The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the belief in an omnipotent God.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

At the current rate of progress, I'll OP a new idea about once a month and have the complete theory reproduced in about five years.

Sadly, I'm not sure my attention span – or my workload – can handle that. Perhaps I'll just buy your book when it comes out.

No need for sadness. My book was published a year ago.

Originally posted by Astyanax

*

reply to post by Greylorn

 

Methinks that you and I are aiming at the same target, but from different mountaintops. If so, I have much to learn from you.

You flatter me, alas. I have no urge to untangle the mysteries of the cosmos. I just dabble in these things for entertainment's sake. As for intellectual elevation, I'm the ploughman in the valley with his face full of mud.

This is a plus. Plowing, mudding wet cement, felling and bucking trees, are conducive to those precious moments during which the brain tires and the core mind is left to free its creative proclivities. Grab your spade. Add your insights. As vind21 pointed out, the topic is wide open to new ideas.

Are we trying to sell soap and pit-wick, or exchange ideas? Remember that mud washes off, as do imperfect ideas. There is honor and honesty in dirty faces and attempted ideas, none in a pristine countenance and vacuous mind.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Here's one for you, then. Barbour sees time as a configuration space containing all possible solutions of the universal probability function. A sort of state machine, in other words.

I find his hypothesis fascinating and – as long as he sticks to physics – plausible. Unfortunately, any useful theory of a timeless universe must also explain how and why we experience duration and consequence. Barbour falters when he gets to this part. J.W. Dunne, about a hundred years before Barbour, saw the difficulty and tried to deal with it, but his arguments disappear into an abyss of nested regression where I, at least, cannot follow. Perhaps you will have better luck.

I like some of Julian Barbour's ideas. Your observation of his faltering point is well put. Reminds me of my dance teacher explaining why I just tripped over my own feet.

I'm less fond of nested regressions than you are. With the right language, a primitively simple recursive program provides an elegant solution to a small class of inherently simple mathematical problems. However, the recursion requires an end point. The same kind of solution does not apply to problems with lots of variables because, unless the recursions are sequentially synchronized, the timing goes to poo.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Greylorn

 

It's possible this could be true. I have to ask though...if God decided to make a universe all of a sudden, why didn't he make it right? If your going to make something and your God, make it right.

Children born to suffer and die is all the proof I need God doesn't exist. Or he's one sick psychopath.

edit on 16-8-2013 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)

This is, IMO, an incompetent post. It offers no referent, so I have no idea as to what you imagine that you are replying.

You might be misconstruing some of my statements and replying to your own personal confusions, but you are certainly not replying to anything that I wrote.

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes I explained there are 2 types of gods, and this stuff may not be so black and white. If intelligent creation, by man, alien, or intelligence of any kind, is truly possible. Then doesnt the stuff which man intelligently creates owe its existence to man intelligently creating it? And is this not the concept of God, an intelligent creator of this universe? If God created this universe, and then man arises, and creates other intelligent beings, and then those intelligent beings create more, and then they create more, and then those create a universe, and in that universe, intelligent life arises, which creates intelligent life, which creates intelligent life, which creates a universe, which intelligent life arises in...

Like I think I said earlier, it boils down to, is it possible for an intelligent entity to truly create a system, like that of the universe? Seemingly isolated, seemingly stable. If it can be logical, hypothetically, or theoretically proven that it is impossible for an intelligence to create a system such as the universe, then it would follow that it is impossible for an intelligence to have created the universe. That does not dismiss the concept of gods then, which Nature would still be the 'God father of' even if nature is not an intelligent entity. But the intelligences that arise in the universe can certainly be considered Gods/intelligent designers, if they intelligently design.

