In the beginning . . . page 1
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 04:44 PM
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.
-Terry Pratchett
One of the things that keeps me from Atheism (lord knows there are plenty of reasons provided by organized religions for me to disavow God) is the fact that we exist at all.
Actually, that anything exists at all . . .
The science of the Big Bang seems dependent on the idea that either a singularity exploded or that multiple universes collided and our universe was a result of that collision.
Personally, I favor M Theory and the idea of the collision . . .
But, no matter how you slice it, our universe is full of mass and energy (same thing - I know). And the unanswered question is really why we have any of that.
Mass/energy cannot be created. It can only change forms. Yet, here it is.
It had to come from an origin.
Even M Theory depends upon something existing before our universe, such as the minimum of 2 previous universes.
When Science can show how nothing became something, I'll reconsider my religious views. Until then, I believe in a creator.
-Terry Pratchett
One of the things that keeps me from Atheism (lord knows there are plenty of reasons provided by organized religions for me to disavow God) is the fact that we exist at all.
Actually, that anything exists at all . . .
The science of the Big Bang seems dependent on the idea that either a singularity exploded or that multiple universes collided and our universe was a result of that collision.
Personally, I favor M Theory and the idea of the collision . . .
But, no matter how you slice it, our universe is full of mass and energy (same thing - I know). And the unanswered question is really why we have any of that.
Mass/energy cannot be created. It can only change forms. Yet, here it is.
It had to come from an origin.
Even M Theory depends upon something existing before our universe, such as the minimum of 2 previous universes.
When Science can show how nothing became something, I'll reconsider my religious views. Until then, I believe in a creator.
nostrum
23rd January 2012, 04:47 PM
Not understanding something currently is not a good reason to think goddidit IMO.
Hermit
23rd January 2012, 05:03 PM
Yeah.
We don't know. Therefore god.
We can't know. Therefore dogma.
We don't know. Therefore god.
We can't know. Therefore dogma.
Gonzo
23rd January 2012, 05:09 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Reliant
23rd January 2012, 05:14 PM
Asking what there was before the Big Bang (to loosely quote Hawking) is like asking what is south of the south pole.
Gonzo
23rd January 2012, 05:28 PM
I think it's silly to suppose there was ever a beginning at all. I think the universe has constantly existed in infinity. The matter and energy has and always will be there, just reforming itself forever. That is God-enough for me, I'd say. That it's there at all.
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 05:36 PM
All reasonable points. Thank you.
I have a couple of reasons why I think a Creator is involved.
For the sake of argument, I am not picturing a white-bearded man on a throne of clouds.
Man's science is not a feeble tool. We have generally been able to reproduce every condition we see in nature or have conjectured to exist in nature. At no point have we seen matter/energy be created or destroyed. Granted, I understand that my argument would fall flat in the stone age, but this isn't the stone age.
So, we're left with two facts: Mass/energy exists and no natural force could have created it. In fact, there would be no "natural force" without the existence of mass/energy.
So, if this mass/energy were not created, the only explanations are that it was either created by a Creator, or that it has existed forever and merely came into a single point of our universe from somewhere else.
If you choose the latter, the same question remains: where did that mass/energy come from?
Science tells us that time itself will ultimately undo this universe. It will continue to expand and deteriorate through the Age of the Photon and eventually disappear. Yes, this means that mass/energy can be destroyed. The corollary is that it must also be able to be created since it is here and has a definite lifespan.
Thus, science points to the idea that existence is not a natural state.
And I trust science enough to help me form the logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.
I also understand that many folks will push against my reasoning for the benefit of their own desire to think they live in a universe without a Creator. I'm cool with that. I'm not trying to convert people to Theism. I'm just saying that I'm convinced that Science paints a picture that our universe should not exist at all without a Creator.
Part 2 in a minute as I respond to the other question.
I have a couple of reasons why I think a Creator is involved.
For the sake of argument, I am not picturing a white-bearded man on a throne of clouds.
Man's science is not a feeble tool. We have generally been able to reproduce every condition we see in nature or have conjectured to exist in nature. At no point have we seen matter/energy be created or destroyed. Granted, I understand that my argument would fall flat in the stone age, but this isn't the stone age.
So, we're left with two facts: Mass/energy exists and no natural force could have created it. In fact, there would be no "natural force" without the existence of mass/energy.
So, if this mass/energy were not created, the only explanations are that it was either created by a Creator, or that it has existed forever and merely came into a single point of our universe from somewhere else.
If you choose the latter, the same question remains: where did that mass/energy come from?
Science tells us that time itself will ultimately undo this universe. It will continue to expand and deteriorate through the Age of the Photon and eventually disappear. Yes, this means that mass/energy can be destroyed. The corollary is that it must also be able to be created since it is here and has a definite lifespan.
Thus, science points to the idea that existence is not a natural state.
And I trust science enough to help me form the logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.
I also understand that many folks will push against my reasoning for the benefit of their own desire to think they live in a universe without a Creator. I'm cool with that. I'm not trying to convert people to Theism. I'm just saying that I'm convinced that Science paints a picture that our universe should not exist at all without a Creator.
Part 2 in a minute as I respond to the other question.
Reliant
23rd January 2012, 05:43 PM
I think your conclusion is bollox, based on some very fuzzy conclusions about the nature of what the universe is actually like. So far the facts do not allow a creator into the game it seems to me.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 05:52 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 05:58 PM
I think your conclusion is bollox, based on some very fuzzy conclusions about the nature of what the universe is actually like. So far the facts do not allow a creator into the game it seems to me.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Thanks for answering.
Sure, my conclusion is not perfect.
But, I look at the evidence and think there is more likely a Creator than not, and you do the opposite.
That is your right.
I come from a family of scientists. We all have come to the same conclusion.
It doesn't really matter because I don't think God actually gives a shit whether you believe in Him or not. I think that's corporate religion trying to sell you a line to help them make money.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Thanks for answering.
Sure, my conclusion is not perfect.
But, I look at the evidence and think there is more likely a Creator than not, and you do the opposite.
That is your right.
I come from a family of scientists. We all have come to the same conclusion.
It doesn't really matter because I don't think God actually gives a shit whether you believe in Him or not. I think that's corporate religion trying to sell you a line to help them make money.
ericv00
23rd January 2012, 06:01 PM
Time is a quality of the universe. The universe as a whole exists outside of time.
Reliant
23rd January 2012, 06:22 PM
I think your conclusion is bollox, based on some very fuzzy conclusions about the nature of what the universe is actually like. So far the facts do not allow a creator into the game it seems to me.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Thanks for answering.
Sure, my conclusion is not perfect.
But, I look at the evidence and think there is more likely a Creator than not, and you do the opposite.
That is your right.
I come from a family of scientists. We all have come to the same conclusion.
It doesn't really matter because I don't think God actually gives a shit whether you believe in Him or not. I think that's corporate religion trying to sell you a line to help them make money.
Well I dunno what you have inherited from your scientific family but rigorous empirical thought isn't part of it. You are suggesting that in the absence of a full scientific understanding you will invoke a creator. Its the same old god of the gaps argument with absolutely no evidence to back it up and in any case you are still left with the age old 'who created god?' question.
Here's another hypothesis, perhaps with a slightly more empirical foundation to back it up. Note however I am not saying this is a possibility or a probability. Its a decent hypothesis though and requires no supernatural intervention.
The universe dies out as an unimaginably huge sea of photons as all other atomic activity does out - suns and black holes long gone. Eventually the sea of photons is so vast and so dispersed that no information of any sort can pass between them. Scale, distance, mass and energy - all become meaningless in a universe which no longer even has dimensions. This becomes the new similarity.
Why in any case, go to the god solution, when it has never proved to be reliable in the past? And if you do, then you have the question of his/her/its interest or otherwise in the scum crawling around on this tiny ball of almost nothing.
Thanks for answering.
Sure, my conclusion is not perfect.
But, I look at the evidence and think there is more likely a Creator than not, and you do the opposite.
That is your right.
I come from a family of scientists. We all have come to the same conclusion.
It doesn't really matter because I don't think God actually gives a shit whether you believe in Him or not. I think that's corporate religion trying to sell you a line to help them make money.
Well I dunno what you have inherited from your scientific family but rigorous empirical thought isn't part of it. You are suggesting that in the absence of a full scientific understanding you will invoke a creator. Its the same old god of the gaps argument with absolutely no evidence to back it up and in any case you are still left with the age old 'who created god?' question.
Here's another hypothesis, perhaps with a slightly more empirical foundation to back it up. Note however I am not saying this is a possibility or a probability. Its a decent hypothesis though and requires no supernatural intervention.
The universe dies out as an unimaginably huge sea of photons as all other atomic activity does out - suns and black holes long gone. Eventually the sea of photons is so vast and so dispersed that no information of any sort can pass between them. Scale, distance, mass and energy - all become meaningless in a universe which no longer even has dimensions. This becomes the new similarity.
Gonzo
23rd January 2012, 06:26 PM
You are really taking the creationist's position, Zig. As in, intelligent design. As hard as it is for me to imagine there could have been a beginning to all this, I find it even harder to believe there will be an end.
Gonzo
23rd January 2012, 06:26 PM
You draw a line, I draw a circle.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 06:58 PM
So, if this mass/energy were not created [by natural forces], the only explanations are that it was either created by a Creator, or that it has existed forever and merely came into a single point of our universe from somewhere else.
Creation and destruction are meaningful concepts when applied to things within the universe. It's not clear that they are meaningful when applied to the universe as a whole. Thus, the principle that mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed is a statement of the way things work within our universe. And I see no reason to assert that the overall mass/energy of our universe was ever "created" at all, in any sense of the word.
Science tells us that time itself will ultimately undo this universe. It will continue to expand and deteriorate through the Age of the Photon and eventually disappear. Yes, this means that mass/energy can be destroyed.
I have no idea where you got that from, but wherever it was, I think you probably misread it.
Thus, science points to the idea that existence is not a natural state.
No, it doesn't.
And I trust science enough to help me form the logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.
