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

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 8:15:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Shows you how familiar I am with the guy, you've got me saying "Tony Roberts" too. It's Tony Robbins. Those brain cells just woke up. Fuck. Now I have to coax them back to sleep again. This is all your fault. Thanks a lot. K. Sorry I didnt see this earlier, maybe I could have helped coaxed them back to sleep with a Julia Roberts suggestion. Thanks for the correction!

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 8:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy 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. What exactly your point? I'm not following. I don't even think we are having the same argument. Including Kirata's clarification, that the addition of a conscious creator to any theory of creation needlessly adds complexity to that theory. My answer would have to be not necessarily. A lot depends on what theory is used. Not in the least. There is no theory that isnt made more complex by adding a conscious creator

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 2:20:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Including Kirata's clarification, that the addition of a conscious creator to any theory of creation needlessly adds complexity to that theory. My answer would have to be not necessarily. A lot depends on what theory is used. Not in the least. There is no theory that isnt made more complex by adding a conscious creator My clarification sought to unpack a statement you had made, by expanding "a god" to "a god who creates the universe". And in the sense that I think you understand that phrase, I am persuaded that you are entirely correct. A god who, fiddling around one day for something to do, thinks to himself, "hey, I know what! I'll make a universe!" strikes me as being beyond the pale of reasonable conjecture. So when blacksword says it depends on what theory is used, I have to wonder if he might be referring to what concept of a creator one has in mind. I don't know if that's actually what he meant, but something he said earlier makes me think it might be. Because there are indeed views in which the term "creator" is used quite differently, when it is used at all, with none of the literalistic baggage that so typically burdens it in the West, and in a way that presents no inherent conflict with our knowledge of physical processes. As it happens, such a conception is argued in the presentation on the primacy of consciousness that I linked previously. I do, however, think the position that only the reality which underlies our physical world is real takes it a step too far. I would be inclined to argue that they are both real, and that a full grasp of the nature of our universe requires that we acknowledge and understand both. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 2:28:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Including Kirata's clarification, that the addition of a conscious creator to any theory of creation needlessly adds complexity to that theory. My answer would have to be not necessarily. A lot depends on what theory is used. Not in the least. There is no theory that isnt made more complex by adding a conscious creator My clarification sought to unpack a statement you had made, by expanding "a god" to "a god who creates the universe". And in the sense that I think you understand that phrase, I am persuaded that you are entirely correct. A god who, fiddling around one day for something to do, thinks to himself, "hey, I know what! I'll make a universe!" strikes me as being beyond the pale of reasonable conjecture. So when blacksword says it depends on what theory is used, I have to wonder if he might be referring to what concept of a creator one has in mind. I don't know if that's actually what he meant, but something he said earlier makes me think it might be. Because there are indeed views in which the term "creator" is used quite differently, when it is used at all, with none of the literalistic baggage that so typcially burdens it in the West, and in a way that presents no inherent conflict with our knowledge of physical processes (only perhaps with our interpretation of that knowledge). As it happens, just such a conception is argued in the presentation on the primacy of consciousness that I linked previously. I do think the position that only that reality which underlies our physical world is real takes it a step too far, however. I would be inclined to argue, rather, that they are both real, and that a full grasp of the nature of universe requires that we acknowledge and understand both. K. I agree that may be what he means, but it is irrelevant to my position, since that is limited to concscious creation. Obviously I don't believe in that or "cosmic consciousness" type theories, at least as we commonly refer to "consciousness", which includes self awareness as an attribute. WRT to theories that purely encompass universal information ("Holographic Universe", portions of "The God Particle" et al) I am open minded.

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 3:07:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I agree that may be what he means, but it is irrelevant to my position, since that is limited to concscious creation. Well just one quibble then, purely to be clear... It's not "conscious creation" in the sense of a deliberative craftsman who decides to "create" something. It's simply that consciousness by its natural activity gives rise to the worlds of experience. In physics, mass is frequency, and the universe we experience is the vibrating energy of a dynamical void. It is this energy that by its natural activity gives rise to the universe. You see the parallel. The position, then, is that consciousness and energy are inseparable, and that science is "Know Thyself" by other means. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 4:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I agree that may be what he means, but it is irrelevant to my position, since that is limited to concscious creation. Well just one quibble then, purely to be clear... It's not "conscious creation" in the sense of a deliberative craftsman who decides to "create" something. It's simply that consciousness by its natural activity gives rise to the worlds of experience. In physics, mass is frequency, and the universe we experience is the vibrating energy of a dynamical void. It is this energy that by its natural activity gives rise to the universe. You see the parallel. The position, then, is that consciousness and energy are inseparable, and that science is "Know Thyself" by other means. K. I agree with everything (with one exception), and your description is why I am open minded to "information" type universality. Everything was connected at the moment of creation so it remains that way, information is massless so can travel faster than the speed of light, holographic universe...whatever approach someone cares to ascribe to. The exception is linking these to a creator, which I thought was the topic (or the hijack!)

