Life is emergent, not created

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo


you can question it, but that doesn't give it weight.
and its not an opinion. Its a fact.

for any physical object, even the biggest physical object, you can discuss it in mathematical terms which are always able to be larger.

So you say the universe is infinite? okay well my answer is, the universe x2. that mathematical entity would be twice the size of the universe. you see, mental numbers will always be bigger.

For example, we assume that there are an infinite amount of positive and negative integers. Whatever number x you can think of, there is always x+1 so it will go on forever.

But this type of infinity is not "physical". Now, if we take a rubber band, it is very physical. It is bounded in that it has a finite surface area, yet an ant can walk on it forever without coming to an end. This is also a kind of infinity, but it is a semanticinfinity because it depends on our definition of an "end".

If the universe turns out to be curved, or a self enclosing loop, such as this rubberband, then there is a very real chance that the structures we see billions and billions of light years away, could actually be extremely old light that has "looped" around the universe, thus potentially giving us ancient views of objects that are actually closer to us than we think. however, since the image we would be recieving is extremely old, it wouldnt look like its current day structure. This concept, if true, would make the universe a lot smaller than it actually looks.
so you can argue semantically that, if space is curved, that it is infinite, in that it has no physical end. however, if we quantized that universe, it would not be infinite.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
in your initial statement you declared it as a absolute truth. I just opposed that and declared it as a bad initial discussion point and an erroneous conclusion over the facts we understand as truth.

Must I really put disclaimers in front of every idea or belief I have? I'm not imposing my belief system on anyone. I think for myself and expect others to do the same. You're being too nitpicky about my wording.

In order to think, time is required! But timelessness is more fundamental than time. Time is a measurement, requiring at least two "somethings" to measure between. Timelessness on other the other hand is pre-existent. Time is our perception of timelessness splitting into an infinite number of distinctive parts.

So you not only define limits to your God but place it in a linear time existence, since time and space are the same you can probably tell us where your God resides...

Read it again genius. When did I say time was linear? Where did I limit God to existing within time? Replace "timelessness" with "god" and read it again.

I believe in infinity.

I do not, and find no way one can prove it exists outside of mathematics since we do not get to experience infinity in our existence.

How do you know you're not experiencing infinity right now? And if infinity exists in math, then why wouldn't it exist in the universe? How about gravity? The longest wavelength of light? Event horizons? Singularities?

Timelessness is a form of infinity and it's more fundamental than time. Time requires 2, timelessness requires 1. 1 is more fundamental than 2. It's that simple. First there's timelessness, then there's time (or the perception of it).

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx
Infinite God has everything, makes absolutely no sense. No one believes that. A god as a sentient creature would not automatically have everything a part of it, and given that, wouldn't be obligated for human emotions.

If your idea of God is "all the good stuff" and Satan is "all the bad stuff", then that so-called God is part of a duality. Not very complete. If it's incomplete how can it be "the one true" God?

I usually try not to throw around the word "God" because people have their own ideas of it. Like some old bearded dude sittin in the clouds judging people to heaven and hell. In my opinion the god of the christian bible is incomplete and therefore more of a demigod. It creates stuff, then changes it's mind later and destroys it? Sounds like that so-called god is limited by time... or it's just playing along, messing with us and seeing what we can realize on our own without big daddy telling us what to believe every step of the way.

There are so many perspectives, it's difficult to have many beliefs. Check this out... If all the information on this earth-plane were to pass through a dark mirror, maybe all the dualities would be flipped? Perhaps good here is bad on the "other side". There's something to be said for balance.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by circlemaker

 

The universe is not infinite.
This is proven by the simple concept that if the universe was infinite in size and duration, then the night sky would be completely white due to all of the stars/starlight we would see. However, we knows thats not the case. Therefore the universe cannot be infinite

I take it you mean universe by "observable universe"? Even conventional physics is starting to think of space as infinite, and I think of space as part of the universe, even if it extends past the observable part.

Originally posted by circlemaker
You don't create life... you nurture it into existence by creating the conditions for it to emerge.

