Unexplained gaps in the big bang theory

originally posted by: DJW001
Nature is not creating things.

Nature exerts no effort to create information.

Nature does not think.

We have to be careful with such claims because it's highly subject to perspective

We as humans surely do all these things, and we are a part of nature.

Does that mean that we should be considered as outside of nature, or that our creativity originate from outside the natural sphere? It's hard to say, but nature certainly does all the things above, at least through us.

And the more we explore these concepts, the more we realize we are not dealing with absolute concepts.

Consciousness can be more or less present. Creativity can be more or less present. When do these concept start to exist?

In humans? In big apes? In animals? Then if we keep going it can become even more blurry. Are plants capable of "thought"? What is even a thought?



Just like if you stare at a tree it seems dead and motionless, but at another timescale it becomes animated, the same can happen with concepts as consciousness and creativity. Maybe we can see them more easily in animals because they live in a similar timescale as us, but maybe to look for these things in other living organisms, or even further, in geological and astronomical realms, we have to observe differently?


Personally I'm clearly not capable to determine a clear boundary between "thinking" and "not thinking" entities. Similarly, I find it very difficult to create a boundary between "living" and "non living" entities (virii, ARN, ...).

Maybe it just means such a boundary simply doesn't exist, but in our human hybris we try to create one?

a reply to: JUhrman

So what is nature?
who made nature?
You seemed to be banking in the notion that nature shoukd be the starting point of creation. Did i get you right? Enlighten me i am quite confused.

a reply to: JUhrman

We have to be careful with such claims because it's highly subject to perspective

We as humans surely do all these things, and we are a part of nature.

I agree; I am stating this in this way because the OP seems to use the expression "nature" in a way that suggests that it is something outside the physical processes of the universe which is possessed of volition; a goddess. Since I doubt the OP is trying to expound Neo-Paganism, I thought I would underscore the non-separate, non-volitional qualities of what he is calling "nature."

ETA: Yes, there may be emergent properties beyond human comprehension, and properties we can observe but do not recognize in our human arrogance!

originally posted by: IAmPhoenix7
a reply to: JUhrman

So what is nature?
who made nature?
You seemed to be banking in the notion that nature shoukd be the starting point of creation. Did i get you right? Enlighten me i am quite confused.

"Nature" or the universe is the physical, material reality we live in.

"Who" or "What" made nature? I have no idea, it's open to debate.

I clarified my point in my previous post. Since concepts like "consciousness" and "creativity" can hardly be confined by clear definitions, it's almost impossible to say they can't exist outside the animal realm.

Maybe these principle are inherent in all organized systems and simply reveals themselves in different scopes an speed.


If we want to dig further we have to define "thinking" or "creating" more.

Nice to see all the thread haters are back

originally posted by: rossacus
Nice to see all the thread haters are back

Did the OP really believe that he could insult people by tossing out ugly words like "faith" and "belief" and not expect to get a little push-back?

a reply to: wasaka

originally posted by: wasaka

God's Debris espouses a philosophy based on the idea that the simplest explanation tends to be the best (a corruption of Occam's Razor). It surmises that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris", hence the title.

Maybe God just blew Himself up...
...that would make us all his rematrix.

Thank you for bringing my attention to 'God's Debris' - I checked it out on wiki - it sounds very interesting.

Levels of consciousness

The chapter "Fifth Level" (p. 124) describes five levels of human awareness, or consciousness.
Level 1: Consciousness at birth: pure innocence, self-awareness.
Level 2: Awareness of others, and acceptance of authority (a belief system).
Level 3: Awareness that some beliefs may be wrong, but not which ones.
Level 4: Skepticism and adoption of scientific method.
Level 5: Avatar level, understanding that the mind is a delusion-generating machine, and that science is another belief system, albeit a useful one.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Debris

I would just like to comment on the above, it says (level 1) that at birth the child has 'self' awareness but it does not - it has no awareness of itself as separate from what is happening - there is no sense of separation. Level 2 is where the awareness of other happens - as soon as there appears to be something other then there can be an awareness of self as a separate entity - this is when apparent separation happens (around 18 months after birth). This is when God annihilated himself in the Big Bang. As soon as the sense of separation happens that is when all things come into apparent existence.

Really there is only what is happening. God is the present happening and thoughts that happen make believe there is more.
What is happening is not a thing - it is all there is, which is everything.

Level 5: Avatar level, understanding that the mind is a delusion-generating machine, and that science is another belief system, albeit a useful one.

Mind is thoughts which tell stories about other than what there really is. What is there really?

a reply to: DJW001

They do it so often it is really predictable.


