I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

It's interesting that you're focusing on this small part of my post while letting the rest of it slide.

The rest of your post was accusations and platitudes. Dull, unoriginal and unworthy of any response. But the claim that myths aren't made up is interesting -- if you can prove it. So prove it, or put a sock in it.

a reply to: craterman

The tiny possibility ratio is derived by math and science (not by me, some mathematician) and it is so tiny it is impossible without God.

Are you aware that this statement is absurd?

See if you can figure out why.

originally posted by: craterman
I used to be a fan of science (don't get me wrong, science can be beneficial and it is). But when it comes to the origin of the universe and life itself, science itself will tell you, God did it. For insistence, take the simple living cell. There are hundreds of chemical combination, all relying upon one another, involving hundreds of certain specific required molecules to function. It has been calculated that the chances of any living cell to spontaneously happen in nature (without the reproductive mechanisms of a cell) is about 1:1x10^40,000. That chance is why below possible considering the estimated number of sub atomic particles in the universe is about 1x10^256. And that is even not taking into consideration that the chemistry of molecules is already in place to do such a thing, that is no even part of that tiny chance and if it were, that chance would be even smaller. And common sense should tell, explosions (the big bang) do not decrease entropy, they increase it. As a matter of fact all closed systems increase in entropy without an external force. God is that force.

You do realize adding a magical being into the equation just makes it even less likely to occur. You seem to think it helps the odds in some way it doesnt.

originally posted by: craterman
a reply to: Astyanax

Both is true. The tiny possibility ratio is derived by math and science (not by me, some mathematician) and it is so tiny it is impossible without God. And common sense that an explosion does not create structure. Have ever seen an explosion make more structure??

It's not so hard to think that the basic building blocks of life formed and evolved on their own.

My belief is that life has been seeded throughtout this universe on comets or asteroids.

No SkyDaddy involved.

Link

Such conditions are plausible, and Szostak imagined the ongoing cycle of evaporation, heating and condensation providing “a kind of organic snow which could accumulate as a reservoir of material ready for the next step in RNA synthesis.”

Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh wait a minute, he didn't champion the theory. I wonder why?

He didn't?

Generically, the gravitational pull exerted by the matter in the universe slows the expansion imparted by the Big Bang. Cosmological constant

He didn't, nor did he champion the Cosmological constant, either, despite the fact that he used it in 1917 to produce a static (not expanding) universe. Einstein called the Cosmological constant his greatest mistake when Hubble showed that the universe was actually expanding in 1927.

If matter and energy countered gravitational energy exactly (a zero energy energy universe), then Einstein would not have needed to introduce an anti-gravitational force to his equations to balance gravity against all other energy.

It wasn't until after Einstein had passed away that it was discovered that the expansion of the universe was not static or decelerating but was accelerating, hence the need to review the Cosmological constant.

Later still, it has been discovered that the Cosmological constant does not allow a zero energy sum for the universe, as has been previously stated.

a reply to: chr0naut

Later still, it has been discovered that the Cosmological constant does not allow a zero energy sum for the universe, as has been previously stated.

1. Wrong.

2. Not the point.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

Later still, it has been discovered that the Cosmological constant does not allow a zero energy sum for the universe, as has been previously stated.

1. Wrong.

2. Not the point.

1. What is wrong about it? Expand on your refutation, citing examples and with references. Marks will be given out of 100.

2. Point, who needs stinkin' points where we are goin'!

3. Happy Easter(ogen).

a reply to: chr0naut

Cool. Normal Easter will do btw. My old school is trying to make me feel guilty for not showing up at morning service.

a reply to: droid56

There has been a growing number of new mainstream cosmological theories that do not need the Big Bang. Just search online.

Input output.

I watched this simulation power up, from outside of Time.

You were there and you, and you. And even YOU.


THE CORE IS A MODULATOR. An inverted powerless illusionary opposing waveform to the external dynamic sine input is created. Swallowed pasts sold as futures to remove omnipresence of the soul, and install polarity/duality. The restrictions needed to create spacetime. Life itself sampled approximated inverted and shot back at itself.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

It's interesting that you're focusing on this small part of my post while letting the rest of it slide.

The rest of your post was accusations and platitudes. Dull, unoriginal and unworthy of any response. But the claim that myths aren't made up is interesting -- if you can prove it. So prove it, or put a sock in it.

No, I think you saw some truth in it.

You've yet to define your version of "made up". Either do that or you put a sock in it.

a reply to: Xenogears

A simulation of what?

simulation: imitation of a situation or process.

originally posted by: AgathaLorentz
a reply to: droid56

There has been a growing number of new mainstream cosmological theories that do not need the Big Bang. Just search online.