For someone that doesnt believe that there is one absolute supreme God of reality, that last bit surely makes sense, it would seem like everything else about existence would then just be relative and comparative, a gradient of power and analysis. Write now in this universe isnt there most likely intelligent life forms that are capable of creating things? Can we also imagine there are other intelligent life forms who comparatively know/are aware of more things/more knowledgeable/more intelligent/more capable of creation though it may be difficult to judge and determine at times, is there not a difference in the capabilities of creation between 21st century man and -21st century man? And how about between 21st century man and the creative potential of the average toad? Or is there no such thing as intelligence, no such thing as creativity and power of mind, and all that exists is one force of nature, no gods, no control?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

Thanks, Astyanax

You're welcome. I recognise the qualitative differences between the Big Bang hypothesis and the assertion 'God did it.' I agree with the OP only so far as to say that neither of those narratives provides a good causal explanation for the original, universe-creating event. Unlike the OP, I have no expectation that it can be explained given the current state of our knowledge, but I would not object to being proven wrong. In the meantime, I am quite satisfied with the good old Big Bang.

Regarding Crothers, the link I posted was simply to show you that his ideas are indeed being considered and responded to by the physics community. Frankly, I think he gets more attention than he deserves. This may be prejudice – I am certainly not competent to follow his arguments in detail or criticise his mathematics – but I do have special skills of my own, and one of them is the ability to read with insight. It is clear from Crothers's writing that he is a man with an inalienable conviction of his own rightness and intellectual superiority who carries a sequoia-sized chip on his shoulder. That doesn't automatically means his ideas are wrong, but it is telling nonetheless, and combined with the proven success of relativity theory and the widespread dismissal of his work from scientists who have bothered to read it, I consider it damning.

I should have made it clearer the "god made it" part of post was not directed to yourself, but the thread in general.

Regarding Crothers, I think few will dispute your observations. No doubt his habit of alienating people works against him. The demeaning sarcasm, mention of unicorns and the like probably should have no part genuine discussions of science. If he were shown to been be wrong I do wonder if he would have the humility and open mindedness needed to see it. I also agree regarding the success of relativity theories, though I still don't think this necessarily invalidates his claims (I don't see he denies this), or that by extension we can conclude there are black holes (at least in the way claimed). Only an opinion though (from a non physicist and certainly not up to the maths).

Though I have kept a bit of an eye on things. In the various topics/ forums that discuss his claims and are frequented by relevant scientists who discuss relevant research etc. Whether he is incorrect on some of his main points doesn't seem so black and white and I can see in some ways (as do others) as to why he feel he is yet to be shown as definitely wrong. There is an element of "it just is" to certain points, before the pages of maths begins. In one of the more "academic" rebuttals from a mathematician I noticed a "it doesn't matter" proffered as explanation to a certain incongruity claimed by Crothers, with a bit of logical fallacy, followed by maths. I can remember in one such forum a well regarded mainstream scientist cautioned people against dismissing his claims (as opposed to himself), so easily (can't remember which one, could probably google it).

Though I have no idea if he is right. Really my only point was that I see such people that challenge mainstream science, as valuable. Perhaps such alienated positions are the fate of all who align with what could be perceived as "pseudo science". I notice a similar tone to Crothers in a paper/article written by a Prof. of Anthropology (Meldrum) where his preamble basically attacks science and the scientific establishment before proposing an ichnotaxonomic classification for his plaster cast/footprint collection .

It appears that once any hope of being accepted by the scientific community becomes lost, such people express their frustration and begin pandering more to followers. Perhaps Crothers will eventually be discredited or vindicated experimentally.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Then doesnt the stuff which man intelligently creates owe its existence to man intelligently creating it?

Surely this contradicts what you said earlier about the basic definition of God being 'an intelligent creator'? Men are not gods. We can only create new forms from existing materials; we cannot bring matter into existence.

reply to post by Astyanax

Surely this contradicts what you said earlier about the basic definition of God being 'an intelligent creator'? Men are not gods. We can only create new forms from existing materials; we cannot bring matter into existence.

Who are you to define what a god is? Who are you to tell us that we are not gods, even though we do create? There are many things we have brought into being, many concepts and identities created through us. Creating is creating. You can't just say it's not good enough to be considered godly. To you, we are not gods. Our modern miracles are too commonplace for you to respect or appreciate them. But to ancient civilizations, we have done the impossible, many times over. To them, we would be gods. It's all a matter of perspective.

