Is it the Moon?

[spiritofold]

Hats are a bushcraft necessity!

 

[sam_acw]

So is bushcraft a religion? or a science?

Good question.

I did some study of weather patterns and predicting weather earlier this year. Some was purely scientific regarding air pressure, water cycles and so on whilst some concerned folk lore and its accuracy.

As to wether it is a religion - it is hard to define what exactly is a religion. Tax breaks and census results seem to be key but think on the evidence:

• prescription of certain "holy" items (Moras and Swannis)
• venerated leaders and saints (Mears and Mors)
• a desire to return to a time of "innocence" long ago (hunter gatherers anyone)
• special terminology and jargon (hootchies, scandis and firesteels)
• festivals and observances (moots )
• ritual activities (bow drill fires, making hobo stoves)

I don't think we're a religion at all really but some of the aspects concerning the stories of indigenous peoples, folk lore and a general sense of awe and wonder at the world around us do strike a chord with me.

 

[British Red]

And as for ramblers..........

Splitters!

Pass the bell, book and candle (or the Mors whistle, northern bushcraft and Uco lantern).

Do you think a head wearing a bobble hat can spin round emitting green slime?

Red

 

[Rebel]

Seems as the discussion seems to be going ok and nobody is offended , Ill give my two cents on the matter.

So now all that is left is the reason for existence since the process of existence is pretty much explained, thus the gap to squeeze the creator into has shrunk. What is to say it will not shrink further?

And science, is not a religion. It is not a religion for several important points.
Science is based on scientific method. Theories begin as hypothesis which are rigorously tested and peer reviewed. If the theory repeatedly yields correctly predicted results it is generally held to be correct. If the theory works better than an existing theory, scientists will change what they previously believed to be correct.

None of this is so about a religion. A religion is not based on tests, peer review or theory. Unlike science, religion tends to predict absolute accuracy with its ideas because it is based on revelation not logical theory. It is a fact Muhammed is the prophet, it is a fact Jesus was the son of god. It is a fact Krishna exists, so much so many people are prepared to die for their belief which they hold to be 100% correct. If a fact comes along that disproves a religious aspect, then many religious do not disband their old belief and update it, they simply ignore the evidence. Hence, definitely not, is science a religion.

So you DO spend a lot of time on Richard Dawkin's forums.

 

[Tadpole]

This needs to be clarified a little. shrodingers cat was a metaphor to illustrate how sub atomic particles work in relation to a theory called quantum superposition - that is that all particles exist in every possible position available to them until measured. Measuring them collapses the quantum wave into a fixed state. When two electrons are fired through a choice of 2 gates, they behave as a wave and pass through both gates at exactly the same time and register in two places at once. It is possible for electrons to smear themselves over time and be anywhere at once. when the experiment is measured, the particle can only be observed passing through one gate at a time. A bacterium has since been fired at massive speed and quantum superposition observed, thus showing that if something larger than the sub atomic can behave in this way, the cat is indeed both alive and dead.

This is where my understanding and my 'belief' part company I understanding what you are saying, and know that at, this moment in time, what you say is the height of what people believe is true, but I do not think that current understanding is what is really happening, and just as a few hundred years ago, we didn't have the maths for to explain the special theory of relativity, we don't have the maths/understanding yet for what we need to know before we can understand that the 'electron' is not really in the two (or more) places at once.
I think/feel that we just see/perceive/calculate them to be in two places at the same time, rather than them actually being in the same place, somewhat like watching a film, we see the movement on the screen as movement, rather than x numbers of still frames per second.
Back to what is real and what is merely our perception again.....
Sorry, but it kind of makes sense to me

 

[Shambling Shaman]

And science, is not a religion. It is not a religion for several important points.
Science is based on scientific method. Theories begin as hypothesis which are rigorously tested and peer reviewed. If the theory repeatedly yields correctly predicted results it is generally held to be correct. If the theory works better than an existing theory, scientists will change what they previously believed to be correct.
None of this is so about a religion. A religion is not based on tests, peer review or theory. Unlike science, religion tends to predict absolute accuracy with its ideas because it is based on revelation not logical theory.

