RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science

RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

blacksword404 -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 10:54:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Any theory that includes a god increases complexity. Okay, I'll bite. Why is that? K. Because a god that can create the universe is by definition more complex than that universe. Maybe. Say the universe is a part of him. The way it operates and combines may simply be a function of his body or essence. The same way making blood is simply a function of our body. We aren't more complex that our body because we are our bodies. Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex. You also miss the entire point, perhaps you need Kirata's clarification. If the universe is "just part of him" then he didnt create it, so your example doesnt address my statement. If what you say is true then my I do not create the blood in my body. It creates itself independant of me. (Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex.) Can a part be more complex than the body it exist in? No. Whether or not they are not they are more complex than another part is irrelevant. To put it another way a computer cannot be less complex than the parts that make it up. It does not matter whether a memory chip is less complex than the motherboard. They still make up the same entity. Adding their complexity to it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:01:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Any theory that includes a god increases complexity. Okay, I'll bite. Why is that? K. Because a god that can create the universe is by definition more complex than that universe. Maybe. Say the universe is a part of him. The way it operates and combines may simply be a function of his body or essence. The same way making blood is simply a function of our body. We aren't more complex that our body because we are our bodies. Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex. You also miss the entire point, perhaps you need Kirata's clarification. If the universe is "just part of him" then he didnt create it, so your example doesnt address my statement. If what you say is true then my I do not create the blood in my body. It creates itself independant of me. (Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex.) Can a part be more complex than the body it exist in? No. Whether or not they are not they are more complex than another part is irrelevant. To put it another way a computer cannot be less complex than the parts that make it up. It does not matter whether a memory chip is less complex than the motherboard. They still make up the same entity. Adding their complexity to it. Bullhit. The door to the hard drive isnt as complex as the CPU, no matter how hard you try to spin it. And once again your example is a non sequiter. Blood isnt created by the body, its produced by the body. We are talking about conscious creation. Come up with an example of anything that has ever created something more complex than itself.

mnottertail -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:02:48 AM)
from the primordal soup to wilbur......... no, I get it now, I see what you mean.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:08:14 AM)
Prove it. Consciousness is real, even if there is no current neurological explanation, we are conscious of consciousness, and that's what it is - that's what we call consciousness it's being conscious - violates the rule of self referent definition, but in this case, it is the evidence of itself, self knowledge. As such, however, it can only be dealt with as subjective quality of cognition, cognition itself requires something to cognate a self, a being, matter, if you will - a "free floating consciousness" as you seem to be describing, can exist only as an abstract concept without leaving evidence of it's existence. The next logical step is to argue that the universe (or multiverse) is conscious - which is a far fetched, but not entirely specious hypothesis, just very difficult to prove empirically - most of the acceptable evidence of consciousness involves some sort of communication, answering questions for example, even if it's just blinking eyes in response. If the universe sends us an affidavit attesting to it's consciousness, it'll be game on, till then, it's just idle speculation and stoney talk.

kdsub -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:17:47 AM)
quote: just idle speculation and stoney talk Yes as is the whole thread would you not agree? We are all speculating in all the posts... No proof is required or available for any claims here... so why should you ask for it? We are discussing possibilities... you should take the time to watch the whole discussion on consciousness it is very interesting and the speakers have better credentials then anyone posting here... you and I included. Butch