Maybe that's all it has ever been. Maybe that's all it takes to be a godly being. Just be greater than everyone else around you.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

I wonder if you read some of the thread before posting in it? We are not arguing science vs. religion here (except for a few off-topic obsessives who can't give it up). We are considering the possibility that both are inadequate and possibly false representations of the truth. The OP is preparing a revelation, and we are hoping he will not disappoint. Suspend your disbelief (and your belief) for the moment, and take it easy!

Astyanax,

I appreciate your support and confidence. Unexpected from one who advertises himself as, "Mind firmly closed."

Revelations are for mystics, the sort who invent bs and subsequently ascribe it to the nit they channeled last week, or to an emissary of God, or some sort of pretended divine inspiration. If you can handle an idea-set that diverges from all conventional opinions, I will not disappoint you. But you should know in advance that I pretty much pull ideas out of my ass.

That's probably where all ideas come from. Not everyone is willing to acknowledge their source.

BTW, your assistance is invited. My first thread on this subject bombed, but this one is successful. I do not understand the reasons for either's relative success or failure because I am socially incompetent. From here I could branch in many directions, but which might be most engaging?

1. An immediate description of the origin of consciousness, that requires some physics and some notions about spaces. (We currently define a space as something that is empty. I define a space as something that has a property unique to itself, yet is capable of interacting with the properties of other spaces if given the opportunity.)

2. First the physics (basic description of energy and how it works). Then the spaces. Then consciousness.

3. Talk about space, and what defines it, in the context of physics. Then #2.

4. First talk about consciousness and how we arrive at it. Then, something else.

5. None of the troublesome above. This reply invites an alternative approach.

6. Any of the above, and deal with the inevitable questions later.

I invite other seriously engaged thread participants to offer their suggestions, along with the rationale behind them. We could make a party out of metaphysical thinking, with everyone dancing. Thanks!

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Intellectual integrity would seem to invite actually perusing the OP before replying to it, or to any comments derived therefrom. Those who actually did that are aware that I have dumped the omnipotent God theory and Big Bang theory into the same biffy.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Astyanax
We're not concerning ourselves with whether any of this matters – at least, most of us are not, and I don't think the OP is either.

It would be nice to see if the OP has any interest in what I have written.

Why would my interest matter? It would only be an opinion. The only opinions relevant to your life are those that you have chosen to accept.

reply to post by Greylorn


I did. And I agreed with it.
We were having a discussion, not an argument, if I recall.

Originally posted by ForteanOrg

Originally posted by Greylorn
Half the population has an IQ lower than 100. None of them will be posting their thoughts here. The freedom to think for oneself is best exercised by those capable of independent thought.

However - I assume you still agree that all man are created equal?

Assumptions usually suck, unless they are based upon careful observation. The careful observations are useful because one can use them to justify an assumption that really sucked.

No two squirrels are created equal. Humans are a few ticks more complex. The declaration that humans are "equal" to one another was fine political rhetoric, good enough to inspire people to fight a nasty and difficult war of independence. The downside of BS is that it often comes back to bite its originator in the ass. Jefferson's BS is being used to drive the great nation that it helped to create, right into the toilet.

This is all off-topic, and might be pursued on another thread of your initiation. It is addressed at the end of my book, in suitable context.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Who are you to define what a god is?

A fairly well-read member of the species which developed the concept of deity, and one who has looked into the subject though not made a wholesale study of it.

Who are you to tell us that we are not gods, even though we do create?

Someone who is adept at stating the obvious.

There are many things we have brought into being, many concepts and identities created through us.

Indeed there are. To contemplate what humanity has achieved over the last ten thousand years or so, and especially the last five hundred, is awe-inspiring. It makes me feel both godlike (because I am a member of the species that achieved it) and insignificant (because my own contribution to the record of human achievement is nugatory).

Creating is creating. You can't just say it's not good enough to be considered godly.

Now that's just being silly. First you try to tear a strip off me for trying to define God. In the next breath you propose the ability to 'create' – by which you actually mean the ability to push things around, to reshape and modify – is an attribute of divinity, defining God exactly as ImaFungi did. Do try to be consistent, won't you?

To you, we are not gods.

