It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How can the Universe exist without Logos?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



When one looks at a population and finds that within that population a behavior is consistent, that would mean also inherent as well as innate.

To put it another way, beyond humans on earth. Animals with the capacity to think equivalent to that of a baby chicken can count.

What precisely would you call it?







edit on 31-3-2014 by Kashai because: Content edit




posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





The form of a cat exists outside the physical reality of a cat. When you "think of a cat", unless you're thinking of a specific one, you're thinking of the form of a cat, which does not exist in reality, and that form is eternal -- it pre-existed physical cats, it is not dependent on you (or anyone) thinking about it, and it will continue to exist forever, even after physical cats are long extinct.

That's the difference between intelligible things (like the form of a cat, or the second law of thermodynamics) and sensible things (like a physical cat, or the gravitational effect of one object on another.) By your claim, there are only sensible things (things that can be sensed,) and there are no intelligible things, but that is obviously false, because the laws of physics, or the laws of mathematics, are intelligible things, not sensible things -- only the results of those laws can be sensed, not the laws themselves.

An obvious refutation of your original claim that planets are responsible for gravity is that such a claim is circuitous -- as gravity is necessary for the formation of a planet, a planet cannot be the source of the law of gravity, or else the planet could never have formed in the first place. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thinking of a cat, any cat, does not presuppose that there is a universal cat out there. You're thinking about it, meaning it is in the imagination. What about the form of mud? Is there a universal form of gas? Water? The theory of forms is a little antiquated, as is the "law of gravity". Let's update our thinking a bit here.

A planet can be a source of gravity. So can a star. So can any physical body attracting another, including the space dust that makes up planets. Without those bodies, there is no "law of gravity".








Can



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Again, this is Logos. These are fundamental truths and the sequential arrangement gives rise to the Universe we see and the Civilizations we build.

It doesn't matter what they call the law of gravity on another civilization it will still be the law of gravity. Their local numbering system will not change these truths.

They may call planets something different, that doesn't change the sequential arrangement of these fundamental truths that gave rise to the planets that we live on.

I know materialist want to reduce everything to the material brain but it's just a fantasy. Without the sequential arrangement of the laws of physics that's precise down to Planck's Constant there wouldn't be any Universe. This is Logos.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 





When one looks at a population and finds that within that population a behavior is consistent, that would mean also inherent as well as innate.

To put it another way, beyond humans on earth. Animals with the capacity to think equivalent to that of a baby chicken can count.

What precisely would call it?



I would agree. Practicing math is a behavioural trait performed by animals.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





Again, this is Logos. These are fundamental truths and the sequential arrangement gives rise to the Universe we see and the Civilizations we build.


I cannot see how that is the case. It's the other way around. We see the universe, and devise our models of it—math, physics, etc. The very fact that a proof or theory can be wrong is evidence of this.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



Without those bodies, there is no "law of gravity".

No. Without those bodies, there is no gravity.

The underlying laws of physics which cause gravity to exist, where bodies are present, are not dependent on gravity and are not sensible objects. Again, you are making a logical error, using circuitous logic.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


What????

The sequential arrangement of the laws of physics in our universe is fundamental. It doesn't matter what local numbering system a civilization comes up with, the sequence of that system describes fundamental truths.

This is why we have everything from GPS to laptop computers.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Only because they are both observing and trying to describe the same phenomena, not because there is a hidden mathematics in it.

I think the disagreement may be in that you see "phenomena" where others may see controlled boundaries.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
So we are not talking about the universe having a brand symbol, as I read "logos" originally. I am only half understanding this thread but if we are talking about sequences with cause and effect then the role of time is crucial. Time is a property within the universe but so much remains to be understood.

Time at the quantum level doesn't mean that much. A emits X which is absorbed by B. It could equally be the other way around. Billiard balls randomly bouncing around a table look the same whatever the direction of time, but the break off shot certainly does not. So maybe the issue here is where did the "triangle" come from.

Gravity and time are intricately linked. From a forward in time perspective gravity makes matter attract, causing clumps that do "interesting things". One of those interesting things is to create creatures with brains - and brains gain complexity in a forward in time direction.

If matter suddenly had more mass, then time would appear to slow (if it was possible to observe from outside). But then, what is matter? What does that actually mean? It becomes a circular argument. Why should matter create gravity, which in turn affects time? We are just scraping the surface of understanding this. Does gravity exist in the absence of matter (maybe there is a known answer to that already)? Does time exist in the absence of matter?