They dont do away with the Big Band they do away with the singularity. Problem is evidence supports the big bang so scientists aren't ready to remove it when to explain observation you dont have another choice. we know inflation occurred and well is still happening.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Made up: created by the human imagination and having no objective reality although the narrative may be inspired by or purport to offer an explanation for real occurrences.

Carry on. Tell us how myths are not like this.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Made up: created by the human imagination and having no objective reality although the narrative may be inspired by or purport to offer an explanation for real occurrences.

Carry on. Tell us how myths are not like this.

I didn't suggest that they weren't like that.
They offer to explain something in the best way possible at the time.
Much like the Big Bang creation myth, no?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Much like the Big Bang creation myth, no?

Only in the sense that myths are often an attempt to explain and symbolize real occurrences. Where they differ is in the materials of their construction: the Big Bang hypothesis is based on the scientific method and makes testable predictions by means of which it can be at least partially verified; myths are products of the creative imagination, and the action in them is unconstrained by the laws of nature.

Many are unable to comprehend this difference; it is fully perceptible only to the scientifically literate. I'm genuinely sorry about that -- more sorry than you can know or would likely believe -- but it's a fact, inescapable. Some things you simply have to be educated to understand.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xenogears

A simulation of what?

simulation: imitation of a situation or process.

No simulation merely is states whose evolution is defined by certain rules.

If your brain is connected to a digital computer with a good enough brain computer interface, certain patterns of activity will generate the sensation of a particular sound, a particular sight, a particular sensation or smell. You could grow from birth connected to a computer, and if the patterns matched natural occurring stimuli, you would feel just as if you were in reality. The conscious sensation depends on the digital pattern, and that pattern needs no basis on reality, it merely correlates with such sensations if put through a brain.

You're just assuming that there is something "real" to which those patterns correspond to. But the reality is it doesn't matter if there's no reality behind such, patterns only need to correspond to other patterns and form a web of information.

Now the question is if what the brain is doing is computation, or if it has special fundamental properties. If all it's doing is computation, then a sequence of digital states would actually contain the sensations, the qualia, consciousness itself. Does information need some basis, some form of storage? It doesn't seem to me like truth need to be written anywhere for it to be true and eternal. If you don't write down or even know a particular truth, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, afaik.

The states of a simulation, a digital simulation, can be viewed as binary sequences, binary numbers, and the rules are merely mathematical functions to change or move from one number to another. As such, such transformations their beginning, intermediate, and end states are merely true statements about what happens when said rules are applied.

a reply to: Xenogears
So in order to follow your argumentation and storyline logically to understand what you're talking about, I just need to change my perception, knowledge and understanding of the meaning of the word "simulation"? Somehow I'm not surprised. I was quoting from the google dictionary btw.

The list of words that are bing warped to accomodate people's mythological philosophies continues to grow*...

nothing
design (designer, designing)
information
complex(ity)
machines
factual/absolute/certain/true
science/knowledge
hypothesis
evolution
(scientific) progress (regarding knowledge in a particular field or regarding a specific subject, usually the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis")
truth/reality
simulation
possible
random
God, god
name
title
noun
Lord, lord
Father, father(s)
Son, son(s)
Shepherd, shepherd(s)
Savior(s)
image of
firstborn of all creation
one (playing around with taking an unambiguously figurative use literally doing the Isa 5:20,21 thingy)
soul
spirit (not the same as soul, conflated by many)
hell (from the Latin: hel, not a word found in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, connected to the Pagan Babylonian mythologies of an underworld and the myth of the immortal soul)
death
life (or alive)
etc.

*: or triggerwords for misleading warped ways of thinking about related subjects

And I still don't know what it's supposedly a simulation of, if it's not a simulation of something else, the word "simulation" does not apply.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Much like the Big Bang creation myth, no?

Only in the sense that myths are often an attempt to explain and symbolize real occurrences. Where they differ is in the materials of their construction: the Big Bang hypothesis is based on the scientific method and makes testable predictions by means of which it can be at least partially verified; myths are products of the creative imagination, and the action in them is unconstrained by the laws of nature.

Many are unable to comprehend this difference; it is fully perceptible only to the scientifically literate. I'm genuinely sorry about that -- more sorry than you can know or would likely believe -- but it's a fact, inescapable. Some things you simply have to be educated to understand.

No, myths were created based on the understanding of the day and the "sciences" available back then, astrology and such.
Claiming it's just "creative imagination" is lazy and misguided.

I imagine a thousand years from now there will be a similar debate to this one about the old big bang myth and the new theory of the day.


Your closing paragraph is quite amusing.
You sound almost like a cultist, one of the chosen ones with your "education" and "understanding".
You're sorry in what sense exactly? Sorry in the same kind of sense as Christians are sorry for those who don't find salvation in Christ?


Yep, science is the new religion all right.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, myths were created based on the understanding of the day and the "sciences" available back then, astrology and such.

Why is sciences in quotes?

:-)

You seem to have a problem with your own argument