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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 20
18
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
IF there was a beggining to the universe there can only be so many hypothesis, I say hypothesis because science does not deal in absolute proofs. Proof is a misnomer. It is about which hypothesis fits best according to the evidence.

There can only be 1. chance 2. laws 3. chance and laws or 4. intelligence.

So IF there was a beggining we can rule out chance because chance requires things to act upon.

Laws while not physical are still things and require a source, so we can rule that out as well.

In fact what modern physics, in particular quantum physics has shown is that math and information are what everything flows from.

The question becomes, what in our known experience can produce math and information? Matter cannot suffice, there was no matter. What non physical things can do this? Both of these things are non physical btw.

Consciousness? The experience of information. The other big mystery.

While the cosmological argument is good I don't think it is the strongest argument for design. Semiosis and non physical information is IMO the greatest challenge to materialism. It would take much to explain but it can explain the mind body problem, the origin of life, the quantum enigma according to some interpretations and in turn the origin of the universe all through the semiotic triad of sign, object and interpretant. Object being matter, sign being information and interpretant being consciousness either directly or through a algorithm created by consciousness. The question for me is not one of god but is consciousness a fundamental aspect of the universe?

If so all of these difficult problems materialism struggles with disapear. Actually consciousness is the only thing we can be sure of as all things are perceived in consciousness even the scientific method. We do not experience reality directly but through our physical senses via the interpretation of signs. This is how the mind works. There is no physical forces that connects a sign to it's interpretation. The semiotic triad is irriducable. If you understand this you understand the enigma including the DNA enigma and biosemiosis.

Semiosis is not physics, it is not reducable to physics, it is a quality of mind.

Hypothesis folks, as is everything dealing with the unseen. I am not religious my conclusions are based on a multi disciplinary approach and my own personal experiences in consciousness.




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Here we go again with the appeals to ignorance. We don't know what caused the universe, yet. Any assumptions past that are guesses and nothing more. We know that everything was very close together originally and then it spread out. Fine tune argument is old as dirt and the goalposts have been constantly moved with it as we learn more and more about how things work. We are tuned to the universal forces, they are not tuned to us. 99.999% of the universe is instantly lethal to life. If the forces were different, there might be a different type of life that arises. Stop appealing to the unknown as evidence. The forces are what they are. Maybe one day we'll understand exactly what causes each one. For now, why is it so difficult for people to say "I don't know"?
edit on 29-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
ok, i cant resist anymore, I have to post. I so enjoyed, in fact i loved reading the first few pages of this thread, It gave such food for thought, and if it was a food it would be caviar, because this sort of thread gives the brain cells a major workout.

But whats with all the pointless bickering guys, cant you agree to disagree, i dont know whos right or wrong, but this could go on forever, i dont have the time to spare guys, im approaching middle age.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Because their imaginary best friend will murder and torture them for all eternity unless they believe something on bad, or no, evidence.

If their god wasn't such a **** they would be able to openly doubt its existence and rightly proclaim "we don't know".

edit on 29-5-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Hypothesis is based on what is known it is in no way an appeal to ignorance although the defense is. In claiming so we must reject a good majority of scientific inference including evolution.

I see this thread has moved to the origin and creationism forum, where cut and paste arguments from the big book of ideological excuses, issue dodging, childish insults and bickering are the norm. Pity. No real discussion is possible here.
edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I am God. I have no desire to punish Myself.

But if that's not enough for you...

God, you can suck my fat f*cking big toe you cruel piece of horse sh*t.

edit on 29-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

I think you may be missing the point a little with your reference to the idea that life adjusted to the universe, and in a different universe we could survive in a different form.

May I repost something from Page 1 (or 2, I forget)?

For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re–collapsed into a hot fireball.[5] P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.

This is not talking about life, it is talking about the existence of the universe and planets in it.

I agree with some of the posters who wish we could avoid bickering and return to serious discussion. It should be stipulated that 100% scientific proof, one way or another, will not be found in our lifetimes, most probably it will never be.

We each must decide on our own the truth of the matter. This can only be done by seriously considering all of the available evidence, not pre-judging it, and using reason to reach a conclusion. While there never will be proof, there can be a decision.

