wasn't realized until after the expansion of the universe was discovered and modelled. But I think it was presaged in religious thinking along the lines of "isn't it wonderful that we are surrounded by things we can eat!" Anthropic reasoning can be applied to the ecosystem as well....

another Big Bang, could it be possible that Laws in a alternate Universe could be completely different to ours? Gravity or the Elements, or the way Dark Matter/Energy is distributed. could everything be so different to our laws that no life could be created and the Universe just ends up weird soup?

for we know it takes millions if not billions of years for intelligent life to develop- Halfwise

Surely this depends on what you term an observation.
If you mean something that can see perceive and then order that perception then yes, but what if all it takes is interaction? One atom bumping into another counting as observation.
Or to put it another way a thing is defined as what it is (as opposed to a bunch of quantum possibilities) by all the other already defined things in existence interacting with it.

"capable of supporting intelligent life" certainly requires some pretty unique physical laws (supporting stable nuclei, chemicals, biological systems, their evolution, etc), yet it does not necessitate mind.

The anthropic principle may be true, but it is not an explanation. What world religions have devised as an explanation may be pretty inadequate, but at least they are attempting to offer one.

If you are arguing that religion offers something science does not, than there is no argument. The question is whether what is being offered is useful for something. A scientific explanation for the origin of the universe is only accepted if it's tied into a framework that explains several things at once, and allows predictions that could not be made before. The religious perspective of God creating the universe may be intellectually satisfying, but I'm not sure what is gained beyond that feeling of satisfaction.

Petty - the concept of interaction versus observation is a good one. I've never believed in the original Copenhagen formulation of observation, and more modern formulations of QM have largely adopted the interaction approach. The 'observation' comes in where you decide to define the boundary between the system you are considering and the rest of the universe. "Interactions" come from outside the boundary, system evolution is inside the boundary.

My visit here is the 666th view of this thread.
(And yes, I did come back here twice just to make that point.)

Should have used a  
Maybe we should talk Satanism then- Satan, bad guy or good guy? Power mad angel or saviour of mankind from an eternity of servitude?

Better to angst in hell than be a poser in heaven.