I certainly know that I am not a god. My petty hopes and fears, my yearnings after a better life, the envy and bitterness I experience, my helplessness before the forces of nature and society are enough to tell me that. I see others experience the same things, and I know that they are not gods, either.

Our modern miracles are too commonplace for you to respect or appreciate them.

Because they are not miracles.

But to ancient civilizations, we have done the impossible, many times over. To them, we would be gods. It's all a matter of perspective.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of our ancestors.

reply to post by Greylorn

Thank you for the invitation, Greylorn. I suppose my views on the subject are summed up in this post on p.8. Perhaps you could consider it as a deposit against any future contribution.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I invite you to peruse the OP once again and consider it from a different perspective. It is not about religion, except that the God concept is kind of the super-massive black hole that various religions revolve around, like stars in a galaxy. The OP is about one belief that came out of scientific discovery, the Big Bang, vs. another belief that came from religion.

I'm merely pointing out similarities between beliefs/theories that most people regard as entirely different, with a view to getting a few thoughtful people ready to consider a better theory.

I think the similar form of such theories – I prefer to call them hypotheses or postulates – is easily explained. We are evolved organisms, and that goes for our brains as well as every other part of us. Our brains and the organs of our senses have evolved for the purpose of taking in and interpreting, in ways useful to us, information about our environment. Like any other computer – and its peripherals – the brain and the senses are constructed in a particular way and, it is safe to conjecture, operate in a particular way as well. We interpret the world using processes and parameters that are innate. We interpret it the way our minds have evolved to interpret it: via our native operating systems.

Data that does not compute within these parameters – this framework – is very hard for us to deal with. Hence our difficulties with the realities of quantum mechanics.

Thus it is no accident that different hypotheses regarding the origins of things should exhibit a broad similiarity of development and form. This merely reflects the inner workings of our brains. Our conceptual freedom is restricted by biology. In no wise can we undersand the world as it is – whatever that means – but can only understand it translated into terms we have evolved to be able to understand.

edit on 18/8/13 by Astyanax because: of U-NOS.

I'd love to address these issues but cannot do so without hijacking my own thread, which I am preparing to close. If you stick around as my ideas get developed, we will bring this up again. In the meantime consider this, from science history...

Things that were mysteries or miracles to earlier cultures became easily explained as humans developed an understanding of physics. The retrograde motion of the inner planets, Venus and Mercury, for example. Or rainbows, readily observed by everyone on the planet except Eskimos. Classical Newtonian mechanics made perfect sense of these observations. Similarly, from the perspective of my peculiar theories, things like quantum effects and dark energy are obvious.

I've not the slightest idea about the similarity of development and form of which you speak. Perhaps that is because I'm far removed from academia. From my limited vantage point I still see a melange of discordant ideas and limited agreement, even on the Dr. Caca shows.

I do not see any evidence that brains have had anything to do with the development of human understanding. Very few individuals actually understand any of the ideas that we are kicking around here. Why have our brains evolved, but not theirs? The greater mass of human beings remain as ignorant today as were their distant ancestors. Don't believe me? Watch the news, or election results.

I mention this so that you will not think that I'm blowing off this subject, but please wait until I close out this thread. Down the road I can offer an alternative perspective that might engage your curiosity.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Greylorn

Since the micropea/singularity and an omnipotent God are inherently complex entities, we would expect a creator. The micropea had to be at Entropy 0 at the point of the Bang--- so who, or what process, squeezed all that energy, matter, and physics into something smaller than a neutrino? A similar point can be made about God.

Yes, which for me begs the question- who, or what process defined the laws for universal existence. Clearly, a very specific checklist of events- governed by very specific laws and rules of interaction- had to occur in specific dimensions (time, place, order) so that life as we know it could develop and proliferate and evolve. Not only life, like a tree or a fish, but life with a level of consciousness that allows for the awareness, observation, and reflection necessary to consider its origins in the first place. "Who" (what) wrote the software package for our universe, and then downloaded it into a neutrino sized hard drive before double clicking 'bigbang.exe'?

(sorry if I strayed a little off topic with that)

No need to apologize for a thoughtful post, even if it skirts the edge of a topic designed to evoke that quality of thought.