I can't see that your belief in a Creator has anything to do with science, to be honest. It appears to me that you've started from some scientific ideas that have been mangled beyond recognition, and then made some giant leaps from there. It really doesn't look like a logical conclusion.
I also understand that many folks will push against my reasoning for the benefit of their own desire to think they live in a universe without a Creator.
It's not about "desire".
If you present sloppy reasoning, as you have here, then you can't get away with dismissing all criticism as stemming from a "desire" to hold opinions contrary to yours.
Creation and destruction are meaningful concepts when applied to things within the universe. It's not clear that they are meaningful when applied to the universe as a whole. Thus, the principle that mass/energy cannot be created nor destroyed is a statement of the way things work within our universe. And I see no reason to assert that the overall mass/energy of our universe was ever "created" at all, in any sense of the word.
Science tells us that time itself will ultimately undo this universe. It will continue to expand and deteriorate through the Age of the Photon and eventually disappear. Yes, this means that mass/energy can be destroyed.
I have no idea where you got that from, but wherever it was, I think you probably misread it.
Thus, science points to the idea that existence is not a natural state.
No, it doesn't.
And I trust science enough to help me form the logical conclusion that there must be a Creator.
I can't see that your belief in a Creator has anything to do with science, to be honest. It appears to me that you've started from some scientific ideas that have been mangled beyond recognition, and then made some giant leaps from there. It really doesn't look like a logical conclusion.
I also understand that many folks will push against my reasoning for the benefit of their own desire to think they live in a universe without a Creator.
It's not about "desire".
If you present sloppy reasoning, as you have here, then you can't get away with dismissing all criticism as stemming from a "desire" to hold opinions contrary to yours.
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 07:01 PM
The only real evidence I have is that stuff exists with no explanation as to why.
Mass=Energy, right?
So, whether there was mass or energy at first, there should have been none.
When we first saw trees, we didn't think of seeds. When we first saw light, we didn't think of nuclear fusion. Now we see the universe, we plot its mass as coming from a single point. We extrapolate where it will go.
To think there was no "seed" is the scientifically blind position.
Mass=Energy, right?
So, whether there was mass or energy at first, there should have been none.
When we first saw trees, we didn't think of seeds. When we first saw light, we didn't think of nuclear fusion. Now we see the universe, we plot its mass as coming from a single point. We extrapolate where it will go.
To think there was no "seed" is the scientifically blind position.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 07:06 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
You're missing the point.
You argued that the existence of the universe needs an explanation, and invoked a creator to answer that need.
If the (existence of the) universe needs an explanation, then so does your hypothetical creator.
If the creator doesn't, then the universe doesn't either.
Pick your poison.
This "creator" hypothesis doesn't shed any light on any ongoing scientific problems. As far as I can see, it doesn't shed any light on any real questions at all.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
You're missing the point.
You argued that the existence of the universe needs an explanation, and invoked a creator to answer that need.
If the (existence of the) universe needs an explanation, then so does your hypothetical creator.
If the creator doesn't, then the universe doesn't either.
Pick your poison.
This "creator" hypothesis doesn't shed any light on any ongoing scientific problems. As far as I can see, it doesn't shed any light on any real questions at all.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 07:16 PM
The only real evidence I have is that stuff exists with no explanation as to why.
But whatever "creator" you invoke, the same question can be asked again: Why does that exist? And so on, ad infinitum. Nothing is gained by that line of reasoning.
Mass=Energy, right?
OK.
So, whether there was mass or energy at first, there should have been none.
Say what? In what sense "should" there ever have been none?
To think there was no "seed" is the scientifically blind position.See above.
But whatever "creator" you invoke, the same question can be asked again: Why does that exist? And so on, ad infinitum. Nothing is gained by that line of reasoning.
Mass=Energy, right?
OK.
So, whether there was mass or energy at first, there should have been none.
Say what? In what sense "should" there ever have been none?
To think there was no "seed" is the scientifically blind position.See above.
Zigmen
23rd January 2012, 07:20 PM
I love this conversation.
Thanks for bringing it!
Remember, I'm not trying to covert any of you, and I do understand your positions and the merits of those positions.
Just saying I have a different conclusion.
Thanks for bringing it!
Remember, I'm not trying to covert any of you, and I do understand your positions and the merits of those positions.
Just saying I have a different conclusion.
Brother Daniel
23rd January 2012, 07:42 PM
OK. :)
Hermit
24th January 2012, 02:15 AM
The only real evidence I have is that stuff exists with no explanation as to why.We don't know, therefore god. I'm glad it makes sense to you. As for me, adding a god to a hypothesis adds nothing useful to it.
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/cf6c0419.png
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Occamsrazor.gif
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/cf6c0419.png
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Occamsrazor.gif
Izdaari
24th January 2012, 07:26 AM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
Grumps
24th January 2012, 12:10 PM
In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.
-Terry Pratchett
One of the things that keeps me from Atheism (lord knows there are plenty of reasons provided by organized religions for me to disavow God) is the fact that we exist at all.
Actually, that anything exists at all . . .
The science of the Big Bang seems dependent on the idea that either a singularity exploded or that multiple universes collided and our universe was a result of that collision.
Personally, I favor M Theory and the idea of the collision . . .
But, no matter how you slice it, our universe is full of mass and energy (same thing - I know). And the unanswered question is really why we have any of that.
Mass/energy cannot be created. It can only change forms. Yet, here it is.
It had to come from an origin.
Even M Theory depends upon something existing before our universe, such as the minimum of 2 previous universes.
When Science can show how nothing became something, I'll reconsider my religious views. Until then, I believe in a creator.
I am an atheist because I hate nonsense assumptions. Show me why a god is at all a plausible explanation, because all you create is another question:
Who created the creator? Your scenario doesn't answer the question. Where did these creators come from originally? How did they transcend? Even assuming they did, there was a time they hadn't transcended, and at that time that particular magical pixie race required a creator - especially because not all the magical pixies could have transcended. Many must have died before then, what created them?
-Terry Pratchett
One of the things that keeps me from Atheism (lord knows there are plenty of reasons provided by organized religions for me to disavow God) is the fact that we exist at all.
Actually, that anything exists at all . . .
The science of the Big Bang seems dependent on the idea that either a singularity exploded or that multiple universes collided and our universe was a result of that collision.
Personally, I favor M Theory and the idea of the collision . . .
But, no matter how you slice it, our universe is full of mass and energy (same thing - I know). And the unanswered question is really why we have any of that.
Mass/energy cannot be created. It can only change forms. Yet, here it is.
It had to come from an origin.
Even M Theory depends upon something existing before our universe, such as the minimum of 2 previous universes.
When Science can show how nothing became something, I'll reconsider my religious views. Until then, I believe in a creator.
I am an atheist because I hate nonsense assumptions. Show me why a god is at all a plausible explanation, because all you create is another question:
Who created the creator? Your scenario doesn't answer the question. Where did these creators come from originally? How did they transcend? Even assuming they did, there was a time they hadn't transcended, and at that time that particular magical pixie race required a creator - especially because not all the magical pixies could have transcended. Many must have died before then, what created them?
ksen
24th January 2012, 10:30 PM
Asking what there was before the Big Bang (to loosely quote Hawking) is like asking what is south of the south pole.
Isn't that where the taint is?
Isn't that where the taint is?
Supernaut
24th January 2012, 10:39 PM
I am an atheist because I hate nonsense assumptions.
:thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
Sugreeva
25th January 2012, 06:19 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
It's not likely to be the story you're thinking of but Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God popped into my mind.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
It's not likely to be the story you're thinking of but Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God popped into my mind.
PermanentlyEphemeral
26th January 2012, 05:47 PM
Mass/energy cannot be created. It can only change forms. Yet, here it is.
It had to come from an origin.
So where did Mr. God get the raw material to create the mass/engergy?
At the mass/energy store on the corner?
Why could Mr. Universe not go into the store and say "hey bro, lay some mass/energy on me?"
What makes you think that there is something God could do that the Universe could not do.
It had to come from an origin.
So where did Mr. God get the raw material to create the mass/engergy?
At the mass/energy store on the corner?
Why could Mr. Universe not go into the store and say "hey bro, lay some mass/energy on me?"
What makes you think that there is something God could do that the Universe could not do.
PermanentlyEphemeral
26th January 2012, 05:49 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
It's not likely to be the story you're thinking of but Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God popped into my mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
It and Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God are great reads.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I once read a very similar science-fiction story, with the difference that the New Creator was an AI supercomputer rather than the evolved humans themselves. Alas, I can't remember the title or the author.
It's not likely to be the story you're thinking of but Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God popped into my mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
It and Clarke's The Nine Billion Names of God are great reads.
nick
26th January 2012, 05:49 PM
God is omnipotent, that's how you dummy
charlou
27th January 2012, 03:12 AM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
PermanentlyEphemeral
27th January 2012, 12:17 PM
I bet if you dig deep enough that you will find that his belief in a Creator existed before the reason.
And that at some point he will stop responding if he hasn't already.
And that at some point he will stop responding if he hasn't already.
ksen
27th January 2012, 12:49 PM
Why is your creator male?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
Hermit
27th January 2012, 12:56 PM
Why is your creator male?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies, potted petunias and chick flicks if the creator was male.
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies, potted petunias and chick flicks if the creator was male.
ksen
27th January 2012, 01:03 PM
Why is your creator male?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
ksen
27th January 2012, 01:07 PM
And on that note for any female offended by that "washing dishes" comment:
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
and
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
and
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
ksen
27th January 2012, 01:07 PM
wtf?
Hermit
27th January 2012, 01:41 PM
Why is your creator male?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
The female creator made the internal combustion engine possible so men can take their chattel shopping for shoes, remote controls to give men the illusion of power and chainsaws to keep them busy elsewhere so women can chat with their friends on the phone without being interrupted by demands for beer or approval.
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
The female creator made the internal combustion engine possible so men can take their chattel shopping for shoes, remote controls to give men the illusion of power and chainsaws to keep them busy elsewhere so women can chat with their friends on the phone without being interrupted by demands for beer or approval.
oblivion
27th January 2012, 05:07 PM
And on that note for any female offended by that "washing dishes" comment:
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
and
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
trying the image button...
