Simple math, ancient Egypt:

Originally posted by @handyandy
Do you believe 80-year-olds need to be reminded that they should die soon?

When they are being jack asses, it is my solace. They can find out soon if they are correct.

The younger people will find out later.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
Very good question. Religion eludes to the meaning as science pertains to the mechanism. Is there a reason they should be mutually exclusive?

"religion eludes ... the meaning" -- oh what a telling malapropism. The meaning of religion certainly eludes Eladar.

But, to answer your question: it depends on how one interprets religion and its putative statements.

If one interprets certain religious statements as literal fact, for example that the Earth is the center of the universe in an astronomical sense, then religion has trouble maintaining credibility against scientific evidence to the contrary. The same applies to trying to interpret the Book of Genesis as literal fact regarding how and when life appeared on Earth, the ages of the Earth and the universe, the flood and Noah's ark, and all the rest of it. The Book of Genesis holds up very poorly against the combined evidence of astronomy, geology, peleontology, biology, genetics, paleobiology, and so on.

However, if one interprets religion allegorically, not as statements of fact, but as moral exhortation, then there are no grounds for thinking the two must be mutually exclusive. Interpreted allegorically, the Book of Genesis is not a factual history of what happened and how, but a morality lesson, why the Hebrews needed a messiah (because they disobeyed). Interpreted allegorically, the Book of Genesis exhorts man to recognize and accept that man is the center of the universe in the sense that man alone among the animals is conscious of his mortality and bears moral responsibility for his actions.

Originally posted by @moonbus
"religion eludes ... the meaning" -- oh what a telling malapropism. The meaning of religion certainly eludes Eladar.

But, to answer your question: it depends on how one interprets religion and its putative statements.

If one interprets certain religious statements as literal fact, for example that the Earth is the center of the universe in an [i]astr ...[text shortened]... among the animals is conscious of his mortality and bears moral responsibility for his actions.

I'm inclined to agree on the face of it but I would ask you this. What if it could be proven that planet earth was the only planet that contained life in existence? Given that science goes someway to implying that in the absence of consciousness matter only exists as a probability. Could it then be said that the one source of consciousness is the centre of the universe?
Or how about this. What if humans go on to create the universe. Could it then be said that humans are it's centre or even the machine that created it? or are you describing centre as a purely posited concept?
Also are you saying that something allegorical cannot be factual within the context of the technologies at the time. We can see this played out throughout history in many civilizations interpretations of flying devices. I think it's a matter of right tool for the job. Not just in a sense of controlling a populace but providing the appropriate metaphor. However, you'd have to be stupid not to realise that this kind of condescension doesn't nearly always lead to a system of control and manipulation for the better informed.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
I'm inclined to agree on the face of it but I would ask you this. What if it could be proven that planet earth was the only planet that contained life in existence? Given that science goes someway to implying that in the absence of consciousness matter only exists as a probability. Could it then be said that the one source of consciousness is the ...[text shortened]... sion doesn't nearly always lead to a system of control and manipulation for the better informed.

Sorry, you offer too many posits to answer them all in one post ostensibly in a mathematics thread.

Allegory need not conflict with fact, but, as Joseph Campbell once said, religion must be at least roughly compatible with what is known about nature, otherwise it is superstition. It is much easier to believe in magic and miracles when ignorance about basic natural laws is widespread, and such ignorance was very widespread until only a few hundred years ago. Such ignorance is still very much in evidence in some parts of the world and even in parts where public schooling is mandatory.

It is well to remind ourselves that the Salem witch trials occurred as recently as the end of the 17th c. in an ostensibly civilised country, and that twenty of the accused were found guilty and executed for imaginary crimes. That is not so long ago on an evolutionary time scale, and we are not entirely rid of that sort of superstition even now: a woman was executed for witchcraft in Saudi Arabia only within the last few years, and albinos are sometimes lynched in some parts of the world.

Beware of falling into the intellectual trap of over-estimating the cosmic significance of consciousness. As Nietzsche said, consciousness may be an evolutionary failure, destined for self-induced extinction. We have been here much less time than dinosaurs were.

Mankind tends to think of himself as the most interesting thing in the universe and likes to think of himself as the center of the (moral or conscious) universe, metaphorically if not astronomically; see, for example, the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), which I consider to be sheer megalomania. No one wants us to be here, apart from ourselves, and the universe would get on just fine without us.

Originally posted by @eladar
When they are being jack asses, it is my solace. They can find out soon if they are correct.

The younger people will find out later.

If being a jackass is the key to mortality. your own demise is right around the corner. You won't be missed.

Originally posted by @humy
what is "radio dating"? You can't even get the name right which hints on how little you know of it.

So you claim you don't know what radio carbon dating is? Why don't you google it, and maybe learn something.

There is a known ratio between certain isotopes that changes with time, like C-13 compared to C14. Do you know what I am talking about here even? That an element, say Hydrogen, normally has an electron sluicing around a proton and it has an AMU of one. But you can also stick in a neutron which doesn't change the fact that it is still hydrogen, but now a different isotope of hydrogen. If instead you slammed 2 protons together it would no longer be hydrogen but an extra neutron does not change the chemical nature of the original element.

So the same thing happens with carbon, there is carbon 13 and there is carbon 14 which is carbon with an extra neutron slipping in. It snugs itself in there and the carbon atom is now a bit more massive but it is still carbon.

If you care to learn, here is a short clip on it:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-141.htm

Cosmic rays hit atmospheric atoms and through several chain reactions, carbon 14 is formed which is radioactive, that is, it slowly decays, half of it gone over a period of nearly 6000 years. So when stuff containing carbon which will include some C14, and that life form dies and is buried, no new C14 is generated so it starts it's long slide downwards to nothing. It is good for dating carbon containing artifact back to about 40,000 or so years and the problems with such a dating system are well known and are in fact taken into account when using this technique for dating.