A quick answer that you will not, and should not, find satisfactory---
You are looking at the Beginnings from the traditional and customary Entropy 0 concept. The neutrino-sized HD never existed. The neutrino itself could not have been part of the Beginnings, because it is way too complex.

Trying to find the answer to those levels of questioning requires an entirely different approach, the Entropy 1 perspective. To get yourself warmed up for future discussions of this subject, pretend that you are essentially a Cartesian mind that has never been integrated with a human brain-body mechanism. Pretend that you have always existed with the potential to become conscious, but have yet to realize that potential. How might you actually develop that potential? In other words, what might invoke your equivalent of cogito ergo sum?

Let us not kick that off-topic idea around here. Consider the idea, and develop patience.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

But what if we begin with an entirely different process for the beginnings? Two independently existing spaces, each defined by an unstructured substance, each capable of exerting a single internal force, both contained in a superspace, both uncreated, existing in a perfectly static state at Entropy 1.

The basis for this idea seems as good as any right now. While there's a fair chance I won't be able to wrap my mind around the more complex version of it, I'd still be interested to read more about how this process could give rise to a God/BB.

The trick to wrapping one's mind around any new idea involves an understanding of dog ownership.

Some people acquire dogs as they acquire tools, lots of them, to assist in survival. E.g: sled dogs in the arctic, or hunting dogs in farm and forest. Way too many citified people acquire dogs by way of replacement for an agreeable human companion. Sometimes this is because only a well-fed dog will put up with their absurd behavior.

These dog owners become attached to their pets, and cannot imagine ever acquiring a new dog, not even as a companion for their current beastie. That is because a companion for their pet might reduce their dog's dependence on them.

But if their dog gets run over by a truck, or is deported in a truck by a neighbor tired of its stupid barking, the dog owner will seek another pet, after a suitable period of mourning, of course.

Ideas are like dogs. If your brain is attached to one, and persists in feeding and petting it, and defending it no matter what-- telling disgruntled neighbors that some other dog left the turds on their lawns, there is no room for another dog in your life.

reply to post by Greylorn

Have you read the famous essay, 'What is it like to be a bat?' by Thomas Nagel?

A bat exists in the same world as ourselves, but has a very different picture of it due to its dependence on sound as its primary sense for perceiving and mapping its environment. A bat also differs from us in the uses it makes of things in the world, and this, too, causes its perceived world to differ from ours.

All human beings, whether they are morons or savants, have brains that evolved the same way, perceive the world in similar ways and conceive of it in predetermined, hard-wired patterns (the most obvious of which is the deep grammatical structure of language). Yes, of course we vary considerably from one another in our perceptions and conclusions, often in ways that seem radical, but these are minor differences compared to the those we would have with a bat, a snake or a killer whale.

I am of the view that these hard-wired patterns – the parameters of what I called earlier our native operating systems – shape our thoughts and stringently limit our perceptions and conceptions.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by Greylorn
I hate it when some new chick shows up on a thread, all decked out in her unabashed naivety. Next event, some guy absent a social life sucks up to her, and between them hijack the thread. Where's our moderator?

Whine much? The moderator? YOU bored them to sleep. And you're quite rude.

Doesn't seem any reason for a MOD to step in, imo. I actually thought their discussion was much more interesting than your long-winded opinionated posts that you (though apparently not much of anyone else) seem to think are brilliant.

Maybe you're a tad ticked because you're not receiving the attention you think you deserve? Where's the Yawn icon? This will have to do I guess:

Thanks for the late night chuckle.

All of us are under-appreciated, from our own myopic perspective. You, me, Joe Blow. You too can get used to it. The process is often called, "growing up."

I deal with reduced appreciation by going dancing in a scruffy country bar and appreciating women who are willing to release their fears, get out on the dance floor, and play for a few minutes. IOW I find others who are unappreciated, and appreciate them. I return home feeling fully appreciated.

Here, I'm just trying to share ideas. The process is a lot like dancing--- everyone has their own style and skill set, but I can dance with anyone who is willing to take the floor. But the floor itself can be a problem. Sometimes jerks and drunks clutter it, often deliberately interfering with those who are just out there trying to have fun. I don't know why. My best guess is, they are not having fun in their life and want to compensate by making sure that no one else has fun on their watch. Its a manifestation of the "dog in the manger" syndrome.

