The creation of everything... How?

@Cyracuz,

I suggest that you stop thinking of the Big Bang theory (and evolution for that matter) as something which is Right or Wrong, and start thinking of it as the model which most closely matches available evidence. Nothing else matches the evidence, and nothing else (at this time) even comes close to matching the evidence.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Did I not say in the post you responded to that "it's true because it works"?

I am not thinking in terms of right and wrong, and if I have used those words at some point it may have been in a response to someone else doing so, or I might have made a mistake.

I have not disputed that the big bang theory matches the available evidence. But try putting it into a larger perspective. Before the big bang theory there was the theory of the steady state universe. This model was what matched the evidence at that time. Big bang theory came along and offered a much more comprehensive cosmological model, and through the years the theory has been tweaked to fit new findings in physics.

So if you are suggesting that we may never uncover things about reality that can make the big bang theory obsolete I think you are assuming too much. But you didn't really say that, rosborne. Still I'll leave the remark for Bill, as he seems to hold that opinion.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

But if it is nonsense, could you perhaps point me to the conclusive evidence produced by classical physics that shows with absolute certainty that consciousness evolved from physical matter?

Once more for the thousands and one times no one is under any obligation to disprove anything include the tooth fairy is not for real.

It is in fact impossible to prove with absolute certainty that the tooth fairy is not for real.

It is however the obligation of anyone claiming any theory of any kind have some evidence of some kind that the theory you are putting forward have some connection to the real universe.

Now you are surely bright enough to know this so why are you being dishonest here over the matter of who indeed have the burden of proof.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

So if you are suggesting that we may never uncover things about reality that can make the big bang theory obsolete I think you are assuming too much. But you didn't really say that, rosborne. Still I'll leave the remark for Bill, as he seems to hold that opinion.

The evidences for the big bang is not going to disappear one day in the far future and at worst or more correctly at best we will find facts and theories that go beyond the big bang.

Newtonian laws and picture of the universe under them is as I stated over and over is "just" a special case that does not completely cover our current understandings however it is still very useful for most every days matters.

The Newton's laws did not disappear when Einstein released his first paper on GR theory.

The big bang happen by all evidences and the likelihood of it being found not to had happen in the future is near zero no matter how must our understandings will had increase.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

I did not ask you to disprove anything.

I asked you to prove that the physical universe preceeded consciousness. The entire big bang theory is based on this assumption. Same facts, if that assumption had been a different one, the theory might have been completely different. I am getting tired of repeating this point.

And you have to explain "TH".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You seem to be playing silly words games base on new age ideas that had not one bit of evidence behind them.

And no I can not prove that this universe and reality is not all just a dream in some super mind.

Yes indeed, I am assuming that this is not some game being play out by "gods" or whatever in the background.

I happen to enjoy movies such as the Adjustment Bureau or **** I can not think of the name of the movie where the machines are giving us a false reality and using humans as a power source.

In any case, no matter how must I may enjoy such movies and can not disprove their story lines in absolute terms without evidence for this reality not being what it seem on it face such concepts in just good for movies and for playing mind games.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You playing silly words game base on new age ideas that had not one bit of evidence behind them.

Are you being willfully dense? Forget about what I think for a moment, and think for yourself. I will give you a few simple facts to consider:

We know a series of things about reality. Facts, hard facts as you call them.

Any theory is a conceptual framework that connects facts into a comprehensible system of relations. The big bang theory is no exception.

And now we get to the point where you fall off every time: When considering the facts, and constructing the theory, none of the facts ever addressed consciousness. Physics disregards it entirely.
When the original theory was formulated, no one had any clue how life or consciousness had evolved from physical matter. Everyone just tended to assume that this would be explained by science.
And it's still being assumed.
It is being assumed that when science discovers the true nature of consciousness, it will reveal something that fits with our assumptions.

If you cannot see my point it is perhaps because you relate to the big bang in terms of a belief you have adopted based on your trust in those who have done the actual work. And unless you yourself know enough physics to veryify everything by yourself, don't tell me it's not a matter of belief.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

When the original theory was formulated, no one had any clue how life or consciousness had evolved from physical matter. Everyone just tended to assume that this would be explained by science.
And it's still being assumed.
It is being assumed that when science discovers the true nature of consciousness, it will reveal something that fits with our assumptions.

