4
   

A neutral thread about big bang vs creation (at least by intention)

 
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:34 am
@farmerman,
I too find genetic memory to be an interesting concept, it would explain a lot.
My brother and I have always gotten a bang out of seeing our father in each other, things like movements and postures that you'd seemingly have no reason to assume were learned behavior.
I don't really go in for the Bridey Murphy sort of thing, but I'm not ruling it out. I am more inclined toward the sort of memory we're seeing unfold within the Nascar generations right now.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  4  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 09:49 am
@wayne,
Quote:
Is it possible that the universe came into being spontaneously? Sure it is, but that doesn't prove it did.


Before you answer that question, is there reason to assume that it is a valid question?

What makes you think the universe "came into being"?
That things "come into being" is a human concept useful from a human perspective. Just because it works with "a flame coming into being when you strike a match", that doesn't mean that the concept can be transferred to something that is way outside the daily human experience and still apply.

Here are some thoughts:
We perceive matter as something solid, something physical and real. A rock, for instance.
On a smaller scale, the same matter is a configuration of molecules, smaller units that appear to us like a single rock.
On an even smaller scale it's a configuration of atoms, and relative to the physical matter in atoms, they contain more emptiness than matter.
On an even smaller scale, physicists have discovered, atoms aren't even physical anymore. In it's most fundamental form the universe doesn't exist in the same way we say we exist, in that we have matter and form and are real.
Some describe the universe, when looked at in it's smallest scales as non-material information.
According to newer theories, the universe never "came into being". "Being" is a concept invented by those who had a need to classify the perception of it.
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:31 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
Before you answer that question, is there reason to assume that it is a valid question?


Point taken, perhaps it would be better said The Observable Universe.
Our observations of the universe are dependent upon light, which gives us a limited historical view of the cosmos?
Which depends upon the observer having developed to observe light.
How much smaller our perceptions of the cosmos were we blind.
Perhaps that we are, in fact, still blind.

Given our limited perceptions, there is evidence of the cosmos undergoing an existential change at a given point, ie the big bang. But you're right, that doesn't mean it came into being.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:45 am
@farmerman,
Sure, Bubba, whatever you say. People commonly use captial letters on words which start new sentences. How foolish of me not to have recalled your incompetence in such matters.

"Why are we here" is an ontological question. Science can't answer such questions, something you alluded to yourself when you said that science doesn't care. So the reasonable assumptions is that you just didn't get it.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:45 am
@wayne,
Quote:
Our observations of the universe are dependent upon light


Our observations are also dependent on us.

They say that according to our observations of light, the universe was an infinitely small point around 13.7 billion years ago, and no matter which direction you look, you will see this point.

From wiki on Observable universe:
Quote:
In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that we can in principle observe from Earth in the present day, because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach us since the beginning of the cosmological expansion. Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction—that is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer, regardless of the shape of the universe as a whole. Every location in the universe has its own observable universe which may or may not overlap with the one centered on the Earth.


I think the interpretation of data that led to the big bang theory was done with one specific goal in mind: It had to be comprehensible to us. The data was arranged along a linear progression in time, because that's how it was assumed to be. The idea of "objective facts" reigned, and people hadn't begun to question the validity of true objectivity. In a way, there were a whole series of mysteries that had to be accounted for in a way that we could relate to them, which is a pretty big condition set by us. I am not sure that this condition didn't influence the outcome.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:46 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:
According to newer theories, the universe never "came into being". "Being" is a concept invented by those who had a need to classify the perception of it.


Which is to say, it's a matter of ontology.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:48 am
@Cyracuz,
...good reply Cyr... Wink
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 10:56 am
@Cyracuz,
Good summary Cyracuz
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 01:36 pm
@Cyracuz,
Great post, Cyr. It's essentially what I've been saying for a long, long time but you said it so much better and more succinctly.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2011 02:17 pm
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 07:15 am
I hope my little blow up at Set didnt derail anything here but I really want the concept of"Similitude" to be understood in this context. MAybe I just wasnt being cklear enough.

We see that, in the cosmos, that there are auras about novae and galaxies that vary their spectrographic signals that are inorganic (Light elements grading to heavier elements) and inorganic chemistry to organic chemistry. (We see amino acides pyridines, and phenolics in the galactic corona.)Like a giant galaxy sized chromatograph, These chemical signatures display the very process of "Creation" in action. The fact that we can track the light from distant (IE earlier) galaxies, removes much of this scientific mystery of Creation. Its the very nature of the various similar forces to follow a similar pattern of distribution and formation of other galactic nucleii. Its not a mytery of "HOW" , but it is a mystery of "WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE DO THIS STUFF?"

