purpose of the sun

[Psychobilly]

Used to be used for wrapping chips when I was a kid...   Oh you mean that big shinny thing not the paper....   ...

Peter...

[bejay1957]

Agreed, but that's not WHY it is there

A variant on the old Spike Milligan line - everything's got to be somewhere

[RichM63]

And making my paper round bag heavy.

I don't see how a thread title commencing with the 'purpose' of a natural object could not involve philosophy or religion, 'purpose' is a sentient idea. (H2G2 ch 25)

However the big bright thing brings me happiness.

[Stu]

And making my paper round bag heavy.

I don't see how a thread title commencing with the 'purpose' of a natural object could not involve philosophy or religion, 'purpose' is a sentient idea. (H2G2 ch 25)

However the big bright thing brings me happiness.

Perhaps you don't Rich, but them's the rules on SGL so let's all please abide by them.

[wheresthetorch?]

But...but... Oh, ok then..

[jabeoo1]

It's harsh to start a topic like this on a forum that bans religion! Many cultures would have a different answer to those posted above.

Yes true, just as the forums I choose not to read ban thinking based on the data accumulated though the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Many of the contributions on here encompass science on the cusp where boundaries are blurred to the edge of the data and interpretations of the observations, which is plenty for most to be thinking about. 

[ollypenrice]

Someimes a certain courage is necessary. SGL is an astronomy forum and astronomy is a science and science follows a certain philosophical method. If, in defending that method, we fall foul of the rules over religion then where does that leave us? We cannot discuss religion and we cannot discuss science. So what's left? The merits of Takahashi? Please, no.

I know it's difficult so maybe we should ask the OP what he or she really wants to discuss? If it is is religion then there are other places for that.

If it is 'What does the sun do for us?' then that is a wonderful question and we're all, no doubt, twitching with ideas!

- It is the source of almost all of our immediate energy. Not all our energy by any means since much of our energy derives from a pre-solar state. (The real source of energy is what threw the big bang up into the air in the first place... maybe??)

- For a serious read on the role of stars, and the statistical difficulties associated with their formation, Lee Smolin's The Life of the Cosmos takes a bit of beating.

I do think we need to stand by science. If we don't, who will?

Olly

[ronin]

Suppose there is no purpose for it, there just is a sun.

A consequence of the evolution of this specific universe and the odd assortment of rules it runs by.

Actually quite a lot of the things, usually hiding behind clouds, and quite a lot of them seem to prefer the southern hemisphere and congregate down there.

[wheresthetorch?]

Let's keep the thread to factual/physics based comments or it will be locked.

That's Darwinism out then!

[jabeoo1]

That's Darwinism out then!

Mmmmm.  Interesting that many will readily dismiss Darwin's theory of evolution with no knowledge of genetics yet many will accept Einstein's theory of relativity with no knowledge of physics or maths.  To be suggesting that Evolution is not based on observational data is an interesting perspective to be holding but again maybe another discussion for another forum.  The book River out of Eden is a good starting point, Climbing Mount Improbable another step on and the Blind Watchmaker is maybe essential too.  I personally have not read anywhere near as much literature on Relativity as I have genetics & biological sciences, but I highly recommend these books if you want to prime yourself in a subject many appear to dismiss before even understanding the central dogma.  

[wheresthetorch?]

Indeed. I was really just questioning the words 'fact' (it is a theory, after all, albeit an excellent one) and 'physics' (surely biology?) in relation to Darwinism.

I guess I was just being a bit provocative!

[Qualia]

What is the purpose of our sun

As it stands, we run into a dilemma.

On the one hand, it is extremely difficult to know how this string of words ought to be completed. The statement: "What is the purpose of our sun....", presumably is intended to be completed in some form as "....when it buys an icecream?" But I imagine that isn't how others would attend to the unfinished statement. No one here really has any idea what completion Hull intend and so until clarified, we ought not to assume anything, for assuming makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me' .

On the other hand, we may assume that a simple question mark is missing from the OP but if that is so, we run into a conceptual problem, for now there is the interrogating claim that the Sun might have purpose.

In terms of logic, we run the risk of formulating a question which confuses cause and effect, starting with an effect (the existence of the Sun) and then assuming some intent (cause) to it (final goal, purpose).

Needless to say, to assert that the Sun has a purpose implies that the Sun has a desired outcome. But who does the desiring? Each individual hydrogen and helium atom inside the Sun? The proto-sun? The gas and dust from which the proto-sun arose? The former, now dead, Population II star from which some of our own star is made? And pray tell, how exactly do atoms, protons, electons, neutrons etc have intention? And what exactly is their intended outcome?

Without resource to some crystal ball, or presumptuously assuming knowledge far from empirical groundings, are answers to these type of pseudo-questions even possible?

It follows that I feel the OP was not being entirely sincere. The opening post was left extremely ambiguous and whether this was intentional or not is beside the point. As highlighted, one is either assuming something of the OP, running the risk of making a conceptual error or perhaps worse, answering that which cannot be answered other than filling in with all too human hubris and arrogant and delusional assessments.

It is in this light that I ask each of you to support what BigSumorian (Stu) has already politely asked of all of us. I feel it would be a great shame to see sincere and sympathetic members here get caught up in a 'battle of wits' or a gentle 'flaming war' over that which in itself makes no sense.

[DRT]

The Mods might wish to review the OP's 47 posts. All one liners, all a little provocative, all a bit random.

Perhaps the purpose of the Sun is to add one more post towards a post count?

[goodricke1]

 

Nature has no purposes, it has only consequences. This is the message of Darwinism. Random mutation modifies a living thing. No purpose there. The mutant thrives or expires in its environment. No purpose there. It lives to reproduce it's mutation or it does not. No purpose there.

Nature is stuffed with consequences but it is a classic mistake to confuse these with intentions or purposes.

Olly

The philosophical inadequacy of that dogma should be self-evident but is misunderstood by many so...

The theory of evolution has been worked out by the human brain but...

... the human brain is a product of evolution so...

any attempt to comprehend evolution is entirely based on... itself!! (the human brain)

Therefore Darwinism is merely one more philosophical tautology; a description of reality rather than an explanation.

[hullobservertory]

It must have a reason because science says if sun goes bang we are up the swanny

[Ant]

We appear to be going around and around in circles.

I think that this thread has run its course, especially as the last post is basically the first post reworded.

Ant