How exactly does something "emerge?" Life seems pretty complex. Are you saying that if you shake enough chemicals at the right temperature long enough it will automatically form into something that can replicate and that has a consciousness? I can see where some basic chemicals might be formed by molecules bumping into each other, but even a single living cell is very complex.

I think you need to consider that time is not as linear as it appears, and that some things might just as easily emerge from the present and future (in physical as well proto-physical forms) as they do from clumps of chemicals in the past. Proving it is naturally the hard part.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by TheGrandWazoo

 

So you say the universe is infinite?

No. I'm not. This is the 3rd time I answer this question. I'm not saying it's infinite. Do you even read my posts?

reply to post by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Blue Shift

I think you need to consider that time is not as linear as it appears, and that some things might just as easily emerge from the present and future (in physical as well proto-physical forms) as they do from clumps of chemicals in the past. Proving it is naturally the hard part.

Blue Shift, do you think that the "speed" of time, or how we percieve the passing of time, is related to temperature or gravity.
I mean, the higher temperature, the faster the molecules are moving.
In a human body, the temperature is always* the same. Do you think we would have a different perception of time if we were hotter or colder?
Or if the air pressure we live in was stronger/weaker?
For example living on a mountaintop were the air pressure is lower and the blood flows easier - the molecules move faster...

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by circlemaker
You don't create life... you nurture it into existence by creating the conditions for it to emerge.

How exactly does something "emerge?" Life seems pretty complex. Are you saying that if you shake enough chemicals at the right temperature long enough it will automatically form into something that can replicate and that has a consciousness?

Given an infinite amount of time, yes. Example: the infinite monkey theorem.

I think you need to consider that time is not as linear as it appears, and that some things might just as easily emerge from the present and future (in physical as well proto-physical forms) as they do from clumps of chemicals in the past. Proving it is naturally the hard part.

Absolutely. I do not believe time to be linear. I made a thread 3 years ago on the subject of nonlinear time but unfortunately many of my diagrams are missing. I will make a new thread on it soon. The way I understand it is like this: our timeless awareness that exists in the present moment is primary to our existence and all realizations extend from it, simultaneously into the past and future. As are awareness grows, so does the past and future become richer with information and potential experiences.

First there's timelessness, then it splits into time (the beginning and the end), then new events continue to manifest in between currently existing events as the result of our growing awareness.

I connect "life" with "awareness" and "timelessness", and as such I believe life to be pre-existent, hence emergent rather than created (because you can't truly create what's infinite, that'd be a paradox).

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo


Okay, you just want to say it COULD be and want to argue its a possability. Go ahead and waste your time when i laid out the facts for you.

reply to post by circlemaker


No i dont mean the observable universe. I mean THE universe.

If it was infinite in size then it would have to be infinite in duration since time and space are sort of entwined.

Well if thats the case, we would be seeing things older than 13-15 billion years old. Which to my knowledge we havent yet. Dont you think its a little odd that for an infinite universe that we cant find anything past a certain age? By random chance and probability, considering how many astronomical entities have been cataloged, we would have found one by now

In my opinion, it's as likely as filling a stadium full of scrap metal and a Audi A5 rolling out. To elaborate even further, it would be more likely that there really is a fully formed Audi A5 sitting on a distant planet somewhere in some galaxy, just because the "right" conditions were present.

Please look at some of the research out there, there is loads of it. Come to your own conclusions after you have exposed yourself to both side of the argument, from an objective point of view.

I'd like to add that I am in no way, shape or form religious.

edit: edited original post due to reading wrong post

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by darkredfish

 

Actually, past lives are supported by our apparently never-ending ability to make stuff up.

Everyone was Cleopatra or Napoleon. Nobody was Roger the Shrubber.

edit on 2/11/2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)

And everybody who has literally no clue about evidence of previous lives will regurgitate this same nonsense. There are a lot of con artists out there but I blame the people who are actually stupid enough to believe they were some important historical figure. There are MANY MANY more who do attest to being a "nobody" in a previous life.