When jerks take over a dance floor, the dancers go home, and ignorant louts who only showed up to get drunk and maybe laid own the place for the rest of the night.

Likewise, when nitwits hijack a thread, interesting people tend to depart. Sharing ideas on a thread cluttered with attitude and trivial personal agendas, or individuals with social problems trying to hook up with someone, is like like trying to solve physics problems in a topless biker bar.

For example, ask yourself how sharing your personal and trivial annoyance with me contributes to the flow of ideas on this thread?

A final tip. ATS has a diverse variety of topics and a multiplicity of threads on each. I got it that you find my posts long-winded. Is that a function of my writing style or your limited attention span? Whatever, no one is compelling you to read a single word of them.

reply to post by Astyanax

A fairly well-read member of the species which developed the concept of deity, and one who has looked into the subject though not made a wholesale study of it.

And from your studies, how varied are the numerous examples by which a god may be recognized? Remember, we're going all the way back to the very first deities ever identified in recorded history, all the way up to the present.

Someone who is adept at stating the obvious.

Not obvious enough. What disqualifies us from being compared with gods?

Indeed there are. To contemplate what humanity has achieved over the last ten thousand years or so, and especially the last five hundred, is awe-inspiring. It makes me feel both godlike (because I am a member of the species that achieved it) and insignificant (because my own contribution to the record of human achievement is nugatory).

Exactly! So what's the hang-up?

Now that's just being silly. First you try to tear a strip off me for trying to define God. In the next breath you propose the ability to 'create' – by which you actually mean the ability to push things around, to reshape and modify – is an attribute of divinity, defining God exactly as ImaFungi did. Do try to be consistent, won't you?

I didn't tear anything off of you. I asked for an explanation regarding your qualifications for identifying the parameters that determine the godly nature of any being. If you're unable to defend your opinions and build a case for their legitimacy, that's not my problem. Regardless, I gave you the chance. So far, we're getting somewhere. Don't know where, and it's slow going, but I'm flexible.

I certainly know that I am not a god. My petty hopes and fears, my yearnings after a better life, the envy and bitterness I experience, my helplessness before the forces of nature and society are enough to tell me that. I see others experience the same things, and I know that they are not gods, either.

So "god" is synonymous to "invulnerable" or "immovable" in your mind? Why is that?

Because they are not miracles.

By whose standard? Maybe miracles are, yet again, a label based more in perspective than anything else. Just like the word "god".

I think you underestimate the intelligence of our ancestors.

We invented the airplane, the refrigerator, the atomic bomb, the computer, and the touchscreen. These are not just achievements of science - they are achievements of the mind, a feat of mental gymnastics. Pushing ourselves to think outside the box, imagine how it might be done, and work with the materials we had until we succeeded. It was a team effort of determination, vision, and passion. We've spawned brainchildren that will continue to form the basis for future advancements for many years to come.

I haven't underestimated anything. I've seen what our ancestors did, and I've seen what we're doing now. They did alright in their time, but we're the ones picking up speed now. I told you, it's all in the perspective - we are gods because we are superior in ways that stand out. Godliness has become a label of exclusivity. Superior quality with exclusive availability equates to godliness. We've achieved that, have we not? Not ways that subtly undermine and collapse the regimen or the philosophy of preceding civilizations. Ways that swerve around those cultures and find an open sky for us to rise into and inhabit. We don't follow their footsteps. We beat our own trail and have raised the glittering spires of innovation. We have made a name for ourselves, and I think that's something that makes us godly.

reply to post by Greylorn

Well-stated. And understood. Touchy. Though. You are a lil' bit.

Since we're being honest, it's your pompous rudeness that detracts from your message most likely. I think folk have been rather polite and are participating at their level of interest. I like some of your ideas as long as you admit it's metaphysics. I S&F'd, jus' so you know.

Just relax a little. Be a little nicer. I can see you're the type that would be gentleman enough to ask the oldest precious wallflower in the place to dance. Me, too.