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 11:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Everything was connected at the moment of creation so it remains that way, information is massless so can travel faster than the speed of light, holographic universe...whatever approach someone cares to ascribe to. Fair enough. And perhaps interestingly, that which encompasses all that is (everything was connected at the moment of creation and remains that way), contains within itself all knowledge (all information), possesses infinite power (infinite energy), and is unconstrained by physical limits (the speed of light), is precisely what some schools of thought assert to be the source of our universe and the reality "in which we have our being." K.

rulemylife -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 11:23:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub God or nature...creating is creating...one no less complicated then the other the results are the same. Butch No, it's not. Because one occurs naturally and the other by superstition.

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/28/2011 11:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve [1] You're making all that up, it's a slippery slope. [2] What exactly is "non-physical reality" BTW? [3] Maybe you should look up the existing definition of "reality" before you start making up your own. [4] BTW, Christopher Lash uses "pathology" in that sense throughout Culture of Narcissism. I'm catching up... I've numbered your statements to make responding easier: 1. You're lying again. 2. Consciousness. 3. The state or quality of being real ... That which is described as real is genuine as opposed to counterfeit, false, or merely supposed. 4. Christopher Lasch (you mis-spelled it) is a historian and social critic with no clinical training and probably no business writing about narcissism in the first place if we are to judge from his misuse of the term "pathology," which you claimed was the clinical definition in psychology. But thanks, I wondered where you ever got such a notion. Isn't this fun? Have a nice day. K.

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 12:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife No, it's not. Because one occurs naturally and the other by superstition. Damn. If I had known 30 years ago that superstition could make things occur, my life would have been a lot different. [:D] K.

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 12:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve 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. When asked whether or not he thought there was a God, Frank Wilczek replied: "Not yet." K.

vincentML -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 10:37:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: xssve [1] You're making all that up, it's a slippery slope. [2] What exactly is "non-physical reality" BTW? [3] Maybe you should look up the existing definition of "reality" before you start making up your own. [4] BTW, Christopher Lash uses "pathology" in that sense throughout Culture of Narcissism. I'm catching up... I've numbered your statements to make responding easier: 1. You're lying again. 2. Consciousness. 3. The state or quality of being real ... That which is described as real is genuine as opposed to counterfeit, false, or merely supposed. 4. Christopher Lasch (you mis-spelled it) is a historian and social critic with no clinical training and probably no business writing about narcissism in the first place if we are to judge from his misuse of the term "pathology," which you claimed was the clinical definition in psychology. But thanks, I wondered where you ever got such a notion. Isn't this fun? Have a nice day. K. 2. Consciousness a non-physical reality? Only if you can show it exists apart from the functioning of a living, physical brain. Give it a try, please. edited: okay, nevermind. I see from reading further back that you are mucking about in some spooky cosmic consciousness. And your assertion that mass is frequency conflicts with most who would say frequency is a property of mass.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 10:41:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: xssve [2] What exactly is "non-physical reality" BTW? I'm catching up... I've numbered your statements to make responding easier: 2. Consciousness. 2. Consciousness a non-physical reality? Only if you can show it exists apart from the functioning of a living, physical brain. Give it a try, please. Yes, its hijacking this thread quite a bit, but I agree, consciousness is by no means "non-physical".