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by circlemaker

 

No i dont mean the observable universe. I mean THE universe.

If it was infinite in size then it would have to be infinite in duration since time and space are sort of entwined.

Well if thats the case, we would be seeing things older than 13-15 billion years old. Which to my knowledge we havent yet. Dont you think its a little odd that for an infinite universe that we cant find anything past a certain age? By random chance and probability, considering how many astronomical entities have been cataloged, we would have found one by now

Ok, points taken. Now consider this: the universe is potentially infinite. Just like numbers, we can keep on counting. From our perspective, the numbers we haven't counted to yet don't exist, but they still exist as potentials. The universe may indeed be infinite, but our limited awareness may keep us from seeing past a certain point. We perceive the universe as finite, but if we were to take all of time and collapse it into a single moment we may see it differently.

Originally posted by dodgygeezaPlease look at some of the research out there, there is loads of it. Come to your own conclusions after you have exposed yourself to both side of the argument, from an objective point of view.

That's rather presumptuous of you, what makes you think we haven't already? Sounds like you'd rather us go bury our faces in textbooks and the findings of others rather than thinking and discovering for ourselves and discussing our thoughts here.

Kindly piss off unless you have something constructive to add.

Originally posted by sykickvision
reply to post by circlemaker

 

So you're saying that life is created by proxy of the conditions being created for it to emerge? Isn't that kinda/sorta the same thing? Wasn't this tested in a lab somewhere and all they wound up with was a tub of gook? Reference needed on that......

No...Life is always there. It always exists, we just create the right conditions for it to BE here on earth.

i think.

reply to post by TheGrandWazoo


edit to add that i was saying that to setup my explanation, not that you were claiming it true, instead of "maybe" true

Originally posted by circlemaker

Originally posted by dodgygeeza

Kindly piss off unless you have something constructive to add.

Touched a nerve I see. I wasn't telling you to stop talking and discussing the topic, neither was I saying that you were wrong. The post was actually directed at someone else, so that was a mistake on my part for not quoting.

However you are saying that you are unwilling to "bury" your head in some texts books, then you'd best start learning because there are a couple of million life times that you'll need to have lived before you'll ever get to learn it all by yourself.

Anyway, I agree with many of your posts and beliefs. Shame being told to piss off dampens things a bit

Slight sense of over-defensiveness there on your part, but still I apologize if I caused unintended offence.

reply to post by dodgygeeza


Ok maybe I overreacted a bit. I didn't know whether or not it was directed at me... I just saw my thread being trolled and I have a grudge against academics who think that if it isn't in a textbook it doesn't exist. That was the nerve you touched. I taught myself almost everything I know (including & especially math) and have discovered concepts that they don't teach in schools. I'm pretty disappointed with academia as a whole because all they seem to do is regurgitate knowledge rather than discover new things. And if I perceive someone advocating the regurgitation of knowledge in place of self-discovery, I tend to get pissy.

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
In my opinion, it's as likely as filling a stadium full of scrap metal and a Audi A5 rolling out. To elaborate even further, it would be more likely that there really is a fully formed Audi A5 sitting on a distant planet somewhere in some galaxy, just because the "right" conditions were present.

Please look at some of the research out there, there is loads of it. Come to your own conclusions after you have exposed yourself to both side of the argument, from an objective point of view.

I'd like to add that I am in no way, shape or form religious.

edit: edited original post due to reading wrong post

edit on 4-11-2011 by dodgygeeza because: (no reason given)

No. First self replicating entities were very simple. Nothing like cellular organisms we see today (nothing like RNA world either but much more simple). It's like filling a billion planets with molecules, and then on some of the planets some molecules come together in such way that they produce more of themselves, and then the force of natural selection starts acting up on them and things get more complicated as time goes by..

Originally posted by Pastafarian
I agree with you OP.

or we are just a computer simulation.

If we were a computer simulation, where's my sound files? How come I don't think in binary? How come your theory is still stupid?