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
trying IMG-redo on a cutpaste of the link...
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
hmm.
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
and
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
trying the image button...
http://d1r3rqnaubxgna.cloudfront.net/images/products/large/5220.jpg
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
trying IMG-redo on a cutpaste of the link...
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Entertainment/images-4/patrick-swayze-demi-moore-ghost.jpg
hmm.
oblivion
27th January 2012, 05:12 PM
another link with the img tags manually added
http://treygivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/RageFace2.png
a photobucket IMG link - copied directly
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/raven_s/imagejpeg_2_2.jpg
http://treygivens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/RageFace2.png
a photobucket IMG link - copied directly
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/raven_s/imagejpeg_2_2.jpg
oblivion
27th January 2012, 05:13 PM
hmm.
nostrum
28th January 2012, 04:31 AM
interesting
MartinM
28th January 2012, 08:08 AM
We have generally been able to reproduce every condition we see in nature or have conjectured to exist in nature.
:no:
:no:
Grumps
28th January 2012, 05:45 PM
Why is your creator male?
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
The female creator made the internal combustion engine possible so men can take their chattel shopping for shoes, remote controls to give men the illusion of power and chainsaws to keep them busy elsewhere so women can chat with their friends on the phone without being interrupted by demands for beer or approval.
Actually, the creator is a canine pair who created all of the above so they get belly scratches and food on demand, while giving humans the illusion of control.
Do you really think a female creator could've made the internal combustion engine possible? Or remote controls? Or chainsaws?
By that logic we wouldn't have doilies,
Crocheting gives the females something to do with their hands when they're not washing dishes.
potted petunias
Needed something to give to the female when we get into trouble so we can have sex again.
and chick flicks
See above.
The female creator made the internal combustion engine possible so men can take their chattel shopping for shoes, remote controls to give men the illusion of power and chainsaws to keep them busy elsewhere so women can chat with their friends on the phone without being interrupted by demands for beer or approval.
Actually, the creator is a canine pair who created all of the above so they get belly scratches and food on demand, while giving humans the illusion of control.
Zigmen
28th January 2012, 10:20 PM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
For the same reason i refer to ships as "She." Good enough for James Kirk, so I'm sticking with it.
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?No. My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena. We've duplicated in labs just about every natural condition, including the inside of a star and even singularities.
To me, the idea that all this mass/energy merely exists seems suspect.
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
So, I imagine there is a creator that transcends time/space.
So, where did we get a creator? I honestly think we can't understand in terms we are used to. Questions like when and where are meaningless without time and space, as we know there used to be neither.
I think that the answer lies hidden in the theory of relativity; and I think that answer is very similar to the word "self."
The physics of the universe are actually centered around me. For you, they are centered around you. Time flows differently for me and an astronaut on the ISS. But, for each of us, time is quite linear and unbending.
So, for each of us, time passes differently. Space, entwined with time follows this as well.
Which makes me wonder why physics depends completely on me and my frame of reference to be accurate.
Take away the time, space, energy, etc., and what do you have left?
The fact is that these artifacts would have to be centered around an observer for them to exist at all, be that observer sentient or not.
So, what's left after you remove all the "stuff?"
A frame of reference for all laws to be central to.
And that point does not lie in the center of the universe. Nor does is lie in any specific point at all. It lies within me. For you, it lies within you.
And if you remove us . . .
You're left with a frame or reference that seemingly has nobody occupying it.
Or does it?
I say it does. I say it is the central focus of all laws of physics. I say it seems to occupy my space. To you, it seems to occupy your space.
And I say, after I'm gone, it will continue to do this for all observers.
For it is the original observer, the frame of reference, the creator, and the "self" that makes everything possible.
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
For the same reason i refer to ships as "She." Good enough for James Kirk, so I'm sticking with it.
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?No. My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena. We've duplicated in labs just about every natural condition, including the inside of a star and even singularities.
To me, the idea that all this mass/energy merely exists seems suspect.
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
So, I imagine there is a creator that transcends time/space.
So, where did we get a creator? I honestly think we can't understand in terms we are used to. Questions like when and where are meaningless without time and space, as we know there used to be neither.
I think that the answer lies hidden in the theory of relativity; and I think that answer is very similar to the word "self."
The physics of the universe are actually centered around me. For you, they are centered around you. Time flows differently for me and an astronaut on the ISS. But, for each of us, time is quite linear and unbending.
So, for each of us, time passes differently. Space, entwined with time follows this as well.
Which makes me wonder why physics depends completely on me and my frame of reference to be accurate.
Take away the time, space, energy, etc., and what do you have left?
The fact is that these artifacts would have to be centered around an observer for them to exist at all, be that observer sentient or not.
So, what's left after you remove all the "stuff?"
A frame of reference for all laws to be central to.
And that point does not lie in the center of the universe. Nor does is lie in any specific point at all. It lies within me. For you, it lies within you.
And if you remove us . . .
You're left with a frame or reference that seemingly has nobody occupying it.
Or does it?
I say it does. I say it is the central focus of all laws of physics. I say it seems to occupy my space. To you, it seems to occupy your space.
And I say, after I'm gone, it will continue to do this for all observers.
For it is the original observer, the frame of reference, the creator, and the "self" that makes everything possible.
PermanentlyEphemeral
28th January 2012, 10:40 PM
The fact is that these artifacts would have to be centered around an observer for them to exist at all, be that observer sentient or not.
What do you base that "fact" on?
Heisenberg?
Is "1+1=2" dependent on observers?
Could God have made 1+1 equal something other than 2?
What do you base that "fact" on?
Heisenberg?
Is "1+1=2" dependent on observers?
Could God have made 1+1 equal something other than 2?
charlou
29th January 2012, 03:03 AM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
For the same reason i refer to ships as "She." Good enough for James Kirk, so I'm sticking with it.
I'm not asking you to change, just curious about why. Why does Kirk (or anyone) refer to inanimate objects by gender?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?No. My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena. We've duplicated in labs just about every natural condition, including the inside of a star and even singularities.
Why do you think your understanding of what is natural is the benchmark by which what is natural should be understood?
How do you know we've duplicated just about every natural condition?
Why do you think that what we don't yet understand, and what we haven't yet discovered must be outside nature?
You go on to say that how we perceive things revolve around us as individuals .. I think that emotionally it is true that humans have developed an egocentric and anthropomorphic view of things, and you clearly demonstrate it with your response to my questions.
Science cuts that egocentric/anthropomorphic tendency we have out and deals with observable and falsifiable evidence. Nature doesn't exist the way it does in relation to how you, I or anyone else individually, or even collectively, perceives it .. it just exists and we've evolved to be intelligent and curious enough to want to know more about it. Knowing more about it is important to our survival, but if we fail to survive, nature will continue to exist without us.
Continuing ..
To me, the idea that all this mass/energy merely exists seems suspect.
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
I'm with you up to this point ..
So, I imagine there is a creator that transcends time/space.
There's the leap. The leap that takes us from what has so far been observed and tested, to trying to supply an explanation from fantastic conjecture. It's not an explanation, though, it's just fantastic conjecture.
The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.
Those explorations required skepticism and imagination both. Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere. Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. The Cosmos is rich beyond measure - in elegant facts, in exquisite interrelationships, in the subtle machinery of awe. ~ Carl Sagan, Cosmos
So far you've asserted that we are at the limits of what can be understood and known, and that anything outside what we understand and know must not be natural and observable.
For the following, assumption that we have a creator aside, your thinking continues to be egocentric. Why is that, do you think?
So, where did we get a creator? I honestly think we can't understand in terms we are used to. Questions like when and where are meaningless without time and space, as we know there used to be neither.
I think that the answer lies hidden in the theory of relativity; and I think that answer is very similar to the word "self."
The physics of the universe are actually centered around me. For you, they are centered around you. Time flows differently for me and an astronaut on the ISS. But, for each of us, time is quite linear and unbending.
So, for each of us, time passes differently. Space, entwined with time follows this as well.
Which makes me wonder why physics depends completely on me and my frame of reference to be accurate.
Take away the time, space, energy, etc., and what do you have left?
The fact is that these artifacts would have to be centered around an observer for them to exist at all, be that observer sentient or not.
So, what's left after you remove all the "stuff?"
A frame of reference for all laws to be central to.
And that point does not lie in the center of the universe. Nor does is lie in any specific point at all. It lies within me. For you, it lies within you.
And if you remove us . . .
You're left with a frame or reference that seemingly has nobody occupying it.
Or does it?
I say it does. I say it is the central focus of all laws of physics. I say it seems to occupy my space. To you, it seems to occupy your space.
And I say, after I'm gone, it will continue to do this for all observers.
For it is the original observer, the frame of reference, the creator, and the "self" that makes everything possible.
How you perceive time compared with how an astronaut perceives it .. or a person in a hectic, information rich job compared with a person who herds goats ... or a fly .. or an elephant ...
... or a slab of granite? How does an unsentient observer work?
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
For the same reason i refer to ships as "She." Good enough for James Kirk, so I'm sticking with it.
I'm not asking you to change, just curious about why. Why does Kirk (or anyone) refer to inanimate objects by gender?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?No. My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena. We've duplicated in labs just about every natural condition, including the inside of a star and even singularities.
Why do you think your understanding of what is natural is the benchmark by which what is natural should be understood?
How do you know we've duplicated just about every natural condition?
Why do you think that what we don't yet understand, and what we haven't yet discovered must be outside nature?
You go on to say that how we perceive things revolve around us as individuals .. I think that emotionally it is true that humans have developed an egocentric and anthropomorphic view of things, and you clearly demonstrate it with your response to my questions.
Science cuts that egocentric/anthropomorphic tendency we have out and deals with observable and falsifiable evidence. Nature doesn't exist the way it does in relation to how you, I or anyone else individually, or even collectively, perceives it .. it just exists and we've evolved to be intelligent and curious enough to want to know more about it. Knowing more about it is important to our survival, but if we fail to survive, nature will continue to exist without us.