vincentML -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 10:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Brain seems to be preoccupied with the existence of God…he claims to be an atheists but I’ll bet he is a closet theist…he just can’t stop talking about God. It does amaze me when people deny the possibility of a God yet feel perfectly comfortable ascribing all of creation to wildly speculative theories with absolutely no proof. This theory is no less fantastic and unbelievable then the existence of an advanced all powerful being. Butch What troubles me about M-theory is that they had to invent dimensions to make the math work . . . in order to satisfy string theory which also had to invent dimensions to make the math almost work. How is inventing dimensions any different than inventing demigods to explain lightening, thunder, and the harvest? And to say that the dimensions exist but we do not have the instruments to detect them is no different than saying angels exist but we do not have the Faith to detect them. Show me the empirical evidence please.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 2:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Brain seems to be preoccupied with the existence of God…he claims to be an atheists but I’ll bet he is a closet theist…he just can’t stop talking about God. It does amaze me when people deny the possibility of a God yet feel perfectly comfortable ascribing all of creation to wildly speculative theories with absolutely no proof. This theory is no less fantastic and unbelievable then the existence of an advanced all powerful being. Butch What troubles me about M-theory is that they had to invent dimensions to make the math work . . . in order to satisfy string theory which also had to invent dimensions to make the math almost work. How is inventing dimensions any different than inventing demigods to explain lightening, thunder, and the harvest? And to say that the dimensions exist but we do not have the instruments to detect them is no different than saying angels exist but we do not have the Faith to detect them. Show me the empirical evidence please. Its not the same. M-theory (which may have empirical evidence soon) is a mathematically sound construct that explains other phenomena. God or angels on the head of a pin explain nothing and have no basis in ANY science.

kdsub -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 3:09:20 PM)
OK tell me how you plan to observe it?...Making up math that balances on either side of an equal sign proves nothing…and even if it did how would this exclude a God? I think you missed mine and Vincent’s point. I am certainly not saying it may not be true but only at this time it takes the same blind faith to believe in the possibility of this theory as to believe in a God or Gods…And why could someone not believe in this theory and God as well? Who knows what the future may bring. Your gut I’m sure is telling you there is no God and the answer must then be in theory and math because that is all that makes sense to you. All of those that believe or wish to believe in a higher being are just deluding ourselves. But there is no difference in in your faith in science and mine in science and religion...At least when it comes to possibilities. Over the last 25 years are so science itself has opened new possibilities for the relationship between consciousness and matter. These discoveries and theories make the miracles in the Bible and other religions easier for the truly open and orderly mind to admit they may be possible. I think... there is a chance... that some consciousness works independent of our physical universe. It may not be the Gods of ancient Greece…or the God of Abraham…but it could be the basis of these and many other religions. Butch

vincentML -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 3:30:53 PM)
quote: I think there is a chance that some consciousness works independent of our physical universe. It may not be the Gods of ancient Greece…or the God of Abraham…but it could be the basis of these and many other religions. I can't agree with you on that, Butch. I know there are many who tout themselves as spiritualists and accuse us materialists of having closed minds. But how can I open my mind to what is so apparently a fanciful thought as a cosmic non-physical consciousness? Just no evidence for it. I pose the same question to you that opened your post. How do you plan to observe it? I suspect people (generic) invent such concepts to make peace with suffering and death.

kdsub -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 3:44:14 PM)
There is some proof that it may not be so fanciful. It seems to me that the experiments with observation and the affects on reality at least open the possibility of an unknown relationship between thought, or consciousness, and the physical world. Again I am talking possibilities Butch

kdsub -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 3:57:28 PM)
I believe further that at the instant before creation there were equal possibilities of all manner of universes that our pitiful minds can or could conceive. To this thought I can not see how there could be any argument. Before there was anything…before any order…before any time… before any space…before any thought there had to be all possibilities or none. So for anyone to claim there is no possibility, no matter how remote, of a God I believe is not thinking far enough into the past. Butch

Kirata -> RE: Before the Big Bang: looking back in time - Parallel Universes - BBC science (5/29/2011 3:59:47 PM)
Well look who's here. I guess we're in for some more good fun. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML 2. Consciousness a non-physical reality? Only if you can show it exists apart from the functioning of a living, physical brain. Give it a try, please. Honestly, the mind just fucking boggles. Even viewed purely as an epiphenomenon or emergent property of complex biological systems, consciousness is still not something physical. Of course, if we take into account some of the things you say, in your case it may not be something real either. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML And your assertion that mass is frequency conflicts with most who would say frequency is a property of mass. And who might these "most" be who say that "frequency is a property of mass"? Students of Vincentian Physics? Would you like me to give you a chance to post some faux quotes that you've creatively reformulated to suit the purpose of your narrative? Nah, nevermind, why waste time... The masses of particles are -- not are like, or similar to, or metaphorically suggested by -- they are the tones, the frequencies, of these vibration patterns in dynamical voids.... These are very hard, rigorously tested, battle worn consequences... so, I mean, as scientific facts, as hard as they get... there really is that rigorous sense in which mass is frequency. Reference: Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate Lecture Series, March 2005, MIT K.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625