We see the same patterns on earth
My example of gold in quartz and Pyrimidines in corona, follows Clarkes second law of discovery "All new discoveries will come out of that which is now considered craziness" (I paraphrase).

We use the various available laws to try to understand the big patterns of cosmology. (We use the chemistry of Ficks laws of diffusion and the HEnry LAw constants to explain why "YOUNG GALAXIES" all seem to have the same distribution of elemenst.

Of course my interest has unashamedly been in the organic world but I see that a growing explanation track for "Creation" is following the rules of most of a bunch of interelated scientific LAWS but where these laws are twisted around in terms of other realms of reactions and display. We can discern galactic physics from understanding chromatographic patterns here on earth .

We usually see that Galaxies of a certain class(age and size), routinely begin to show L and R versions of amino acids in their spectrographic coronae. (IS THIS GOD IN ACTION???) I think not. Just as Creationists get all bent out of shape re: the fact that we can view organic evolution in action, similarly, we seem to be all bent out of shape about these bigger mysteries " HOW and WHY did it all start" . I submit that these wont be answered by philosophying from comfy chairs, but will be discovered by years of grunt work observation and INTERDISCIPLANARY SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

I watched Albaquerque's U tube. (about half of it, ill finish tonite) The first dude was a bit defensive because he was dissing HAwking for not understanding philosophy while calling for its death. I submit that the speaker didnt understand a bit about how science (or the realm of the cosmos) works. Science never "goes out" with a mission to discover the big truths. It usually stumbles blindly over things that ultimately are synthesized into something that seems half intelligent.(I think thats Clarkes FIRST LAW of discovery in science) Science is always stumbling about, but, like I said in the outset, all of these interactions and actions in the universe and in biology are NOT RANDOM. previous reactions dictate and limit what the subsequent reactions must be. Its as simple as that.

ALSO, its unfortunate that the term "BIG BANG" was ever coined. It, like "CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION" fails to capture the real mechanism and all the crap thats been presented in BB's name has done more to confuse, rather than explain the origin of our universe.

When science can understand what and how it all happened just by analyzing light, color, and ptterns of dense v light materials, the WHY slowly will become known (IMHO) of course, the neat thing aboiut looking at answers in cosmology by analyszing chemistry and partixloe physics MAY BE ALL FULL OF AHIT, but thats fun too.

Ill back off, but I at least wanted to be fully understood, unless the whole subjects are so arcane taht we all see only through our own sets of glasses. (BUT THATS FUN TOO)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:12 am
@farmerman,
...let me just say in my defence that I totally oppose William Lane Crane´s views regarding this matter although I admire and deeply recognize his undeniable competence as a speaker and as a Philosopher...my point in bringing him to this thread was about ridiculing Hawking's pretentious and utterly ignorant claims regarding the "death" of Philosophy, his explanations upon "nothingness" and the beginning of the Universe out of it...I suggest you pay attention to what he says up to where he jumps to "God" as justification which is the point where what he has to say does n´t interest me any more because it is not properly backed up and becomes a matter of faith...I assure you Krane is brilliant even if a big hypocrite, and is worth hearing carefully in spite of his background...
(if you are not trained in Philosophy or Logic I suggest to hear him twice, take notes and pay extreme attention)
...finally to say that "you" scientists have no clue the type of fight you are piking with Philosophy regarding the capacity of rationally making sense of data...you see you have no chance at all...no training and no capacity...the naivety displayed by scientists its almost fun if it was n´t for the huge responsibility they carry on their shoulders...
Science is trained in gathering data and on that regard the success of its method is undeniably useful, but when it comes to get an explanation out of that data scientists suck big time...they just simply are unprepared to deal with logic in complex tasks as sometimes is required...regarding the mess in quantum physic's in the past century scientists are in desperate need of philosophy to get anywhere close of getting an integrated explanation for what they observe...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
The name of the man is William Lane Craig and not Crane or Krane as I carelessly mentioned...I apologise as he deserves a bit more of respect from me...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:36 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
(edited for correction)
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...let me just say in my defence that I totally oppose William Lane Craig´s views regarding this matter although I admire and deeply recognize his undeniable competence as a speaker and as a Philosopher...my point in bringing him to this thread was about ridiculing Hawking's pretentious and utterly ignorant claims regarding the "death" of Philosophy, his explanations upon "nothingness" and the beginning of the Universe out of it...I suggest you pay attention to what he says up to where he jumps to "God" as justification which is the point where what he has to say does n´t interest me any more because it is not properly backed up and becomes a matter of faith...I assure you Craig is brilliant even if a big hypocrite, and is worth hearing carefully in spite of his background...
(if you are not trained in Philosophy or Logic I suggest to hear him twice, take notes and pay extreme attention)
...finally to say that "you" scientists have no clue the type of fight you are peaking with Philosophy regarding the capacity of rationally making sense of data...you see you have no chance at all...no training and no capacity...the naivety displayed by scientists its almost fun if it was n´t for the huge responsibility they carry on their shoulders...
Science is trained in gathering data and on that regard the success of its method is undeniably useful, but when it comes to get an explanation out of that data scientists suck big time...they just simply are unprepared to deal with logic in complex tasks as sometimes is required...regarding the mess in quantum physic's in the past century scientists are in desperate need of philosophy to get anywhere close of getting an integrated explanation for what they observe...
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:40 am
Well, all of this reminds me of Loren Eiseley's encounter with a spider...
Eiseley wrote:
An excerpt from The Star Thrower...