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:18:10 AM)
It's not an uncommon concept, we use it all the time: "universal consciousness", which may or may not be used synonymously with "god" - if big bang theory is correct, then everything is linked together if only by virtue of all energy having been at one point collapsed into a singularity - it was all the same thing, "oneness", whatever you want to call it, and parts of it, at least, are conscious.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:22:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Any theory that includes a god increases complexity. Okay, I'll bite. Why is that? K. Because a god that can create the universe is by definition more complex than that universe. Maybe. Say the universe is a part of him. The way it operates and combines may simply be a function of his body or essence. The same way making blood is simply a function of our body. We aren't more complex that our body because we are our bodies. Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex. You also miss the entire point, perhaps you need Kirata's clarification. If the universe is "just part of him" then he didnt create it, so your example doesnt address my statement. If what you say is true then my I do not create the blood in my body. It creates itself independant of me. (Nonsense. There are parts of our body that are more complex than other parts of our body. Just because they are in the same organism doesnt make them equally complex.) Can a part be more complex than the body it exist in? No. Whether or not they are not they are more complex than another part is irrelevant. To put it another way a computer cannot be less complex than the parts that make it up. It does not matter whether a memory chip is less complex than the motherboard. They still make up the same entity. Adding their complexity to it. Bullhit. The door to the hard drive isnt as complex as the CPU, no matter how hard you try to spin it. And once again your example is a non sequiter. Blood isnt created by the body, its produced by the body. We are talking about conscious creation. Come up with an example of anything that has ever created something more complex than itself. You're picking parts at random, making your argument specious: the door to the CPU didn't create the CPU, they were both created in a Fab facilities which are more complex than either the CPU or the door to it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:28:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You're picking parts at random, making your argument specious: the door to the CPU didn't create the CPU, they were both created in a Fab facilities which are more complex than either the CPU or the door to it. You are reinforcing my point not disputing it.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:35:35 AM)
You have yet to make a point as far as I can tell.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve You have yet to make a point as far as I can tell. Apparently you can't read as well as Kirata then. He read, understood, clarified and responded to it.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:41:34 AM)
Blacksword made a good point, your response to it made no point because it missed the point, that was my point. But whatever, keep going, I'm just kibitzing.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:43:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Any theory that includes a god increases complexity. Okay, I'll bite. Why is that? Because a god that can create the universe is by definition more complex than that universe. That's what I was getting at. Your original statement didn't say, "any theory that includes a god who creates the universe increases complexity." That changes things materially, from "any theory that includes a god" to any theory that includes a particular conception of god. And I think that's an important distinction, because not all conceptions of god introduce claims that compete with physics. Some conceptions of god, for example, present a situation comparable to the one we face with regard to consciousness. From the point of view of neuroscience, consciousness has no explanatory value. Most of us are pretty sure that consciousness is real, but some people argue quite seriously that it is an illusion. Either way, our knowledge of the physical functioning of the brain is unaffected. The intuition that there is something more to the universe than what our physical sciences are able to reveal to us neither contradicts science nor requires the revision of any scientific laws. The only thing it offends is an obnoxious brand of dogmatic Materialism that asserts a metaphysical claim about the ultimate nature of reality which it is prepared to defend with all the vigor of the Medieval church. K. Yes, and that "obnoxious brand of dogmatic Materialism" is called "sound science", what you are talking about is called "making shit up". If it exists, there will be evidence of it's existence, period - you can't get past that point without making shit up. Evidence of something existing does not mean you will find it. True, but until you do it's speculation.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:52:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: Evidence of something existing does not mean you will find it. True, but until you do it's speculation. Lack of evidence of existence when effort has been made (in this case since the beginning of man by billions of people) to find that evidence does imply non-existence.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 11:59:20 AM)
Yes but we're not talking of millions of years and billions of people, we're talking about infinite energy in an infinite number of possible states, which would require an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of people to compile an infinite amount of evidence. That's largely the utility of metaphysics, it's receptacle for concepts of the infinite.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 12:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Yes but we're not talking of millions of years and billions of people, we're talking about infinite energy in an infinite number of possible states, which would require an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of people to compile an infinite amount of evidence. That's largely the utility of metaphysics, it's receptacle for concepts of the infinite. Maybe thats what you're talking about. I don't think that is most people's vision of a God that could have existed before and created the big bang.

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 1:28:45 PM)
The conflict between singularity and duality is one that haunts religion - we are dualistic by nature, we can only know Oneness through abstraction. If it "existed before and created" then there is no singularity, you're starting with Twoness, not Oneness - at that point, you're into the multiverse, you're just jumped up several orders of complexity, without having resolved the original issue of Oneness vs. Twoness. In any case, I could quibble with Blacksword's claim that the created must always be less less complex than the creator - evolution doesn't work that way at all, it works just the opposite: all organisms evolve from other organisms less complex than they are, going back to (relatively) simple amino acid chains. That leads to an alternative god hypothesis: there was no god in the beginning, but eventually the increasing orders of complexity of the universe will result in the evolution of one, and there will be one in the end. This is most neatly resolved with a cyclical hypothesis: Oneness (the singularity) contains the seeds of duality, duality begets complexity, complexity evolves into singularity, etc. Hinduism roughly takes this tack I believe, whereas Christianity is linear. It has the virtue of mirroring the behavior of organic life, i.e., you are modelling on a demonstrable, observable, existing process: the cycle of life and death, and it doesn't contradict the law of conservation of energy. The math would be a bitch though, I bet. [8\|]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 1:32:38 PM)
Yes, the point is that the religous implicity assume "twoness" as you put it. I am perfectly comfortable with the option you left out...."nothingness".

mnottertail -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 1:43:44 PM)
that is the tao (void) descending from wuji (infinite) into yin and yang (discrimination)

xssve -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 1:54:57 PM)
Either way, nothingness into somethingness and something into nothingness would both seem to violate the law of conservation of energy, which is usually thought to apply to god - i.e., "always was, always will be".

mnottertail -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/27/2011 2:14:26 PM)
But there is always quantum foam, never true nothingness and no law is violated. (and I really dont think that we are in the position where we can absolutely yell, EUREKA!!! Closed System!!!! either) So the nothingness is only a convenient way to describe that which is otherwise meaningless because we cannot exploit it. Time did not exist before the big bang in that there is no exploitation available. Something else 'existed' (certainly a misnomer, but while english is a pretty rich and bountiful language, there are some things it just is incapable of). Just like higgs bosons or dark matter or tachyons, goddamn!!!! It would be nice, and we really hope they do, but until we find them and exploit them.........and the parallel universes? Clean up alot of philosophical crap, but until we can get over there.......

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875