Of course your response will be some variation of, can they see it? How can they prove that, or some such. There is nothing I can say to you that will convince you otherwise since your mind is totally blocked for such things. To you it is hand waving and voodoo which is YOUR problem not ours.

Originally posted by @eladar
When they are being jack asses, it is my solace. They can find out soon if they are correct.

The younger people will find out later.

The man you worship as God preached and practiced love of one's fellow man and humility in answer to mockery and derision. You have absorbed none of that.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
So you claim you don't know what radio carbon dating is? Why don't you google it, and maybe learn something.

There is a known ratio between certain isotopes that changes with time, like C-13 compared to C14. Do you know what I am talking about here even? That an element, say Hydrogen, normally has an electron sluicing around a proton and it has an AMU o ...[text shortened]... lly blocked for such things. To you it is hand waving and voodoo which is YOUR problem not ours.

Directed at Eladar, not humy, of course.

Originally posted by @moonbus...

Beware of falling into the intellectual trap of over-estimating the cosmic significance of consciousness. As Nietzsche said, consciousness may be an evolutionary failure, destined for self-induced extinction. We have been here much less time than dinosaurs were....

Dinosaurs weren't conscious?

Also, in terms of survival, we have accomplished far more than the dinosaurs did, and in far less time. That may be a reason to avoid under-estimating the cosmic significance of consciousness.

Originally posted by @christopher-albon
I'm inclined to agree on the face of it but I would ask you this. What if it could be proven that planet earth was the only planet that contained life in existence? Given that science goes someway to implying that in the absence of consciousness matter only exists as a probability. Could it then be said that the one source of consciousness is the ...[text shortened]... sion doesn't nearly always lead to a system of control and manipulation for the better informed.

There is no way in hell humans could ever prove Earth is the only planet sustaining life. For one thing, even if we could travel at the speed of light, there is a big portion of the universe forever out of our reach because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and even if humans were around for a billion years and spent all that time looking for and not finding life elsewhere, the most humans could see in that time is a sphere 2 billion light years across and that is only a blip on the universe we can SEE in a telescope. The visible universe is almost 14 billion light years wide and just geometrically speaking, given a space craft going at the speed of light, we could not see anything past that sphere I described. So we could never 100% rule out life elsewhere even if in a billion years of searching we found none.

But more likely is we will find life in our own solar system, the most likely thing going on is life will find itself starting anywhere there is even halfway compatible conditions. We are not even ruling out life on Titan which has liquid methane oceans and life of a slow moving variety could form there with different chemistry going on.

I think it much more likely that Earth is not in any kind of special place in the universe nor especially special in having life. It is a huge universe with hundreds of billions of GALAXIES much less number of stars which number also in the hundreds of billions in each galaxy or more.

I think it arrogant of any human thinking we are so special that we would be on the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life.

Right now we can't even look for planets outside our own galaxy, like Andromeda galaxy which is as we speak bearing down on our own milky way and a huge collision is inevitable in a few billion years, of course by that time not only will humans be extinct but our own planet will likely be extinct because the sun will eventually run out of hydrogen fuel and start to expand to a size where Earth will be part of the solar atmosphere and Earth would just be a cinder at that point in time.

My guess is although planets suitable for life may be say only one in a million (which I think on the high side) there are literally billions of planets in our own galaxy and even at that rate would mean thousands of planets suitable for life in our galaxy alone. And remember, there are literally hundreds of billions of galaxy. So do the math🙂

@sonhouse

Trying to get back on topic here, the great pyramid continues to yield up mysteries:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41845445

So, what does anyone think? Architecturally sound planning, storage room left over from the building phase, a honey pot to divert potential grave robbers?

Originally posted by @moonbus
@sonhouse

Trying to get back on topic here, the great pyramid continues to yield up mysteries:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41845445

So, what does anyone think? Architecturally sound planning, storage room left over from the building phase, a honey pot to divert potential grave robbers?

I heard about that, using cosmic rays somehow to get info inside the pyramid. I wonder how long it will take to get a visual probe inside?

Researchers are applying to get permission to drill into the interior space. Below is a link to the original article:

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaap/ncurrent/full/nature24647.html

Originally posted by @apathist
Dinosaurs weren't conscious?

Also, in terms of survival, we have accomplished far more than the dinosaurs did, and in far less time. That may be a reason to avoid under-estimating the cosmic significance of consciousness.

We have over-populated the planet and are in the process of rendering large parts of it no longer suitable for human habitation, in less than ten thousand years. Idiots are chopping down the last unspoiled rain forest in Brazil as fast as they can drive bulldozers in there, and thereby eliminating one of the last best carbon sinks.

Our pesticides and other toxic wastes are accumulating in the environment and adversely affecting bees and other pollinators. Without pollinators, we will struggle to grow enough food to feed ourselves.

This is an "accomplishment"? I don't think so. Any species which over-populates and spoils its habitat is on the fast track to extinction.

Originally posted by @moonbus
We have over-populated the planet and are in the process of rendering large parts of it no longer suitable for human habitation, in less than ten thousand years. Idiots are chopping down the last unspoiled rain forest in Brazil as fast as they can drive bulldozers in there, and thereby eliminating one of the last best carbon sinks.

Our pesticides and ot ...[text shortened]... so. Any species which over-populates and spoils its habitat is on the fast track to extinction.

Trouble is, like a drunk driver, if he hits a tree and kills himself, one less assswipe on the road but usually he takes others with him.

Like humans are causing the biggest mass extinction event for the last 70 million years as we speak and if we do the planet a favor by offing ourselves, we will take 90 % of all life with us.