Continuing ..
To me, the idea that all this mass/energy merely exists seems suspect.
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
I'm with you up to this point ..
So, I imagine there is a creator that transcends time/space.
There's the leap. The leap that takes us from what has so far been observed and tested, to trying to supply an explanation from fantastic conjecture. It's not an explanation, though, it's just fantastic conjecture.
The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.
Those explorations required skepticism and imagination both. Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere. Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. The Cosmos is rich beyond measure - in elegant facts, in exquisite interrelationships, in the subtle machinery of awe. ~ Carl Sagan, Cosmos
So far you've asserted that we are at the limits of what can be understood and known, and that anything outside what we understand and know must not be natural and observable.
For the following, assumption that we have a creator aside, your thinking continues to be egocentric. Why is that, do you think?
So, where did we get a creator? I honestly think we can't understand in terms we are used to. Questions like when and where are meaningless without time and space, as we know there used to be neither.
I think that the answer lies hidden in the theory of relativity; and I think that answer is very similar to the word "self."
The physics of the universe are actually centered around me. For you, they are centered around you. Time flows differently for me and an astronaut on the ISS. But, for each of us, time is quite linear and unbending.
So, for each of us, time passes differently. Space, entwined with time follows this as well.
Which makes me wonder why physics depends completely on me and my frame of reference to be accurate.
Take away the time, space, energy, etc., and what do you have left?
The fact is that these artifacts would have to be centered around an observer for them to exist at all, be that observer sentient or not.
So, what's left after you remove all the "stuff?"
A frame of reference for all laws to be central to.
And that point does not lie in the center of the universe. Nor does is lie in any specific point at all. It lies within me. For you, it lies within you.
And if you remove us . . .
You're left with a frame or reference that seemingly has nobody occupying it.
Or does it?
I say it does. I say it is the central focus of all laws of physics. I say it seems to occupy my space. To you, it seems to occupy your space.
And I say, after I'm gone, it will continue to do this for all observers.
For it is the original observer, the frame of reference, the creator, and the "self" that makes everything possible.
How you perceive time compared with how an astronaut perceives it .. or a person in a hectic, information rich job compared with a person who herds goats ... or a fly .. or an elephant ...
... or a slab of granite? How does an unsentient observer work?
Hermit
29th January 2012, 03:09 AM
To me, the idea that all this mass/energy merely exists seems suspect.
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
And when it comes to a creator, your suspicion vanishes. For some unknown reason you cease asking: "Where does that come from?" If you did ask, you'd be looking at turtles all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down). In terms of being an "explanation" for the existence of everything that is less of an absurdity than stipulating one eternal turtle, but the absurdity is more easily discernible, so theists (and deists) feel at ease with the single turtle hypothesis.http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/cf6c0419.png
It's like looking at an oak tree and thinking "it must have been here forever."
We know that oak trees are made of elements that were produced in supernovas. But, where did the supernova come from?
It came from masses of hydrogen. But where did that come from?
It came from the big bang. But where did that come from?
I can understand that people believe the big bang just happened. For me, I look at transformations like: big bang/hydrogen/stars/supernovae/carbon/oak trees.
To arbitrarily pick one thing as "it already existed" when we see everything else having an origin is suspicious to me.
And when it comes to a creator, your suspicion vanishes. For some unknown reason you cease asking: "Where does that come from?" If you did ask, you'd be looking at turtles all the way down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down). In terms of being an "explanation" for the existence of everything that is less of an absurdity than stipulating one eternal turtle, but the absurdity is more easily discernible, so theists (and deists) feel at ease with the single turtle hypothesis.http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x59/Hermit_graphics/Downloaded%20Photos/cf6c0419.png
Zigmen
29th January 2012, 05:49 AM
Good responses, folks. Thanks for taking the time.
Please let me reiterate that I'm not about changing anyone else's minds.
I think that Atheism is an authentic path of understanding.
To Elouise: I am understanding that Einsteins theories definitely do put me at the center of the universe in terms of how I perceive time and space. If I were to travel at 99% of the speed of light for 1 year, I'd return to an earth where everyone I knew was long dead.
The same goes for you, if you were the traveler.
The same goes for a Hostess Twinkie. All of the Twinkies left on Earth would have long decayed to dust while the traveling Twinkie would still be market fresh.
That's why the "observer" does not need to be sentient.
To Seraph: I disagree that my view creates an endless chain of Turtles. As a fan of Terry Pratchett, your metaphor is not wasted on me.
I'm saying that Perspective plays a huge role in our understanding of space/time as well as mass/energy.
This perspective follows me around as I decide to stay on Earth or jump into a spaceship for a year. It does the same for you and everyone else.
I identify this perspective with myself.
And if you roll back the clock Oak/Carbon/Supernova/Star/Hydrogen/Big bang, this perspective would not only follow the regression, but transcend it.
Perspective is not space/time nor mass/energy.
And as such, we cannot expect it to conform to their rules.
So, if you are implying that this perspective needed a beginning for my understanding of it to work, i disagree.
Now, if one wanted to disagree with my idea that the rules of physics follow the observer, one would need to debunk Einstein's theories and the collaborative evidence, such as, why an astronaut's watch loses time exactly as Einstein predicted.
If you grant me the premise that the rules of physics are relative, then ask why this might be so? Can you relate your answer to mass/energy? Can you relate it to space/time?
You can't because it is an absolute rule.
And if it happens outside of space/time there is no need to define its moment of origin, as your infinite turtle conundrum implies.
It merely exists.
Now, I hope you grant me that my logic up to this point is sound, but I understand if you disagree with my next bit:
I think I've identified a universal constant that cannot be quantified by time nor energy. I think it is too much of a coincidence to not be considered as we look for a start to the big bang.
It is the Perspective. And, it follows me around and I can't shake it.
Why me (or, for that matter, you)? And why all of us, sentient or not?
And, if we can see this thing for it's highly improbable existence outside of space/time and outside of mass/energy, yet it manages to compress and limit the effects of these laws on every individual, why would assume it is not sentient in and of itself?
It exists. Einstein proved it. Observation backs up his theory. It behaves in a seemingly intelligent manner.
Why conclude it doesn't exist? Or, if you agree it does exist, why would you assume it isn't sentient?
Cuz there are little piles of carbon that aren't free of the shackles of space/time and mass/energy who have the intelligence to ask these questions. Why assume a far greater and provable "entity" has to be dumb as a stump?
You've reached your conclusion, and I've reached mine.
I respect your conclusion. It is sound and safe.
But I prefer mine.
And no Turtles are necessary.
:blinksmile:
Please let me reiterate that I'm not about changing anyone else's minds.
I think that Atheism is an authentic path of understanding.
To Elouise: I am understanding that Einsteins theories definitely do put me at the center of the universe in terms of how I perceive time and space. If I were to travel at 99% of the speed of light for 1 year, I'd return to an earth where everyone I knew was long dead.
The same goes for you, if you were the traveler.
The same goes for a Hostess Twinkie. All of the Twinkies left on Earth would have long decayed to dust while the traveling Twinkie would still be market fresh.
That's why the "observer" does not need to be sentient.
To Seraph: I disagree that my view creates an endless chain of Turtles. As a fan of Terry Pratchett, your metaphor is not wasted on me.
I'm saying that Perspective plays a huge role in our understanding of space/time as well as mass/energy.
This perspective follows me around as I decide to stay on Earth or jump into a spaceship for a year. It does the same for you and everyone else.
I identify this perspective with myself.
And if you roll back the clock Oak/Carbon/Supernova/Star/Hydrogen/Big bang, this perspective would not only follow the regression, but transcend it.
Perspective is not space/time nor mass/energy.
And as such, we cannot expect it to conform to their rules.
So, if you are implying that this perspective needed a beginning for my understanding of it to work, i disagree.
Now, if one wanted to disagree with my idea that the rules of physics follow the observer, one would need to debunk Einstein's theories and the collaborative evidence, such as, why an astronaut's watch loses time exactly as Einstein predicted.
If you grant me the premise that the rules of physics are relative, then ask why this might be so? Can you relate your answer to mass/energy? Can you relate it to space/time?
You can't because it is an absolute rule.
And if it happens outside of space/time there is no need to define its moment of origin, as your infinite turtle conundrum implies.
It merely exists.
Now, I hope you grant me that my logic up to this point is sound, but I understand if you disagree with my next bit:
I think I've identified a universal constant that cannot be quantified by time nor energy. I think it is too much of a coincidence to not be considered as we look for a start to the big bang.
It is the Perspective. And, it follows me around and I can't shake it.
Why me (or, for that matter, you)? And why all of us, sentient or not?
And, if we can see this thing for it's highly improbable existence outside of space/time and outside of mass/energy, yet it manages to compress and limit the effects of these laws on every individual, why would assume it is not sentient in and of itself?
It exists. Einstein proved it. Observation backs up his theory. It behaves in a seemingly intelligent manner.
Why conclude it doesn't exist? Or, if you agree it does exist, why would you assume it isn't sentient?
Cuz there are little piles of carbon that aren't free of the shackles of space/time and mass/energy who have the intelligence to ask these questions. Why assume a far greater and provable "entity" has to be dumb as a stump?
You've reached your conclusion, and I've reached mine.
I respect your conclusion. It is sound and safe.
But I prefer mine.
And no Turtles are necessary.
:blinksmile:
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 06:54 AM
To Seraph: I disagree that my view creates an endless chain of Turtles. As a fan of Terry Pratchett, your metaphor is not wasted on me.
And no Turtles are necessary.
:blinksmile:
Perspective does not eliminate the turtles.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.
And no Turtles are necessary.
:blinksmile:
Perspective does not eliminate the turtles.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.
Zigmen
29th January 2012, 07:28 AM
Perspective does not eliminate the turtles.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Space/time is obviously limited by the rules concerning time. Mass/energy is as well. Perspective is not affected by time, therefor does not need to be considered as having a start or an end.