I can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer, but I have come to accept it as the only reasonable explanation.

Wiith respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Hypothesis is based on what is known it is in no way an appeal to ignorance although the defense is. In claiming so we must reject a good majority of scientific inference including evolution.

I see this thread has moved to the origin and creationism forum, where cut and paste arguments from the big book of ideological excuses, issue dodging, childish insults and bickering are the norm. Pity. No real discussion is possible here.
edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


It is a bit unfortunate. I'm going to talk to the admins about that, actually.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Hypothesis is based on what is known it is in no way an appeal to ignorance although the defense is. In claiming so we must reject a good majority of scientific inference including evolution.

I see this thread has moved to the origin and creationism forum, where cut and paste arguments from the big book of ideological excuses, issue dodging, childish insults and bickering are the norm. Pity. No real discussion is possible here.


A hypothesis is an educated guess. It is not based on what is known. That would be a scientific theory like evolution. A hypothesis in science is generally a work in progress, on which experiments are being pursued to prove one way or another. Hypotheses can be parts of theories that are under research. If you admit that hypotheses are based on what is known, then you must admit abiogenesis is known.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Barcs
 

I think you may be missing the point a little with your reference to the idea that life adjusted to the universe, and in a different universe we could survive in a different form.

May I repost something from Page 1 (or 2, I forget)?

For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe's expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re–collapsed into a hot fireball.[5] P.C.W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.

This is not talking about life, it is talking about the existence of the universe and planets in it.


I've come back to the thread to engage with you, charles.

If we are going to entertain Hawking's estimation, and in this instance I am going to believe it sight unseen, then what are we going to do about the very real possibility that this isn't the first Big Bang that happened? Merely going on Hawking's estimations, can we rule out that what he estimated has actually happened before the universe as we know it took shape? Can you point to anything that suggests Intelligent Causation over this merely being the thousand billion billionth time that the Big Bang happened?



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


But again, just because planets can't form, doesn't mean a different type of life couldn't. It's nice that you are in awe of the universe and how the universal forces have been observed and measured, but it is what it is. Our form of life evolved in this universe. If you are suggesting otherwise, evidence is needed beyond philosophy. Maybe the universe did collapse into a fireball thousands of times before finally becoming what it is today. Repeating the measurements that we have estimated to determine forces and other phenomena doesn't prove or even suggest an intelligent first cause. There is too much we do not know. If you wish to speculate then feel free, but the topic clearly states "Intelligent first cause: why it must exist." That sounds like a very definitive factual way of describing something, which is why I responded as I did.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

A hypothesis is an educated guess. It is not based on what is known. That would be a scientific theory like evolution. A hypothesis in science is generally a work in progress, on which experiments are being pursued to prove one way or another. Hypotheses can be parts of theories that are under research. If you admit that hypotheses are based on what is known, then you must admit abiogenesis is known.


Nonsense, science does not hold to absolute proofs. Cosmology, particle physics, math, abiogenesis and yes the mechanisms for evolution as well. All hypothesis. Your fundamentalist view is known as scientism no different to religious fundamentalism in essence, a belief structure. Scientific history is the story of mistakes being updated as old hypothesis are falsified.

Hypothesis or theories are the same in principle they are structured on known facts, what best fits the evidence at hand and causes in effect in the here and now. The methodology is the very same that Darwin himself used. We can have the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution they are not the same thing. It is the mechanisms that matter. Your views are a hypothesis as well you know.

This thread is not about evolution or abiogenesis, however if you know of a mechanism that can create a semiotic system, account for the combinatorial explosion for a simple protein, orphan genes and singletons in every species, negative epistasis, the origin of functional information and digital code or the cellular interactome then do a thread on it, I would love to read it. I don't dispute evolution or the concept of a common ancestor.

There is a revolution going on in evolutionary biology that has been brewing for decades, but you would not know. You are about thirty years out of date. We have adaptive mutation, endosymbiosis, transposable elements, epigenics, horizontal gene transfer, natural genetic engineering and no doubt more to discover the fundamental view of the gene has been changed, the selfish gene concept is refuted. Stating proof as in it is a done deal in the face of so many unknowns is unscientific at best.