Where do we stand on oral tradition? If it works and I tell the next generation is that not peer review?? And if the next generation tell the next that it worked and that they were told by the last generation is that not correctly predicted and then if all subsequent generations take it as fact with out question is that not a form of religion? Just a thought.....

 

[British Red]

I think/feel that we just see/perceive/calculate them to be in two places at the same time, rather than them actually being in the same place, somewhat like watching a film, we see the movement on the screen as movement, rather than x numbers of still frames per second.

But surely Heisenbergs uncertainty principle actually illustrates that trying to see an electron changes where it is / was in any case? Or at least the relative uncertainty of the momentum compared to the accuracy of measurement of position? So surely seeing and measuring the position of sub atomic particle actually changes the position and / or relative momentum of that particle (in an inverse proportion)

Aaah its all down to quantum

Red

 

[Glen]

Unless it peed on the ember?

Could we make it the Bushcrafters cat..?

There is a big cat in a British Woodland...and a bowdrill ember...and a 50/50 chance of a forest fire that would incinerate the big cat (that may or may not exist to begin with), plus the tinders damp.....



Red

If it survives it's a Kochanski cat

 

[LazySod]

But surely Heisenbergs uncertainty principle actually illustrates that trying to see an electron changes where it is / was in any case? Or at least the relative uncertainty of the momentum compared to the accuracy of measurement of position? So surely seeing and measuring the position of sub atomic particle actually changes the position and / or relative momentum of that particle (in an inverse proportion)

Aaah its all down to quantum

Red

So does this mean the full moon isn't there until i look at it?

 

[andywinkk]

Im not going outside i might start howling, and the missus might like it

 

[firecrest]

Where do we stand on oral tradition? If it works and I tell the next generation is that not peer review?? And if the next generation tell the next that it worked and that they were told by the last generation is that not correctly predicted and then if all subsequent generations take it as fact with out question is that not a form of religion? Just a thought.....

Works in what sense? you need to clarify work. If somebody says "these mushrooms are not poisonous" and they are not, and this is passed by oral tradition, that is science not religion!

If another clan says "these mushrooms are poisonous unless you dance and sing to them first (and the mushrooms are the same species) then it is pratical knowledge with an inhereted belief system, I guess you can call that religion, though evidence suggests we are hard wired for such exacting interpretation. When shown how to perform a task to get a sweet out of a box which involved also twirling a feather or something before undoing the lock, the human child will copy the example and always twirl the feather, even though it is completely irrelevant to opening the box, they believe it must be part of the process. A chimpanzee child when given the same task will immediately discard all irrelevance, including the illogical feather twirling. This could mean from a survival point of view its much better to copy exactly, perhaps because the tasks of extracting poison from plants (peeling blanching roasting for sets amount of time ect) are complex, may be little understood by the people that do them and with deadly consiquences if done even slightly wrong. If you know a process works but you are not quite sure how, its a good reason to repeat all the steps even if you are not sure why the person who told you included those steps.

 

[firecrest]

This is where my understanding and my 'belief' part company I understanding what you are saying, and know that at, this moment in time, what you say is the height of what people believe is true, but I do not think that current understanding is what is really happening, and just as a few hundred years ago, we didn't have the maths for to explain the special theory of relativity, we don't have the maths/understanding yet for what we need to know before we can understand that the 'electron' is not really in the two (or more) places at once.
I think/feel that we just see/perceive/calculate them to be in two places at the same time, rather than them actually being in the same place, somewhat like watching a film, we see the movement on the screen as movement, rather than x numbers of still frames per second.
Back to what is real and what is merely our perception again.....
Sorry, but it kind of makes sense to me

Its more likely they are in two places at once. Time is a property of physical matter ( I think) it is not the backdrop against which events are played out. It doesnt flow anywhere, if you go far enough into space and look back at earth will a telescope, you see dinosaurs, so where is the moment of Now? if you move you go forward faster through time. I think this makes time relative to oneself. It might be 1973 where you are and im talking to you in the future!

