Protocol (General)
Whateverist: I'm still experimenting with ways of formatting quotes. Is there any standard protocol here?-David: Set up 'quote message' and leave the quote you want and type in the your thoughts. Be sure to leave the '>' before line you are responding to, to make it italics. Delete what you wish.-The only problem with the above method is that sometimes you don't know who said what ... especially when you're trying to cover multiple exchanges. I think it's essential to make this identification, and so whatever method you use (I copy and paste), do please insert the name of the author of each quote, as in a playscript (see above).-There are two other problems that keep recurring: 1) a thread that runs out of control, and 2) a sudden plethora of new threads that could easily be subsumed under existing ones (and that tend to fizzle out after one or two posts). I guess this is partly a matter of taste, and if everyone else is happy with the way things are, OK. I find it messy and sometimes hard to follow. For example, the thread "Asking of the Designer..." is now covering a wide variety of themes, including why bother with God?, abiogenesis, the role of computer models, David's book (Science vs Religion)...-I will try to separate these myself, unless there is a howl of outrage and you all prefer to let things go on as they are. I can't do it today anyway - but perhaps you can try with your new responses to one another - as I have an extremely pressing engagement with the TV set. This is the 3rd day of the second test match (cricket) between England and India, upon which the future of the universe depends. As I'm sure you're all aware, the Lord rested on the seventh day in order to watch a game of cricket, having spent the previous six days working out the laws. Who am I to ignore his example?
Protocol
by David Turell 
, Sunday, July 31, 2011, 15:00 (4674 days ago) @ dhw
As I'm sure you're all aware, the Lord rested on the seventh day in order to watch a game of cricket, having spent the previous six days working out the laws. Who am I to ignore his example?-You may be kidding but there is serious thought given to the laws of physics pre-existing the Big Bang:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128221.100-existence-why-is-there-a-universe.html?page=1
Protocol
by whateverist , Sunday, July 31, 2011, 19:29 (4673 days ago) @ David Turell
David: "the laws of physics pre-existing the Big Bang"-I suspect that is right. Leastwise, for matter and energy as we find them now, the laws of physics seem to be at least implicit. They go together. Pre-bang perhaps not, or perhaps the laws of physics that apply to that ordering of matter/energy/? are continuous with the laws of physics that apply to the universe we find now, even if we are too dim to make the connection. All I would want to say is that the relationship between the universe and the laws of physics is not arbitrary or casual.-To show you just how naive I am when it comes to the question of big bangs I have to admit to harboring the suspicion that beyond the universe of galaxies expanding from what we call the big bang .. far, far beyond it .. no, still further than that .. there could be other regions just as vast containing 'tons' of matter/energy/? pulsing to its own drummer. Perhaps there is even some manner in which the regions interact. The scale is mind boggling but less troubling to me than imagining the borders of a single universe where space and time begin or end with a bang.
Protocol
by David Turell , Sunday, July 31, 2011, 22:07 (4673 days ago) @ whateverist
All I would want to say is that the relationship between the universe and the laws of physics is not arbitrary or casual.-My thinking exactly > > there could be other regions just as vast containing 'tons' of matter/energy/? pulsing to its own drummer. Perhaps there is even some manner in which the regions interact. The scale is mind boggling but less troubling to me than imagining the borders of a single universe where space and time begin or end with a bang.-I'm still quite comforable with our one universe. We can't prove or observe the others, and there is no proof that 'chaotic inflation" created multiple universe regions connected to this one (Linde-Valenkin). This one universe is headed for heat death in 100 billion years, it seems. Unless I reincarnate, so what. Of course, I'm working from conclusions of my own.
Protocol
by whateverist , Sunday, July 31, 2011, 15:10 (4674 days ago) @ dhw
No howl at all here. Having no idea what is possible or how much trouble it would be, I have a suggestion. I wonder if you could lift an entire branch of a run-on post to create a new post but leave in its place a kind of url that would take you to that new post. I like the little flow chart thingy at the bottom of each post so if you go to the newly created post from there you'd be less likely to miss anything.
Protocol
Whateveritist: I wonder if you could lift an entire branch of a run-on post to create a new post but leave in its place a kind of url that would take you to that new post.-I couldn't. I am as hopeless at computer technology as I am at maths (hence my keeping a discreet silence on Matt's probability question), but I will pass your suggestion on to Neil, the technical genius who set up and maintains this site. Thank you.
Protocol
by whateverist , Monday, August 01, 2011, 14:35 (4673 days ago) @ dhw
I would be just as hopeless when it comes to this sort of technology. It really doesn't matter to me though. Either way, split or lump. By the way, did the correct cricketers win?