"Curious, I took a pencil from my pocket and touched a strand of the [spider] web. Immediately there was a response. The web, plucked by its menacing occupant, began to vibrate until it was a blur. Anything that had brushed claw or wing against that amazing snare would be thoroughly entrapped. As the vibrations slowed, I could see the owner fingering her guidelines for signs of struggle. A pencil point was an intrusion into this universe for which no precedent existed. Spider was circumscribed by spider ideas; its universe was spider universe. All outside was irrational, extraneous, at best raw material for spider. As I proceeded on my way along the gully, like a vast impossible shadow, I realized that in the world of spider I did not exist."
... and by this, I don't think Eiseley was proposing necessarily that god exists so much as he was reminded that the truth of what's out there may be so alien to us as to be incomprehensible. When trying to quantize our understanding of things beyond the Universe (Big Bang) and the physics we know, there's a decent chance that the true reality beyond the curtain of our perception simply will never fit into our limitations.
Eiseley wrote:
The spider was a symbol of man in miniature. The wheel of the web brought the analogy home clearly. Man, too, lies at the heart of a web, a web extending through the starry reaches of sidereal space, as well as backward into the dark realm of prehistory. His great eye upon Mount Palomar looks into a distance of millions of light-years, his radio ear hears the whisper of even more remote galaxies, he peers through the electron microscope upon the minute particles of his own being. It is a web no creature of earth has ever spun before. Like the orb spider, man lies at the heart of it, listening. Knowledge has given him the memory of earth's history beyond the time of his emergence. Like the spider's claw, a part of him touches a world he will never enter in the flesh. Even now, one can see him reaching forward into time with new machines, computing, analyzing, until elements of the shadowy future will also compose part of the invisible web he fingers.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 08:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...let me just ad that Philosophy is very old and indeed has many dead branches...one must learn to separate junk from gold when it comes to entering its realms...I for instance won´t to have nothing to do with philosophy of the mind and conscientiousness and that kind of people, so be careful when trying to quickly take a general picture of what is dealt with in Philosophy as probably you will barely scratch the surface and get the wrong idea...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2011 10:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I agree, and aqs HAwking never broached, the trouble with science is the scientists. ARguably the only thing that crane said that I liked was that we end our inquiries when we find that our findings "Sorta work".
I can live with that and I never ever blindly stumble into the world of the philosophical because it iswnt so much that we are all unprepared, its more the fable of :
"There were six men from Hindustan to l;earning much inclined,
Who came to see the elephant though all of them were blind"...

I think its more a matter of inability to have our various bases of acticvity even be tangent, let alone intersect.

I am quite satisfied that if I can understand how close to the initiuation of the inflation I am, then my tasks are done and I can move on to the next big mechanical question.
We all suffer from disciplinary limitations of vocabulary.
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:34 am
@Cyracuz,
Time will show the poroof that God and science have no seperation
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 12:51 am
@Philis,
Laughing .... unless of course that both "time" and "God" are psychological constructions !
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Jan, 2012 05:32 am
Philis has been busily posting in just about every recent thread which has a tag such a religion. You can consider her contibution here to be in the nature of a drive by posting.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 01:32:23