No need to quantify something that can't be quantified.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
Why assume it isn't? Blobs of carbon can become sentient. A universal constant that transcends time cannot?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.True. That's why I'm 100% ok with Atheism.
Remember, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just stating what I think based on what I know.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Space/time is obviously limited by the rules concerning time. Mass/energy is as well. Perspective is not affected by time, therefor does not need to be considered as having a start or an end.
No need to quantify something that can't be quantified.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
Why assume it isn't? Blobs of carbon can become sentient. A universal constant that transcends time cannot?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.True. That's why I'm 100% ok with Atheism.
Remember, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just stating what I think based on what I know.
MartinM
29th January 2012, 10:29 AM
My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena.
Mass-energy is not a globally conserved quantity in general relativity. Asking questions about the total mass-energy content of the Universe is literally meaningless.
Mass-energy is not a globally conserved quantity in general relativity. Asking questions about the total mass-energy content of the Universe is literally meaningless.
Zigmen
29th January 2012, 04:04 PM
My reason is because I understand that mass/energy is not created by any natural phenomena.
Mass-energy is not a globally conserved quantity in general relativity. Asking questions about the total mass-energy content of the Universe is literally meaningless.
I don't recall saying it was a constant.
Mass-energy is not a globally conserved quantity in general relativity. Asking questions about the total mass-energy content of the Universe is literally meaningless.
I don't recall saying it was a constant.
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 04:38 PM
Perspective does not eliminate the turtles.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Space/time is obviously limited by the rules concerning time. Mass/energy is as well. Perspective is not affected by time, therefor does not need to be considered as having a start or an end.
No need to quantify something that can't be quantified.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
Why assume it isn't? Blobs of carbon can become sentient. A universal constant that transcends time cannot?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.True. That's why I'm 100% ok with Atheism.
Remember, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just stating what I think based on what I know.
Again you dodge why you think the Universe can't have the qualities you say are needed. Why can the Universe not have perspective?
Why can the Universe not exist outside of space/time, just because it can't in this form?
But I don't assume anything.
Why assume anything?
It all comes down to you want to believe it so you do.
No other fundamental reason.
You have not said why God can always have existed but not the Universe.
Space/time is obviously limited by the rules concerning time. Mass/energy is as well. Perspective is not affected by time, therefor does not need to be considered as having a start or an end.
No need to quantify something that can't be quantified.
Why assume anything?
Why assume "The Perspective" is sentient?
Why assume it isn't? Blobs of carbon can become sentient. A universal constant that transcends time cannot?
That there is or is not a God does not mean that there is a reason to believe one way or the other.True. That's why I'm 100% ok with Atheism.
Remember, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just stating what I think based on what I know.
Again you dodge why you think the Universe can't have the qualities you say are needed. Why can the Universe not have perspective?
Why can the Universe not exist outside of space/time, just because it can't in this form?
But I don't assume anything.
Why assume anything?
It all comes down to you want to believe it so you do.
No other fundamental reason.
MartinM
29th January 2012, 06:00 PM
I don't recall saying it was a constant.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 07:40 PM
I don't recall saying it was a constant.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
Unless he can explain why mass-energy needs to be created instead of being able to spontaneously appear.
If God could not make 1+1= something other than 2 then the golden ratio could not have been created. And much more could not have been created.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
Unless he can explain why mass-energy needs to be created instead of being able to spontaneously appear.
If God could not make 1+1= something other than 2 then the golden ratio could not have been created. And much more could not have been created.
Zigmen
29th January 2012, 07:51 PM
I don't recall saying it was a constant.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
Well, we can't create mass-energy. It stands to reason that if anyone could, they would have a bit more know-how than we do.
If it isn't, your claim that mass-energy needs a creater goes out the window.
Well, we can't create mass-energy. It stands to reason that if anyone could, they would have a bit more know-how than we do.
MartinM
29th January 2012, 07:59 PM
Why are you assuming agency is necessary at all? We can't (currently) cause stars to go supernova, but that doesn't imply that someone else must be doing it.
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 08:03 PM
Why are you assuming agency is necessary at all? We can't (currently) cause stars to go supernova, but that doesn't imply that someone else must be doing it.
Exactly, why assume anything?
Exactly, why assume anything?
charlou
29th January 2012, 11:37 PM
And no Turtles are necessary.
I agree that whatever the reality is, turtles are not necessary.
Someone mentioned that we naturally tend to think in terms of a beginning and an end, a line ... and, yes, those turtles look very linear ...
I agree that whatever the reality is, turtles are not necessary.
Someone mentioned that we naturally tend to think in terms of a beginning and an end, a line ... and, yes, those turtles look very linear ...
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 11:54 PM
And no Turtles are necessary.
I agree that whatever the reality is, turtles are not necessary.
Someone mentioned that we naturally tend to think in terms of a beginning and an end, a line ... and, yes, those turtles look very linear ...
But the OP introduced the first turtle by saying that mass/energy must have had a beginning. Then he ignores the next turtle.
I agree that whatever the reality is, turtles are not necessary.
Someone mentioned that we naturally tend to think in terms of a beginning and an end, a line ... and, yes, those turtles look very linear ...
But the OP introduced the first turtle by saying that mass/energy must have had a beginning. Then he ignores the next turtle.
borealis
2nd February 2012, 03:21 PM
I am not educated in maths, physics, or philosophy.
My agnosticism was at one time influenced by the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
Eventually it occurred to me that if there was nothing, the question would never be asked, and that was as likely and as valid a state of affairs as what we have.
No need for finding the original turtle.
My agnosticism was at one time influenced by the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
Eventually it occurred to me that if there was nothing, the question would never be asked, and that was as likely and as valid a state of affairs as what we have.
No need for finding the original turtle.
Mysturji
2nd February 2012, 04:12 PM
And then, what created your God, Zig?
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I have spotted the flaw (well, one of them, I can't be arsed with the rest, because this one if fucking huge!) in your argument:
Your imagination doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality.
I can imagine walking on the surface of the sun. That doesn't make it possible.
Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Deal with it.
Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:
Humanity manages to live long and prosper. Our science and technology improves greatly. We inevitably face the time when our Sun runs out of hydrogen, and we have to leave.
We live happily going from planet to planet for billions more years.
Eventually, all the suns begin to fail.
We build a static bubble and re-engineer time and physics as we watch the universe die.
We tear through spacetime with probes and begin shopping for a new universe. Finding only bizarre and unaccommodating physics, we decide to shop for two universes and intentionally collide them to form the physics we prefer.
A big bang results.
Safe in our static bubble, we exist outside time and can visit anywhere we like at any time. We repopulate the new worlds and imprint our design onto the lifeforms.
We become the Creators.
If I can imagine how to become a creator, what is there to stop anyone else from actually achieving that goal or to say it hasn't already happened an infinite amount of times?
Who created the Creator?
The moment the Creator transcended spacetime, he had always existed.
And since we live in linear time, we will never understand this through analogy.
Except to say that scientists have fired lasers into chambers of cesium gas and the beam left the chamber before they had finished entering.
When you explain that, the idea that the Creator who transcends time doesn't need an origin comes into focus.
I have spotted the flaw (well, one of them, I can't be arsed with the rest, because this one if fucking huge!) in your argument:
Your imagination doesn't necessarily have any bearing on reality.
I can imagine walking on the surface of the sun. That doesn't make it possible.
Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Deal with it.
Izdaari
3rd February 2012, 01:16 PM
I can imagine walking on the surface of the sun. That doesn't make it possible.
Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Deal with it.
Smashmouth - Walking on the Sun - YouTube
There isn't really any way to know that for sure. :dunno:
But I accept it as your belief. Or opinion, if you don't like "belief" there.
Your imaginary friend doesn't exist.
Deal with it.
Smashmouth - Walking on the Sun - YouTube
There isn't really any way to know that for sure. :dunno:
But I accept it as your belief. Or opinion, if you don't like "belief" there.
Izdaari
3rd February 2012, 01:23 PM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 05:54 PM
One view of God and gender:
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm
Supernaut
4th February 2012, 05:45 AM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
Are you trinitarian?
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
Are you trinitarian?
Cunt
4th February 2012, 08:34 AM
I love this conversation.
Thanks for bringing it!
Remember, I'm not trying to covert any of you, and I do understand your positions and the merits of those positions.
Just saying I have a different conclusion.
A conclusion! Well!
May I ask what kinds of efforts you have made to falsify your position?
----------------
If God could not make 1+1= something other than 2 then the golden ratio could not have been created. And much more could not have been created.
The golden ration was created?
The fuck?
CAN SOMEONE MAKE SENSE OF THIS PLEASE?
-------------------
I would like to know something from you believers.
What observable difference would there be in a universe where your god or creator exists, and a universe where your god or creator does not exist?
Thanks for bringing it!
Remember, I'm not trying to covert any of you, and I do understand your positions and the merits of those positions.
Just saying I have a different conclusion.
A conclusion! Well!
May I ask what kinds of efforts you have made to falsify your position?
----------------
If God could not make 1+1= something other than 2 then the golden ratio could not have been created. And much more could not have been created.
The golden ration was created?
The fuck?
CAN SOMEONE MAKE SENSE OF THIS PLEASE?
-------------------
I would like to know something from you believers.
What observable difference would there be in a universe where your god or creator exists, and a universe where your god or creator does not exist?
Izdaari
4th February 2012, 01:26 PM
Hiya Zigmen :)
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
Are you trinitarian?
Yes, I am. But I am not very certain of the gender identity (if any) of any of the three Persons of the Trinity, except that of Jesus who lived his human life as a male.
If I were God (and I'm very aware that I'm not), I think I'd choose to appear as male or female as I pleased at the moment, for whatever reason. I think that'd be too cool an ability not to use.
I have not yet had time to read the article borealis linked, but I'm looking forward to it, probably this Sunday.
Two questions ..
Why is your creator male?
Is the reason you believe a creator exists rather than believing the universe just exists because you think there must be consciousness/intelligence responsible for the existence of all things?