Or you could address the issues of this thread without the cut and paste arguments then by all means go ahead. I agree there are many unknowns especially with cosmology but just hand waving with an appeal to the unknown is in fact a science of the gaps argument. Science does not work that way. You claim we don't know enough and I agree but then you yourself make a counter based purely on ignorance. Geez take the blinders off. Did I mention I am not religious? Never even read the bible.


edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

The question for me is not one of god but is consciousness a fundamental aspect of the universe?

If so all of these difficult problems materialism struggles with disapear. Actually consciousness is the only thing we can be sure of as all things are perceived in consciousness even the scientific method. We do not experience reality directly but through our physical senses via the interpretation of signs. This is how the mind works. There is no physical forces that connects a sign to it's interpretation. The semiotic triad is irriducable. If you understand this you understand the enigma including the DNA enigma and biosemiosis.


Isn't consciousness the answer to this stubborn riddle? I don't mean to reduce it to such a simplistic idea, but in Planck's own words, matter is derived from consciousness. It's the basis of everything, in the physical realm and beyond. And the last I checked this man was incredibly smart.

What was the first cause? What created "God"? What existed before existence itself?

I would say consciousness.

To me it's the theory of everything; and at the risk of sounding morbid, or perhaps even religious (which is not my intent, as I'm not a religious person), we will know more upon our passing from this physical world. I do buy into the idea that we are much more than just the physical beings that inhabit this earth. That we are in fact some kind of entity (be it spiritual or otherwise) that are merely occupying our physical bodies and just "passing thru" until our time comes to advance to the next levels of consciousness.

Again, to many here that's going to scare them and even sound religious, which again it's not my intent at all. I just think we must consider this postulation in order to attempt a better understanding of what's really going on here. To dismiss it completely would be irresponsible.

I don't believe that science will ever find the answers it seeks by merely looking thru a microscope or smashing particles. It's very apparent that the deeper we look and the more layers we pull away, the more we're realizing that our physical universe is actually an illusion and made up of nothing, and that the true binding, constant of it all is consciousness.

This is beyond basic in its assumption, I know, and many will disagree. But I do believe it could be that simple.
edit on 29-5-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



Thank you my friend. Well put. We need some more humility in order to progress.


If Max Planck were posting here he would still be accused of all the same tired old cut and paste arguments and lists of logical fallacies.

edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Squiz,

It's good to see you're still contributing on here. I haven't been around in a while, but a book I've just recently read had me curious to pop back in, and wouldn't you know it; a topic that involves a similar subject matter presented itself- Gotta love ATS!

Anyway, I've always found your posts to be very enlightening and full of merit.

Please keep it up



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 



If Max Planck were posting here he would still be accused of all the same tired old cut and paste arguments and lists of logical fallacies.

edit on 29-5-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Just saw this edit, and it's so true!

The founding father of quantum theory and nobel prize winner;

Has all the markings of a disinfo agent I'm sure!



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
 

Dear MichaelPMaccabee,

I am honestly honored that you came back, I appreciate it.

I admit you could be quite right. I'm taking Hawking's number without any supporting evidence, too. You could tell me it was umpty gazillion times ten to the square root of pi, and I'd never know the difference.

I also agree with you that there could have been multiple Big Bangs. In fact, Hawking's idea seems to be that it was either done first pop out of the box (intelligent design), or there were basically innumerable Big Bangs.

Here's why I just don't curl up and surrender:

Can you point to anything that suggests Intelligent Causation over this merely being the thousand billion billionth time that the Big Bang happened?
Merely? If my math is right, and it's probably not, even considering a Big Bang every second (which seems too quick for me) we're looking at 317 billion years before we stood a 50-50 chance of hitting it right.

That doesn't even include the ridiculously large numbers proposed by the "planet creation" fellow.

I agree, multiple Big Bangs are possible. What suggests Intelligent Design to me is the absolutely incredible(literally) amount of time that chance would take. On top of that there is still no explanation for the existence of the "Cosmic Egg" in the first place.