Also, Einstein asks a good question - If you are travelling on a train and you see lightning strike two points whilst you are travelling fast between the two, you will see lightning strike the one ahead a split second before the one behind you, yet a person stood still sees them strike both at the same time. So who is right? They are both right!

 

[Shambling Shaman]

firecrest you do make an interesting point, my be we are confusing belief with Organized religion.

 

[LazySod]

so this quantum stuff.........

Remember the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Is the quantum answer.... No, because the tree isn't there unless someone looks at it, or, is within hearing distance.

 

[Mesquite]

Man this thread has gone so far over my head I never even heard the whoosh as it went over......

 

[Spikey DaPikey]

Is the moon still there ? Or is it hiding

 

[spiritofold]

Is the moon still there ? Or is it hiding

It would seem the moon affects people in different ways

 

[Tadpole]

But surely Heisenbergs uncertainty principle actually illustrates that trying to see an electron changes where it is / was in any case? Or at least the relative uncertainty of the momentum compared to the accuracy of measurement of position? So surely seeing and measuring the position of sub atomic particle actually changes the position and / or relative momentum of that particle (in an inverse proportion)

Aaah its all down to quantum

Red

Don’t we have compensators to deal with the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? Or is that just on Star-Trek
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is valid only for measurement rather than observation
I agree that the current method of measuring the positions of protons to determine the position of atoms does have an affect on the position of the atom. However, 50 years ago the only way to measure and record Roman Britain was to dig it up, thus destroying.affecting the very thing you were trying to record and measure. Now they have tools that mean they can both explore and preserve the Roman sites without changing/effecting them.
I’m sure, in the future atoms, will be able to be measured without their measurement affecting their properties, mathematically it is possible already to measure all the pre-existing properties of an atom/proton.

Its more likely they are in two places at once. Time is a property of physical matter ( I think) it is not the backdrop against which events are played out. It doesnt flow anywhere, if you go far enough into space and look back at earth will a telescope, you see dinosaurs, so where is the moment of Now? !

This has to do more with the property of light speed and less to do with ‘time’. Light speed is finite, and just supposing you could travel faster than it, which you would need to be able to, just to get past “the present” and look back at the earth, what you would be seeing would not be the present and the past, you’d be looking at the properties of the speed at which light travels. When we look up in the sky at the stars, some of which, in our ‘present’, no longer exist, having blown themselves to bit millennia ago. What we see is the light from them, not the stars themselves. They are not ‘existing’ and at the same time ‘not existing’. Take a snapshot of a cake just before you eat it, the fact the image still exist does not mean that the cake still exists in its “cake like” form

if you move you go forward faster through time. I think this makes time relative to oneself. It might be 1973 where you are and im talking to you in the future! !

Wow I’m 9 years old all over again, ;(

Also, Einstein asks a good question - If you are travelling on a train and you see lightning strike two points whilst you are travelling fast between the two, you will see lightning strike the one ahead a split second before the one behind you, yet a person stood still sees them strike both at the same time. So who is right? They are both right!

Not really, this is again perception versus reality, in the reality of the real world they were a split second apart. The person who is stationary only perceived them as simultaneous.

I'm getting a headache

 

[Tadpole]

so this quantum stuff.........

Remember the age old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Is the quantum answer.... No, because the tree isn't there unless someone looks at it, or, is within hearing distance.

If a man makes a decision whilst unobserved by his wife, is everything he does still wrong? :yelrotflm

 

[British Red]

I’m sure, in the future atoms, will be able to be measured without their measurement affecting their properties,

Aaah so faith that an unknown, untested future will be better?

That m'lud concludes the case for the prosecution

"this house believes that "science" has all the attributes of a "religion".........."

Red