I'm really not sure the Creator is male. God is spirit and perhaps genderless... but is certainly powerful enough to appear in any form he/she wants to. And it seems kind of rude to call God, or anybody for that matter, "it". In the Jewish and Christian scriptures we have, God is consistently referred to as male, so it's generally assumed that's what God prefers, for whatever reason. Just as with a human of uncertain gender, the polite thing is to go along with whatever gender he/she chooses to identify with.
Are you trinitarian?
Yes, I am. But I am not very certain of the gender identity (if any) of any of the three Persons of the Trinity, except that of Jesus who lived his human life as a male.
If I were God (and I'm very aware that I'm not), I think I'd choose to appear as male or female as I pleased at the moment, for whatever reason. I think that'd be too cool an ability not to use.
I have not yet had time to read the article borealis linked, but I'm looking forward to it, probably this Sunday.
PermanentlyEphemeral
4th February 2012, 01:58 PM
The golden ratio was created?
The fuck?
CAN SOMEONE MAKE SENSE OF THIS PLEASE?
I am saying it was not created.
I'm saying God had no choice about 1+1, or the golden ratio, or spiral numbers, or hexagons forming in convection cells,or the second law of thermodynamics...
I'm saying a lot of things are unavoidable therefore God can not take credit for them.
I think if you dug deep enough you would find that not only is God not needed for a lot of things but a lot of things can't be of God.
The fuck?
CAN SOMEONE MAKE SENSE OF THIS PLEASE?
I am saying it was not created.
I'm saying God had no choice about 1+1, or the golden ratio, or spiral numbers, or hexagons forming in convection cells,or the second law of thermodynamics...
I'm saying a lot of things are unavoidable therefore God can not take credit for them.
I think if you dug deep enough you would find that not only is God not needed for a lot of things but a lot of things can't be of God.
PermanentlyEphemeral
4th February 2012, 01:59 PM
I would like to know something from you believers.
What observable difference would there be in a universe where your god or creator exists, and a universe where your god or creator does not exist?
This is what I was getting at.
Both would have 1+1=2.
(and the rest of the list)
What observable difference would there be in a universe where your god or creator exists, and a universe where your god or creator does not exist?
This is what I was getting at.
Both would have 1+1=2.
(and the rest of the list)
Cunt
4th February 2012, 04:27 PM
Phi is more powerful, subtle and compassionate than your gods.
Actually, cheese toast is, too.
Actually, cheese toast is, too.
nick
4th February 2012, 05:18 PM
God is real.
Brother Daniel
4th February 2012, 05:19 PM
So is cheese toast.
borealis
4th February 2012, 05:29 PM
Cheese toast: more likely to smite you than god.
Polonius
4th February 2012, 05:52 PM
Join my forum.
www.rational.proboards.com (http://www.rational.proboards.com/)
__________________
www.rational.proboards.com (http://www.rational.proboards.com/)
__________________
Cunt
4th February 2012, 05:58 PM
Cheese toast: The Other Diety
Cunt
4th February 2012, 08:14 PM
Cheese toast - prettier than your god.
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/_DJK2930copy.jpg
Click my link for the full sandwich. (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=14856#post14856)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee174/Darren8306/_DJK2930copy.jpg
Click my link for the full sandwich. (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=14856#post14856)
PermanentlyEphemeral
5th February 2012, 06:49 AM
God is real.
so is phi
and more interesting
so is phi
and more interesting
FedUpWithFaith
5th February 2012, 07:09 AM
Zigman,
You might enjoy looking into computationalism/digital physics/digital philosophy and the works of Tegmark, Chaitin, Zuse t'Hooft, Fredkin and others.
I believe our universe is just one of many different kinds that emerges from something Zuse called "computational space". I believe the essense of everything is information, computation, and mathematics. I think that's why math so mysteriously describes everything in our universe so well. And then, when you explore the works of Chaitin, and realize that mathematics may be empirical too, it's a bit of a kick in the head. Some of these ideas are actually empiricly testable in principle though we don't have the technology yet for most of them. The possibility that the universe we live in is actually a holographic projection is close to being tested and is a closely related idea (check out the holographic principle what describes black holes).
I realize you have a problem with something from nothing. If you consider digital physics the problem essentially goes away because it basically says the foundation of the multiverse is platonic math and computation. And if you think about it, when did 1+1=2 ever have to have a beginning or an end? The same with any other mathematical entity. Tegmark proved that the most efficient hypothesis is that every possible mathetatical universe compatible with Turing exists, even though it deceptively seems to violate Occam's razor. But then God seems to satisfy Occam's razor until you think and realize it's actually a more complex answer than simply saying the universe exists without Him.
You might enjoy looking into computationalism/digital physics/digital philosophy and the works of Tegmark, Chaitin, Zuse t'Hooft, Fredkin and others.
I believe our universe is just one of many different kinds that emerges from something Zuse called "computational space". I believe the essense of everything is information, computation, and mathematics. I think that's why math so mysteriously describes everything in our universe so well. And then, when you explore the works of Chaitin, and realize that mathematics may be empirical too, it's a bit of a kick in the head. Some of these ideas are actually empiricly testable in principle though we don't have the technology yet for most of them. The possibility that the universe we live in is actually a holographic projection is close to being tested and is a closely related idea (check out the holographic principle what describes black holes).
I realize you have a problem with something from nothing. If you consider digital physics the problem essentially goes away because it basically says the foundation of the multiverse is platonic math and computation. And if you think about it, when did 1+1=2 ever have to have a beginning or an end? The same with any other mathematical entity. Tegmark proved that the most efficient hypothesis is that every possible mathetatical universe compatible with Turing exists, even though it deceptively seems to violate Occam's razor. But then God seems to satisfy Occam's razor until you think and realize it's actually a more complex answer than simply saying the universe exists without Him.
charlou
7th February 2012, 10:36 PM
And if you think about it, when did 1+1=2 ever have to have a beginning or an end?
Could you elaborate on this, FUWF?
Could you elaborate on this, FUWF?
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 12:23 AM
And if you think about it, when did 1+1=2 ever have to have a beginning or an end?
Could you elaborate on this, FUWF?
I'd be delighted. And don't worry, there will be no use of the s-word in this post ;].
The statement I made is an abbreviation for a much larger concept which would take a lot of explanation but I'll take an abbreviated shot. This actually was part of probably the biggest epiphany of my life so I love to share it. If you get interested I can send you plenty of refs - I first learned of this via Tegmark here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf
There are other interpretations and appraches but this is where I started. I don't fully agree with Tegmark's version and there are many holes. I happened to be studying a lot of philosophy at the time and when I realized that computationalism abolished most of the metaphysical paradoxes and BS, essentially solving a bunch of philosophical and physical conundrums at the same time, I was hooked.
1+1=2 is a mathematical and logical truth. It requires no time, matter, or energy for existence. It simply is. Using computers, timeless mathematical truths and logic are employed to create virtual realities. But they require a physical computer in our universe. What if I told you you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objects? Well, this is what Konrad Zuse originally proposed via what we now call cellular automata in a non-physical pre-universe "computational space". If you've ever watched "The Game of Life" then you've seen how a very simple cellular automata can produce extremely complex entities.
Essentially we do sort of live in a version of the Matrix. Part of the beauty is that math and computation recapitulate themselves everywhere we look -our minds, our computers, mechanical computers from the 1500's.
This is essentially Platonic, though not in exactly the same degree or form as Plato intended.
Computational space is essentially timeless and possibly infinite (with constraints pertaining to Godel, Turing, and the limits of computable objects per Chaitin, i.e., empirical mathematics). But recursive self-referential computation, which I believe give rise to both atoms and minds (in totally differnet ways) requires granuality. Computation requires representational quantitazation and cycles of computation yield time or a precursor thereof.
Could you elaborate on this, FUWF?
I'd be delighted. And don't worry, there will be no use of the s-word in this post ;].
The statement I made is an abbreviation for a much larger concept which would take a lot of explanation but I'll take an abbreviated shot. This actually was part of probably the biggest epiphany of my life so I love to share it. If you get interested I can send you plenty of refs - I first learned of this via Tegmark here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf
There are other interpretations and appraches but this is where I started. I don't fully agree with Tegmark's version and there are many holes. I happened to be studying a lot of philosophy at the time and when I realized that computationalism abolished most of the metaphysical paradoxes and BS, essentially solving a bunch of philosophical and physical conundrums at the same time, I was hooked.
1+1=2 is a mathematical and logical truth. It requires no time, matter, or energy for existence. It simply is. Using computers, timeless mathematical truths and logic are employed to create virtual realities. But they require a physical computer in our universe. What if I told you you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objects? Well, this is what Konrad Zuse originally proposed via what we now call cellular automata in a non-physical pre-universe "computational space". If you've ever watched "The Game of Life" then you've seen how a very simple cellular automata can produce extremely complex entities.
Essentially we do sort of live in a version of the Matrix. Part of the beauty is that math and computation recapitulate themselves everywhere we look -our minds, our computers, mechanical computers from the 1500's.
This is essentially Platonic, though not in exactly the same degree or form as Plato intended.
Computational space is essentially timeless and possibly infinite (with constraints pertaining to Godel, Turing, and the limits of computable objects per Chaitin, i.e., empirical mathematics). But recursive self-referential computation, which I believe give rise to both atoms and minds (in totally differnet ways) requires granuality. Computation requires representational quantitazation and cycles of computation yield time or a precursor thereof.
Hermit
8th February 2012, 01:07 AM
Intriguing concept, FedUpWithFaith.
you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objectsIs there a way of experimentally testing this? I mean without starting with something like: "First, we'll have to devise a way to enter the 27th dimension."
you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objectsIs there a way of experimentally testing this? I mean without starting with something like: "First, we'll have to devise a way to enter the 27th dimension."
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 07:19 AM
Intriguing concept, FedUpWithFaith.
you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objectsIs there a way of experimentally testing this? I mean without starting with something like: "First, we'll have to devise a way to enter the 27th dimension."