You remember the million monkeys on a million typewriters given a million years to create Shakespeare's works by chance? I prefer to just believe in Shakespeare and ignore all the "monkey business."

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
It's very apparent that the deeper we look and the more layers we pull away, the more we're realizing that our physical universe is actually an illusion and made up of nothing, and that the true binding, constant of it all is consciousness.


I have got to say I agree 100% once again.

My latest obsession is quantum theory, I have been following the work of Anton Zeilinger probably the worlds most foremost experimentalist in quantum physics. He is responsible for the quantum teleportation experiments in the Canary islands and experiments demonstrating that even bucky balls are subject to quantum effects, an actual macroscopic object.

Teleportation only works if you and nobody else has knowledge of the state of the photon to be teleported otherwise the state is reduced. Hence why faster than light communication is still a problem.

You nor anybody else cannot know about the information that is to be teleported. These are Zelingers words.

Anyway, in all aspects it appears photons are not constrained by either time or space. I bring this up because as hard as it is to swallow time and space may merely be a result of our limited consciousness. In fact the predominate view in physics is that time is an illusion based on relativity. Could it be that the reason the holy grail of physics, the unification of QM and relativity is so elusive is because of our perception of time and space? I am not stating this as any sort of fact, just speculating.

After all they are both telling us two different things in relation to time and space. Relativity says time and space are not absolute they are dependant on the observer. QM says that you cannot measure speed and location at the same time.

Time and space being an illusion sounds impossible based on our perceptions but so does this....

I recently found a fascinating experiment where photons can be entangled without co-existing in time!


Researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have succeeded in causing entanglement swapping between photons that never coexisted in time. In their paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the team explains how their experiment proves true an entanglement phenomenon first described by researchers last year at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg.

The idea seems not just counterintuitive, but impossible—that photons could be entangled that never existed at the same time—but that's just what the team in Germany, led by Joachim von Zanthier, suggested. In this new effort, the team in Israel, led by Hagai Eisenberg, has proven it's possible by actually doing it.
......

The researchers suggest that the outcome of their experiment shows that entanglement is not a truly physical property, at least not in a tangible sense. To say that two photons are entangled, they write, doesn't mean they have to exist at the same time. It shows that quantum events don't always have a parallel in the observable world.
......

the nonlocality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spacelike separation, but also to particles with timelike separation.


phys.org...

Just thought you may be interested. Pretty cool hey? Materialism is falsified by experiment.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Can you point to anything that suggests Intelligent Causation over this merely being the thousand billion billionth time that the Big Bang happened?
Merely? If my math is right, and it's probably not, even considering a Big Bang every second (which seems too quick for me) we're looking at 317 billion years before we stood a 50-50 chance of hitting it right.


The odds of The Universe happening in this exact configuration remain the same with each new attempt, unless each successive attempt eliminates repetition of the previous configurations.


That doesn't even include the ridiculously large numbers proposed by the "planet creation" fellow.

I agree, multiple Big Bangs are possible. What suggests Intelligent Design to me is the absolutely incredible(literally) amount of time that chance would take. On top of that there is still no explanation for the existence of the "Cosmic Egg" in the first place.

You remember the million monkeys on a million typewriters given a million years to create Shakespeare's works by chance? I prefer to just believe in Shakespeare and ignore all the "monkey business."

With respect,
Charles1952


What suggests a non-intelligent design to me is our history as a species.

Man used to believe that the thunder and lightning were terrible gods.
Man used to believe that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the Universe.
Man used to believe that the Sun and Moon were chariots.

Men have many superstitious beliefs, but not a single one, understand this point because it is important, not a single one, has ever been proven to be correct. When the truth of a superstitious belief is known, the superstition always fails.

Have a good evening.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Look since humans first looked at the skies we've used god to explain the unknown. Arguments running here is that not knowing why something is the way it is means god did it. If we subscribe to the fact god did it we never need to strive for further knowledge your creating a philosophy of idiots.Lets discuss this shall we.



And finally if the universe is so fine tuned why does it keep trying to kill us!!!!!




new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join