Religious types are always trying to label science as a religion or belief system I think it is because they know that such are not defendable even if it is subconsciously. They do it as an insult probably not realizing they are only weakening their positions.

You never see anyone accusing them of basing their religion of a body of evidence or facts.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: rossacus
Nice to see all the thread haters are back

Did the OP really believe that he could insult people by tossing out ugly words like "faith" and "belief" and not expect to get a little push-back?

All you need to do is say "It's only a theory" and you will get me on the defensive immediately. That is doublespeak for saying that you believe anti-science propaganda over actual science journals. I don't think I've ever seen a thread/post about science that used that phrase then preceded to post a legitimate science opinion.

From the very beginning of the OP:

Though just a theory...

This phrase is actually insulting anyone who believes the BBT:

For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Religious types are always trying to label science as a religion or belief system.

Thanks for the generalization. The big bang theory was from a religious person BTW...

a reply to: rossacus
Haters who?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Me id like to comment on #2. Who ever said the belief coukd be wrong? Which ones?

Which belief is right? And which is wrong? What is the proof of identifying what is right and what is wrong? It is still taken out from the concept of the norm that which society has built. What is society? A group of people. Right?

It is like saying your belief is wrong and mine is right vice versa. That is the wrong one.

That is why people change, they adapt to progress hence they evolve. So as their knowledge and beliefs change as well to progress. Using the phrase "Belief system could be wrong" is a totally self-centered piece of crap .

a reply to: IAmPhoenix7

A belief is wrong when there exist observations consistently contradicting it.

For example the belief the earth is flat or 6000 years old is wrong.

As far as what is "right", it's more complicated.

originally posted by: IAmPhoenix7

Which belief is right? And which is wrong? What is the proof of identifying what is right and what is wrong? It is still taken out from the concept of the norm that which society has built. What is society? A group of people. Right?

It is like saying your belief is wrong and mine is right vice versa. That is the wrong one.

'Level 4: Scepticism and adoption of scientific method'. This is where the beliefs are tested - not by reading or listening to someone but checking for yourself. There are many things that are believed just because it has been written in a book or seen on the tv but until you see for yourself can you really believe anything?
'Level 5: Avatar level, understanding that the mind is a delusion-generating machine.'
The thoughts tell lots of stories that can be believed to be true. Or the thoughts can be seen as just thoughts arising and falling away not meaning anything and not talking about anyone.

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Religious types are always trying to label science as a religion or belief system.

Thanks for the generalization. The big bang theory was from a religious person BTW...

who, i might add, did not pull the big bang theory out of the bible. nor was it substantiated and established as todays leading theory through any connection with the bible.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Religious types are always trying to label science as a religion or belief system.

Thanks for the generalization. The big bang theory was from a religious person BTW...

who, i might add, did not pull the big bang theory out of the bible. nor was it substantiated and established as todays leading theory through any connection with the bible.

True and completely irrelevant to my response to Grimpachi. I have no idea what point you are trying to make other than maybe showing your disdain for religions.

Religion or scientific, irregardless which source, for me there is no gap in the big bang theory or evolution of man. Something just of a higher being than that of us humans could have done something in that unknown space of Evolution mustve done beyond the ordinary that we in the present times cannot fill in.

A lot of theories have evolved, one I knew of is the intervention of Aliens that have manipulated dna of homo sapiens to survive massive catastrophies during that time. That manipulated part of DNA was then deactivated eventually hence we have inactive DNAs.

a reply to: JUhrman

True and completely irrelevant to my response to Grimpachi. I have no idea what point you are trying to make other than maybe showing your disdain for religions.

Here's a thread in which the OP claimed that the Big Bang theory originated in the Genesis account of creation. It's nonsense, of course, but a few people agreed with the thread starter.

So Tzar does have a point. With his username, though, he's obliged to be a bit tzarcastic.

a reply to: JUhrman

I got it. Your point.

Here are my thoughts

The Universe is expanding at present ... Space is part of that expansion ... In other words The Universe is not expanding into space ... Space is being created as part of the Universe ... You need space to allow things to move in ... Otherwise it would become grid locked and solidified

The Universe including space is expanding into something other ... I believe that to be a form of something more solid than what the Universe contains ... Like energy moving through denser substance ...

This is not the only Universe ... But this Universe is creating a pathway to other Universes by refining what it is contained in
In a similar way to how Galaxies can inter act and join up creating a larger spiral of power or energy

Intelligence has patterns we can recognise ... and in Nature we can see those patterns be it plants or Galaxies