Zuse, Fredkin and Wolfram have all demonstrated computation by (as opposed to simply of) cellular automata. I believe it was Fredkin, Wolfram (in a New Kind of Science) or one of their graduate students who proved that any agglomation of cellular automata with sufficient cellular rules (which can be VERY simple! go check out Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)) can self-organize into a fully functional Turing machine that completely satisfies the Church-Turing Hypothesis.
So this is all about "reality" coming out of abstraction; from information and it's representation in mathematical/computational abstraction. -Or to use the words of the famous astrophysicist John Wheeler, "It from bit". Just as 1+1=2 exists Platonically in some computational "sea" among all other mathematical objects, structures, and derivations, there is a sea of cellular automata cells out there somewhere that can yield spontaneous and sustainable order. I realize this sounds nuts at first but it really isn't as you explore it and the implications. It actually turned me from a hard atheist to a softer one. I always had my own version of Dawkin's Boeing 747 argument that I thought, in practical terms, made a god virtually impossible. Cellular automata at least open the door to the possibility that at least in some part of the computational space the cellular automata self-organized to compute some form of god (being one and the same), though I still find this highly unlikely, especially with no evidence.
BTW: Cellular automata are not the only candidates for self-organizing mathematical objects that can yield Turing computers - this is simply the view I think is best fleshed out today. I'm agnostic on what is really going on.
Now to answer your main question, I believe that physical science, and more amazingly, MATH (empirically !!!!), working together can discover that this computational space exists but I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly any more than I think we'll be able to see before the Big Bang, though we will hopefully find indirect evidence that M-Theory is correct and give us ideas what may lie beyond the singularity horizon. If you have a mathematical mind and can follow Chaitin then some of his work will knock your socks off (check out the following layman understandable talks he gave in Portugal). Chaitin Lisbon Lectures on Digital Physics Part 1
Although he is now a believer in digital physics, Chaitin did not initiate or set his research upon this area. He simply fell into it when he discovered that some aspects of fundamental mathematical axioms are empirical, that some forms of numbers cannot be computed (and thereby can't exist in any computational space - potentially requiring forms of quantitization). Frankly, I don't fully understand everything he has discovered and I think it's even more amazing than I understand. He's brilliant.
There are several pathways and ideas about how to experimentally verify this idea. The problem is, there is not one unified idea yet for digital physics. You will need to check out the different advocates for their own versions and the testable claims and experiments they propose - among them Tegmark, Chaitin, Schmidhuber, Deutch, Lloyd, t'Hooft and others. This area is only recently gaining respectability to even enable researchers to take it seriously without jeopardizing their career (if interested - read about the sad academic case of Fredkin - inventor of the Fredkin Gate). I remember when I first advocated this idea at RD.net the pushback was tremendous. But I'm used to everyone thinking I'm nuts :D
I think the first "gate" to discovering more about computational space will come if and when we discover the entire universe is actually a holographic information projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle) and one type of experiment to test this will soon be underway by Craig Hogan. (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe/) Hogan's experiment to test for noise in quantum spatial position is pretty fucking awesone. If it succeeds to show the noise digital physics will explode I think. If the experiemnt fails however, it doesn't prove that digital physics is false, only that this is the wrong mechanism.
I think something along these lines will work however because it seems intuitive to me. Think about a video game and the image rendering. Imagine it at a sort of Matrix-like level. The resolution of every image is ultimately quantized and there is no need to compute ultimate resolution in specific regions under general equations until the observer goes to observe it. Sound familiar?
Seraph, I think you will find exploring these ideas way cool even if you don't end up buying the goods like I have.
you could form a computer from purely an abtract space of mathematical objectsIs there a way of experimentally testing this? I mean without starting with something like: "First, we'll have to devise a way to enter the 27th dimension."
Zuse, Fredkin and Wolfram have all demonstrated computation by (as opposed to simply of) cellular automata. I believe it was Fredkin, Wolfram (in a New Kind of Science) or one of their graduate students who proved that any agglomation of cellular automata with sufficient cellular rules (which can be VERY simple! go check out Conway's Game of Life (http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/)) can self-organize into a fully functional Turing machine that completely satisfies the Church-Turing Hypothesis.
So this is all about "reality" coming out of abstraction; from information and it's representation in mathematical/computational abstraction. -Or to use the words of the famous astrophysicist John Wheeler, "It from bit". Just as 1+1=2 exists Platonically in some computational "sea" among all other mathematical objects, structures, and derivations, there is a sea of cellular automata cells out there somewhere that can yield spontaneous and sustainable order. I realize this sounds nuts at first but it really isn't as you explore it and the implications. It actually turned me from a hard atheist to a softer one. I always had my own version of Dawkin's Boeing 747 argument that I thought, in practical terms, made a god virtually impossible. Cellular automata at least open the door to the possibility that at least in some part of the computational space the cellular automata self-organized to compute some form of god (being one and the same), though I still find this highly unlikely, especially with no evidence.
BTW: Cellular automata are not the only candidates for self-organizing mathematical objects that can yield Turing computers - this is simply the view I think is best fleshed out today. I'm agnostic on what is really going on.
Now to answer your main question, I believe that physical science, and more amazingly, MATH (empirically !!!!), working together can discover that this computational space exists but I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly any more than I think we'll be able to see before the Big Bang, though we will hopefully find indirect evidence that M-Theory is correct and give us ideas what may lie beyond the singularity horizon. If you have a mathematical mind and can follow Chaitin then some of his work will knock your socks off (check out the following layman understandable talks he gave in Portugal). Chaitin Lisbon Lectures on Digital Physics Part 1
Although he is now a believer in digital physics, Chaitin did not initiate or set his research upon this area. He simply fell into it when he discovered that some aspects of fundamental mathematical axioms are empirical, that some forms of numbers cannot be computed (and thereby can't exist in any computational space - potentially requiring forms of quantitization). Frankly, I don't fully understand everything he has discovered and I think it's even more amazing than I understand. He's brilliant.
There are several pathways and ideas about how to experimentally verify this idea. The problem is, there is not one unified idea yet for digital physics. You will need to check out the different advocates for their own versions and the testable claims and experiments they propose - among them Tegmark, Chaitin, Schmidhuber, Deutch, Lloyd, t'Hooft and others. This area is only recently gaining respectability to even enable researchers to take it seriously without jeopardizing their career (if interested - read about the sad academic case of Fredkin - inventor of the Fredkin Gate). I remember when I first advocated this idea at RD.net the pushback was tremendous. But I'm used to everyone thinking I'm nuts :D
I think the first "gate" to discovering more about computational space will come if and when we discover the entire universe is actually a holographic information projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle) and one type of experiment to test this will soon be underway by Craig Hogan. (http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/10/20/fermilab-scientists-to-test-hypothesis-of-holographic-universe/) Hogan's experiment to test for noise in quantum spatial position is pretty fucking awesone. If it succeeds to show the noise digital physics will explode I think. If the experiemnt fails however, it doesn't prove that digital physics is false, only that this is the wrong mechanism.
I think something along these lines will work however because it seems intuitive to me. Think about a video game and the image rendering. Imagine it at a sort of Matrix-like level. The resolution of every image is ultimately quantized and there is no need to compute ultimate resolution in specific regions under general equations until the observer goes to observe it. Sound familiar?
Seraph, I think you will find exploring these ideas way cool even if you don't end up buying the goods like I have.
Hermit
8th February 2012, 08:37 AM
In short, there is none. Thanks for the exposition.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 08:58 AM
In short, there is none. Thanks for the exposition.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
Have people come up with ideas for experiments to support that a computational space exists. Yes. To actually access the computational space to examine and test it? No. However, many of the experiments the various proponents propose will enable us to understand something about the boundaries, states, and nature of at least one or more of these computational spaces (at least the one corresponding to our own universe/multiverse there being potentially many types of multiverses). Ironically, there are more ideas developing to test some of these hypotheses than there are for M-theory. Physics has reached a level where almost nothing fundamental is directly accessible by experiment anymore. All is inferred from second order or teritiary effects derived from the various general theories.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
Have people come up with ideas for experiments to support that a computational space exists. Yes. To actually access the computational space to examine and test it? No. However, many of the experiments the various proponents propose will enable us to understand something about the boundaries, states, and nature of at least one or more of these computational spaces (at least the one corresponding to our own universe/multiverse there being potentially many types of multiverses). Ironically, there are more ideas developing to test some of these hypotheses than there are for M-theory. Physics has reached a level where almost nothing fundamental is directly accessible by experiment anymore. All is inferred from second order or teritiary effects derived from the various general theories.
Hermit
8th February 2012, 09:30 AM
In short, there is none. Thanks for the exposition.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
That probably has more to do with the fact that I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian. My thinking is strictly pedestrian. So, if a train of thought regarding knowledge is not in principle and ultimately anchored in observation, deduction and testing to begin with, I cannot follow. Hence you ought not be surprised that I regard what you say about computational space as utter gobbledegook. Sorry for coming across as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant, but saying "I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly" is not much help to me in seeing it any other way.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
That probably has more to do with the fact that I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian. My thinking is strictly pedestrian. So, if a train of thought regarding knowledge is not in principle and ultimately anchored in observation, deduction and testing to begin with, I cannot follow. Hence you ought not be surprised that I regard what you say about computational space as utter gobbledegook. Sorry for coming across as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant, but saying "I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly" is not much help to me in seeing it any other way.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 09:41 AM
In short, there is none. Thanks for the exposition.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
That probably has more to do with the fact that I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian. My thinking is strictly pedestrian. So, if a train of thought regarding knowledge is not in principle and ultimately anchored in observation, deduction and testing to begin with, I cannot follow. Hence you ought not be surprised that I regard what you say about computational space as utter gobbledegook. Sorry for coming across as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant, but saying "I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly" is not much help to me in seeing it any other way.
OK. I assume you feel the same way about M-Theory and Superstring theory then? They're gobbledygook?
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.
You're welcome but I don't think I would have given the exposition if not to show that the answer could be interpreted as a qualified "yes". Don't be too dismissive.