Who know for sure as we do indeed live in a strange and wonderful universe but once more there is zero repeat zero evidence for this universe being held together by a god or an overall "consciousness field" or however the hell you wish to express your idea.

When you run across evidences for such being the case or a least run across a theory that can be tested in some manner all this consciousness question is a pointless mind game. It surely is anything but science.

A mind game without a great deal of a point to it as a matter of fact.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Who know for sure as we do indeed live in a strange and wonderful universe but once more there is zero repeat zero evidence for this universe being held together by a god or an overall "consciousness field" or however the hell you wish to express your idea.

I do not dispute that. My belief that this may be the case is not a matter of science, it's a matter of philosophy. And it's entirely beside the point. You are acting like a religious nut again, dodging the question by saying how ridiculous the oposite view sounds.

But there is zero, repeat zero evidence that consciousness is the result of some chemical reaction in matter.
Yet that is what you believe. Can you explain to me how you justify this belief when there are no facts to support it?

This assumption is so fundamental to the formation of the big bang theory (not the facts it corresponds to) that many physicists seem to take it in stride, and it does not even register with them that they made an assumption, and that this assumption can have direct bearing on how the theory is.

Are you familiar with the concept of Wave Function Collapse?

"In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer." -Wiki, wave function collapse.

This proves conclusively that observation has a direct effect on matter. An indication that things are not as one sided as you seem to think, perhaps?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I do not dispute that. My belief that this may be the case is not a matter of science, it's a matter of philosophy. And it's entirely beside the point. You are acting like a religious nut again, dodging the question by saying how ridiculous the oposite view sounds.

Yes religion is not a matter of science and that what you got here a religion/philosophy idea that is as untestable as the three in one god head is behind everything.

As such it will never be able to challenge the big bang or any other scientific position as there is no overlap between your mind/conscience philosophy and the view of the universe given by science.

Strange is it not that you are, as you had just stated, aware that we are not talking about science and yet you had been trying use the standing of science in the society to sell your philosophy on this thread?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I am not selling anything. But your continued failure to respond to the issue at hand speaks volumes.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I am not selling anything. But your continued failure to respond to the issue at hand speaks volumes.

Whatever, as if it made you happy to try to used the language of science to express you non-scientific ideas of the universe that is fine with me go for it.

You however are not going to be fooling too many people because you used terms, like wave function collapse from the field of QM that you are talking about science instead of an inherently non-scientific idea.

By the way as you had admitted in this thread that your idea is not scientific so why are you still running back and trying to cover it is terms of science?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The idea isn't scientific because it speaks to more than science can account for. It does not contradict science.

You, however, seem to ignore my statement that there is an inherently non-scientific assumption and the very base of this. That assumption is "consciousness evolved from matter".

Do you have anything to say to that at all? I am getting tired of you ignoring this point.

1 Reply

You have to go with the evidence you've got. And then there are assumptions temporarily made from said evidence. The mistake is in ascribing human-like purpose and intelligence to the universe. We are still learning how we as its products are influenced by the very fact we are part of it. We are subject to forces we can't always understand, but at least awareness seems to be expanding with science. It seems to me that everything is connected at a fundamental level we are just beginning to probe.

1 Reply

There is no proof that consciousness
requires matter for its existence.

David

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I share your view edgar. I am trying to make some "reasonable" people see that there are assumptions in the theories they believe so firmly to be strictly and exclusively based on facts.

Bill is acting as if I have called into question the validity of the whole of science by saying that there are assumptions at the very foundations we build our theories from, and this makes belief an intrinsic part of most, if not all scientific theories.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Agreed.
Further, it is my opinion that people who fail to see the relevance of this point lacks creativity.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

oh but they do lack creativity... you see, this is an old war of genotypes...technocrats have an hard time with dynamics...they memorize operators, not operations... Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Some "rational" people see their inability to imagine an alternative as proof that there can be no alternative. Foolish, of course, but there it is.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Aside the "physical" issue I personally have nothing against a Big-Bang strong hypothesis...in turn, if it was the beginning or a system reset, is an entirely different matter...maybe windows universe crashes just as much as vista ! Laughing

1 Reply

The creation of everything... How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know