Did gravity exist in the (very) early universe? Does time exist in a much older universe? And lastly, does the future affect the past? If so, what does that imply?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Buziblu
 


"Logos" is Greek for "thought". The essential idea is that the universe's existence/functionality is heavily reliant upon consciousness, whether it be ours or that of a higher being.
edit on 31-3-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





The underlying laws of physics which cause gravity to exist, where bodies are present, are not dependent on gravity and are not sensible objects. Again, you are making a logical error, using circuitous logic.


The underlying laws of physics? Not sensible objects?

You've lost me.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





The sequential arrangement of the laws of physics in our universe is fundamental. It doesn't matter what local numbering system a civilization comes up with, the sequence of that system describes fundamental truths.

This is why we have everything from GPS to laptop computers.



It is not fundamental. It is abstract. It is after the fact. It is interpretation, not truth.

The sequence of that system describes only that system.

This is why we cannot create life, only models of it. Math is not a 1 to 1 ratio with the universe.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 

An interesting perspective. As a thought experiment let's say we take all matter out of the contained space of the universe. Now we introduce matter. Did the laws that interact with the object exist prior to the object or did they manifest once the object was introduced?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


"This is why we cannot create life, only models of it. Math is not a 1 to 1 ratio with the universe."

But life exist so there need be a fundamental set of rules, that allowed for it being inherent to this Universe, in so much as we can perceive.

Math is a language; it is a manner of representing things with symbols that are assigned value.

In context all animals as smart as a baby Chicken, that potentially exist in the Universe. Can count and based upon that make decisions. depending on the capacity of that animal to do so.

Any thoughts?





edit on 31-3-2014 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 



Of course the systems describe a fundamental truth of the universe. The truths themselves are a sequential arrangement of the laws of physics. Try jumping off the top of a building and see if these truths don't cause you to come crashing down.

The math is objectively true and it doesn't matter if we call it math and another civilization on a different planet calls their math something else. It will still be describing the fundamental sequential arrangement of the laws of physics.

Here's a recent paper on synthetic biology.


Science, man. An international team of scientists have made a major breakthrough in synthetic biology. For the first time ever, they were able to insert a man-made, custom-built chromosome into brewer's yeast to not only create a life form but one that also passes down its man-made genes to its offspring. We're closer to creating artificial life.

Scientists have previously made chromosomes for bacteria and viruses but this is the first time they've been able to build a chromosome for something more complex. Called eukaryotic chromosomes, they have a nucleus and are found in plants, animals and humans.


sploid.gizmodo.com...

You think math had anything to do with this LOL? Math just represents a fundamental truth of our universe. If another Civilization discovered the same thing, it's because they discovered the same science through their local numbering system. Again, this is Logos.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by usertwelve
 





An interesting perspective. As a thought experiment let's say we take all matter out of the contained space of the universe. Now we introduce matter. Did the laws that interact with the object exist prior to the object or did they manifest once the object was introduced?


I would argue they occur after matter is introduced; that laws don't govern matter (a very risky word), but matter governs laws.

Physical laws without physical objects simply wouldn't occur.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Aphorism
reply to post by usertwelve
 





An interesting perspective. As a thought experiment let's say we take all matter out of the contained space of the universe. Now we introduce matter. Did the laws that interact with the object exist prior to the object or did they manifest once the object was introduced?


I would argue they occur after matter is introduced; that laws don't govern matter (a very risky word), but matter governs laws.

Physical laws without physical objects simply wouldn't occur.


How can this be??

How can physical objects be put into sequential arrangements without the laws of physics?



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





Of course the systems describe a fundamental truth of the universe. The truths themselves are a sequential arrangement of the laws of physics. Try jumping off the top of a building and see if these truths don't cause you to come crashing down.


They're descriptions of physical objects doing physical things. What we name them, what math we use, what logic we utilize, whether we call them "truth" or not, has no bearing whatsoever.

I think the difference between yours and my thinking is that you believe that laws govern nature, that nature simply obeys these laws (simply the God concept reworded), while I believe that laws merely point out regularities found in nature itself.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 





How can physical objects be put into sequential arrangements without the laws of physics?


They are one and the same.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Aphorism
 


Of course it does. The mathematical descriptions describe a fundamental truth about the universe. Like I said, try jumping out of a window and see if the mathematics that describe the Law of Gravity isn't a fundamental truth.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join