That probably has more to do with the fact that I am essentially a simpleton than anything else. My powers to conceptualise barely reach beyond the pedestrian. My thinking is strictly pedestrian. So, if a train of thought regarding knowledge is not in principle and ultimately anchored in observation, deduction and testing to begin with, I cannot follow. Hence you ought not be surprised that I regard what you say about computational space as utter gobbledegook. Sorry for coming across as simultaneously ignorant and arrogant, but saying "I doubt we will ever be able to access or experiment with it directly" is not much help to me in seeing it any other way.
OK. I assume you feel the same way about M-Theory and Superstring theory then? They're gobbledygook?
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.
Hermit
8th February 2012, 10:09 AM
OK. I assume you feel the same way about M-Theory and Superstring theory then? They're gobbledygook?
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact. I struggle to get the concept of the special theory of relativity, and anything beyond that is completely beyond my grasp. I have no opinion concerning the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, m-string and supertstring and whatever. What I do know, is that the theory of gravity and the special theory of relativity made concrete predictions. Had subsequent observations been at variance with them, that would have been the end of them. In so far as the theories I do not understand can also be tested in some such fashion, I regard them as scientific, albeit as yet untested hypotheses. If they can't, they are gobbledegook.
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable. In so far as your exposition on computational space is concerned, I see none of that. It's all metaphysics to me.
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact. I struggle to get the concept of the special theory of relativity, and anything beyond that is completely beyond my grasp. I have no opinion concerning the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, m-string and supertstring and whatever. What I do know, is that the theory of gravity and the special theory of relativity made concrete predictions. Had subsequent observations been at variance with them, that would have been the end of them. In so far as the theories I do not understand can also be tested in some such fashion, I regard them as scientific, albeit as yet untested hypotheses. If they can't, they are gobbledegook.
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable. In so far as your exposition on computational space is concerned, I see none of that. It's all metaphysics to me.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 10:18 AM
OK. I assume you feel the same way about M-Theory and Superstring theory then? They're gobbledygook?
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact. I struggle to get the concept of the special theory of relativity, and anything beyond that is completely beyond my grasp. I have no opinion concerning the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, m-string and supertstring and whatever. What I do know, is that the theory of gravity and the special theory of relativity made concrete predictions. Had subsequent observations been at variance with them, that would have been the end of them. In so far as the theories I do not understand can also be tested in some such fashion, I regard them as scientific, albeit as yet untested hypotheses. If they can't, they are gobbledegook.
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable. In so far as your exposition on computational space is concerned, I see none of that. It's all metaphysics to me.
You actually didn't answer my second question. But I don't want to look like I'm beating up a self-described "simpleton".
The world needs good practical thinkers too. ;]
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable? I'm not talking about whether you should believe if the unseeable exists though. Or do you believe there could be aspects of reality not accessible to science.FedUpWithFaith, I said I am a simpleton. That is not an insincere, rhetorical utterance. It is a matter of fact. I struggle to get the concept of the special theory of relativity, and anything beyond that is completely beyond my grasp. I have no opinion concerning the general theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, m-string and supertstring and whatever. What I do know, is that the theory of gravity and the special theory of relativity made concrete predictions. Had subsequent observations been at variance with them, that would have been the end of them. In so far as the theories I do not understand can also be tested in some such fashion, I regard them as scientific, albeit as yet untested hypotheses. If they can't, they are gobbledegook.
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable. In so far as your exposition on computational space is concerned, I see none of that. It's all metaphysics to me.
You actually didn't answer my second question. But I don't want to look like I'm beating up a self-described "simpleton".
The world needs good practical thinkers too. ;]
Hermit
8th February 2012, 10:42 AM
You actually didn't answer my second question.You mean your last question? I ignored it on purpose. Having turned to discussing the merits of computational space at length is already a significant tangent from the topic Zigmen started. A discussion of the nature of reality - or whatever the second question is meant to lead to - is a tangent from that tangent. I know, I know; everything is connected with everything, but perhaps we ought to continue with these tangents in a new thread, and go back to the beginning in this one.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 11:28 AM
You actually didn't answer my second question.You mean your last question? I ignored it on purpose. Having turned to discussing the merits of computational space at length is already a significant tangent from the topic Zigmen started. A discussion of the nature of reality - or whatever the second question is meant to lead to - is a tangent from that tangent. I know, I know; everything is connected with everything, but perhaps we ought to continue with these tangents in a new thread, and go back to the beginning in this one.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?
And as to your other point. I don't know what happened to Zigman but I'd suspect he'd still find the discussion pertinent. I brought up the whole idea of computational space to address his "something from nothing" concerns. Digital Physics obviates that problem.
As for our tangent on the empirical describability of reality, this is really an argument about the nature and limits of science itself, which is very germane to many of the arguments in this thread. I know you hate metaphysics, but believe it or not some intelligent God believers understand that the effectiveness of science is itself dependent on some metaphysical assumptions. It seems I recall some excellent arguments once about causality and the Humean problem - that came from YOU.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?
And as to your other point. I don't know what happened to Zigman but I'd suspect he'd still find the discussion pertinent. I brought up the whole idea of computational space to address his "something from nothing" concerns. Digital Physics obviates that problem.
As for our tangent on the empirical describability of reality, this is really an argument about the nature and limits of science itself, which is very germane to many of the arguments in this thread. I know you hate metaphysics, but believe it or not some intelligent God believers understand that the effectiveness of science is itself dependent on some metaphysical assumptions. It seems I recall some excellent arguments once about causality and the Humean problem - that came from YOU.
Hermit
8th February 2012, 11:52 AM
You actually didn't answer my second question.You mean your last question? I ignored it on purpose. Having turned to discussing the merits of computational space at length is already a significant tangent from the topic Zigmen started. A discussion of the nature of reality - or whatever the second question is meant to lead to - is a tangent from that tangent. I know, I know; everything is connected with everything, but perhaps we ought to continue with these tangents in a new thread, and go back to the beginning in this one.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?My answer was plainly 'Yes':
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable.
It seems I recall some excellent arguments once about causality and the Humean problem - that came from YOU.
Thanks. Definitely philosophical, yes, but to my mind not at all metaphysical. Also, I think Hume was excellently defining the limits of knowledge. I am intent on not transgressing them.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?My answer was plainly 'Yes':
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable.
It seems I recall some excellent arguments once about causality and the Humean problem - that came from YOU.
Thanks. Definitely philosophical, yes, but to my mind not at all metaphysical. Also, I think Hume was excellently defining the limits of knowledge. I am intent on not transgressing them.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 12:23 PM
You actually didn't answer my second question.You mean your last question? I ignored it on purpose. Having turned to discussing the merits of computational space at length is already a significant tangent from the topic Zigmen started. A discussion of the nature of reality - or whatever the second question is meant to lead to - is a tangent from that tangent. I know, I know; everything is connected with everything, but perhaps we ought to continue with these tangents in a new thread, and go back to the beginning in this one.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?My answer was plainly 'Yes':
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable.
:facepalm::noo:
You still don't get it. I didn't say anything about theory in my second question. But if your answer is really "yes" you are making a massive metaphysical assumption. Either answer requires a metaphysical stance but a "no" makes a weak one. You are certainly exceeding the limits of knowledge too. Your best option would be to say "I don't know" but if I had to speculate I'd guess _____ because _____. That's what good scientists do and it often leads to hypotheses that get experiemental support.
I think Hume was excellently defining the limits of knowledge. I am intent on not transgressing them.
I think you just did.
No, I meant my second question - LOL:
I'm curious. Do you think that everything fundamental that "IS" must, by its nature, be directly empirically verifiable?
I think you misunderstood it. Put another way: If something is real or a part of reality, must it, by it's nature, be accessible to observation and empirical testing?My answer was plainly 'Yes':
And no, I do not actually demand that theories are directly empirically verifiable. I did say they need to be "in principle and ultimately anchored in observation" as well as testable and therefore falsifiable.
:facepalm::noo:
You still don't get it. I didn't say anything about theory in my second question. But if your answer is really "yes" you are making a massive metaphysical assumption. Either answer requires a metaphysical stance but a "no" makes a weak one. You are certainly exceeding the limits of knowledge too. Your best option would be to say "I don't know" but if I had to speculate I'd guess _____ because _____. That's what good scientists do and it often leads to hypotheses that get experiemental support.
I think Hume was excellently defining the limits of knowledge. I am intent on not transgressing them.
I think you just did.
PermanentlyEphemeral
8th February 2012, 12:32 PM
That's what good scientists do and it often leads to hypotheses that get experiemental support.
And good scientists are willing to give up hypotheses if results indicate such.
And good scientists are willing to give up hypotheses if results indicate such.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 12:37 PM
Yup
Hermit
8th February 2012, 01:21 PM
You still don't get it.
And you plainly don't get where I'm coming from either, although you'll undoubtedly tell me next that you do, but that you also know where I went wrong.
I was enjoying our dialogue for a while, thinking we may get somewhere, but that is no longer the case. I'll give it a rest for tonight. Perhaps some way of expressing myself more clearly will occur to me later on, in the hope that the respective paradigms we are arguing from get to make some contact. Until then, fare well.
And you plainly don't get where I'm coming from either, although you'll undoubtedly tell me next that you do, but that you also know where I went wrong.
I was enjoying our dialogue for a while, thinking we may get somewhere, but that is no longer the case. I'll give it a rest for tonight. Perhaps some way of expressing myself more clearly will occur to me later on, in the hope that the respective paradigms we are arguing from get to make some contact. Until then, fare well.
FedUpWithFaith
8th February 2012, 01:49 PM
Seraph, I was enjoying it too. I think this is miscommunication. I have thought of another rephrase, if you decide to reconsider.
Given enough time, resources, and brainpower, dies empirical science, in principle, provide sufficient means to enable us to completely discover/describe/learn (to know) all the principles that govern all reality.
As an FYI, my answer would be that I don't know but I highly doubt it
Given enough time, resources, and brainpower, dies empirical science, in principle, provide sufficient means to enable us to completely discover/describe/learn (to know) all the principles that govern all reality.
As an FYI, my answer would be that I don't know but I highly doubt it
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét