Bright flash of light as life begins.

[Rockstar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/26/bright-flash-of-light-marks-incredible-moment-life-begins-when-s/

When you think about it thats kinda how the universe began. Not with any of the 92 known elements, no carbon, no oxygen, no photons, neutrons or electrons. Just an exquisitly intense flash of energy from nothing. The metaphysical transforming into the physical. Or so the theory goes.

[Skybird]

Modern astronomny and cosmology do not see the Big Bang as a singular event anymore, but more as just the latest in a series of Big Bangs, maybe, or one level of a mutli-levelled multiverse.

Link - Lawrence Krauss: A Universe from Nothing (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461706403&sr=8-1&keywords=universe+from+nothing)

Finished reading this just two weeks ago.

While being a fascinating attempt to explain why there was a Big Bang, there is a methodological dilemma here, and Krauss did not really convince me that his explanations solve it, or even cover it. If, as modern cosmologists claim, "Nothing" indeed is instabile and for reasons dealing with the quantum foam level necessarily always will sooner or later bring something into existence necessarily, and if - again as many cosmologists today claim - there is a chance that our universe indeed is a multiverse of growing and potentially infinete diversity, and every crossing in the decision tree forms new universes (one for every potential option possible as an outcome at such decision points), then you end up with having a model that explains EVERYTHING, and worse: you end up with a model saying that EVERYTHING is possible. But - that is not what a scientific theory should do: claiming that just evertyhing, anything is possible, that in one universe it is like this and in the other universe it is like that. A theory gets formed to be tested, to exclude, to make predictions, to see whether these predictions are valid or not, and by this to allow us of growing precision in our forecats and in our ways to master our life, our world, to form new tools, etc etc etc. A model saying "evertyhing is possible", effectively says nothing, and sort of ends all scientific debate, because it could be this way, but it could also be that way, and thus: our differentiation between what is possble and what not is no longer needed for intellectual debate. The pragmatic value of such a model is nill, zero, non-existent. Technological, medical advance on basis of such thinking, is impossible. Krauss' book did not convince me that the author seriously deals with this inherent implication.

His definition of "Nothing" however honours this problem somehow, for he chooses not an understanding of Nothingness in the meaning of an anti-thesis to "existence" in thwe widest and most absolute meaning of the word, but chooses the relatively empty space in astronomers' understanbding as the Nothingness to which he refers. That allows him to attribute qualities to "Nothing", but he denies that when you attach qualities to nothing, that nothing is not nothing anymore. Thats another problem I have issues with. Krauss denies the need to deal with the more metaphysical understanding of an absolute, total Nothingness, a Nothing that is so total that you cannot even describe it by a name like "nothing", sicne that already "is" something again. As I said, Krauss chooses pragmatically here, and it allows him to practice some impressive thoughts modelling.

Dawkins writes in his afterword that what Darwin delivered in crushing blows to metaphysicists in the realm of biology, Krauss' book now delivers in the realm of physics: a lethal blow to metaphysical ideas wanting to link answers to the question of why anything, something exists at all, to metaphysical conceptions of untested, untestable, unproven and in the end purely imaginary nature. Maybe the book does this indeed, it still is a good book. But its value lies in the easiness by which it gives an overview on the DRAMATIC advances and improvements in astronomy, cosmology and related physics in the last 15-20 years. What has happened in these fields in the past two decades, cannot be overrated, it is a revolution in our ways to see the world, the universe, and our quersations about why they are there.

Recommended reading, but take it with a grain of salt. Good to read since he writes easy, at least mostly, and often with a refreshing, ironic sense of humour. The implications of modern cosmologists' current views of things existing, is a grim one however.

On the other hand, we probably live in the best time of our universe's still so young lifetime cycle, its very childhood, and only here and now it is that we can even become aware of that we live in special times that allow us to know what we know. Or in Krauss' words: out times are special, becasue they are the only times our universe will have ever had that allows us to realise that they are special. Later generations - talking of billions of years :) - will necessarily lack the possibility to even realise that there is more out there than just one galaxy. I found it stunning to realise this conclusion: that in a couple of dozen of billion years any cosmologists then will be thrown back to a chance of understanding the universe that equals the backwardly conception of our ancestors centuries ago. Mind you, its just decades that our scientists still believed our galaxy is static, unique, and the only one of its kind. In the distant future the universe will have inflated so much and will continue to do so at speeds beyond the speed of light so that other galaxies will have no chance to send light to our galaxy that would unveil their existence to any observer inside our own. Its as if the universe seizes to exist, seen from any static point in space. These observers will have no chance to ever see another galaxy. Their understanding will be limited to this our own single galaxy. What a sober outlook! But as Dawkins also said in his afterword: the universe has no duty whatver to spend us comfort or consolation: things are like they are, and they will become increasingly bleak, it seems.

Gives a new meaning to the phrase "we live in a special moment of time". We indeed do.

Another stunning idea is the understanding that nature's laws probabaly are just random generations, and not attributed to inherent traits of things existing at all. They may not only differ from universe to universe (embedded in a growing multiverse), but may even be different in different corners of just the one universe we know of. Thats another one of this book's bites that it delivers to the reader.

Our existence bases on a fragile and precious balance of factors and variables that mostly are unknown to us. And if somehting happens at the very lowest quantum level, it could change the essential nature of the universe we live in from one moment to the next. When I put the book aside, finished, I took an old DVD to TV and watched it again, with one of my favourite movies: The Quiet Earth.

My old mentor, trainer and teacher used to say that life means to accept utmost and total and absolute uncertainty about anything, and that this is not for the weak of hearts. Its the way of the warrior. I sometimes got accused by religious believers that I were a coward for not trusting in their idols. I always saw it exactly the other way around: that it takes utmost courage to accept living a life basing on total uncertainty and lacking understanding about the why and how and where-to.

And maybe something like a meaning of life or a sense of things does not even exist. That is maybe the toughest consequence to accept from this book.

Good, but in a way: tough.

P.S. Krauss' disassembly of string-theory is worth to be given special appreciation. I first frowned, then laughed.

[Aktungbby]

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg
Well they don't call it a BIG BANG Theory fer nuthin'!:O:

[Jimbuna]

I prefer my eggs unfertilised.

[Rockstar]

At the moment there are for some, speculation as to how the Big Bang in this universe happened. What some call a miracle, science calls a one time event. Multi-universe theory aside, science does know the big bang of this universe was a one time event and some how or another the origin of life from non living matter.

The idea of us existing because of random chance is I think the least of all probabilities. Harold Horowitz computed to create bacterium would require more time than the universe has exsisted. Paul Davies thought life was built into the scheme of things in a very basic way. Simon Conway Morris professor of evolutionary paleobiology found the existence of life on earth appears to be surrounded by improbablities. Science as we know it today was even enough to persuade the late Mr. Antony Flew to change his mind.

The basic question of wether science and religion are mutaully exclusive reduces to wether there is a place for the metaphysical to be brought within what was once purely materialistic science. The discovery of the big bang, creation of time space and energy, the metamorphisis of that energy of creation into particles and the transformation of those particles into sentient beings alive with feelings of joy, the transcendental ecstasy of love (or as Aktungbby calls it "big bang" :) ) and self awarness, all cry out for an expalnation that seems to find its roots in something other than the material. Physical particles from which living bodies are constructed , the atoms and molecules show not one hint of sentience. How can we explain that a bundle of inert energy (super powerful rays of light) became alive?

[Skybird]

Krauss and multiverse-theoreticists would argue that if there are many universes, a multiverse, and thus there is always a place where any option is possible, it would not be a surprise at all that life exists in our universe - the universe in which - and nowhere else - life like ours and that on Earth to be set to form up. One could as well be surprised at that fishes can breathe underwater and that birds flying have wings.

It also is totally possible that Eath shows the only kind of life, or that our universe is the only one amongst many universes where biological life in our understanding has formed up.

This one is another grim implication of this concept of multiverses, and theories of Everything: that maybe indeed life is almost - or in fact - unique for our place, and that we are embedded in a universe or multiverse that else is a lifeless desert, an empty void of non-living material things taking place that nobody witnesses and will see.

Austrian author Adalbert Stifter - LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalbert_Stifter)- had written some of the most poetic and beautiful descriptions of nature I have ever read (and also some that easily outlasts the breath of the reader :), he is no easy writer to read, imo ) . But he was neither a romanticist, nor was he sentimental or implied nature is sentimental. In a way, the picture he forms of nature, is horrific, despite the beautiful poetry of his words. Not many readers seem to get this note in his work, however. It is quite subtle, and underlying his work at a very deep level only. Difficult reading.

Sorry, for somewhat hijacking your thread, Rockstar, I only red your article and saw "light", "bright sparkle" and "big bang" - and BANG! there went all the switches in my head clicking... I washed away in one flush what your article originally was about. At least we talk on science here.

[Skybird]

The mentioned afterword to Krauss' book can be freely and legally had here: LINK (http://krauss-dev.faculty.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Dawkins-Afterword.pdf).

[Rockstar]

If there is one thing I love to read about is our understanding of the universe and its origins. Not to sound preachy but also I love reading how some of what we know can be tied in with a certain book written 3000 years ago.

Ive read about the multi universe theory too none of which including modern physics do I completely understand its all too mind boggling for me, but its that which makes my mind hungry for more.

As for multi universe theory when in my mind I boil it down to the basics I come away with the idea, nothing is real. :hmm2:

[Rockstar]

i just read dawkins on krauss. He (Dawkins) seems to me to a very angry and close minded man brushing aside some very serious questions but may be thats just who he is, Im fine with that. Personally I look at all possibilities including the idea that we are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. Unfortunetlay at the moment there seems to be only way to prove if that is true but, Im fine with that too.

Anyway I will be sure to read Krauss. Dawkins? Well the way I see it he's just like me, a man with an opinion based on some elses work. Fortunately Im content with my own as we all should be :)

sorry seems I might have gotten of the path of science a bit.

[Aktungbby]

At the moment there are for some, speculation as to how the Big Bang in this universe happened. What some call a miracle, science calls a one time event. Multi-universe theory aside, science does know the big bang of this universe was a one time event and some how or another the origin of life from non living matter.

The idea of us existing because of random chance is I think the least of all probabilities. Harold Horowitz computed to create bacterium would require more time than the universe has exsisted. Paul Davies thought life was built into the scheme of things in a very basic way. Simon Conway Morris professor of evolutionary paleobiology found the existence of life on earth appears to be surrounded by improbablities. Science as we know it today was even enough to persuade the late Mr. Antony Flew to change his mind.

The basic question of wether science and religion are mutaully exclusive reduces to wether there is a place for the metaphysical to be brought within what was once purely materialistic science. The discovery of the big bang, creation of time space and energy, the metamorphisis of that energy of creation into particles and the transformation of those particles into sentient beings alive with feelings of joy, the transcendental ecstasy of love (or as Aktungbby calls it "big bang" :) ) and self awarness, all cry out for an expalnation that seems to find its roots in something other than the material. Physical particles from which living bodies are constructed , the atoms and molecules show not one hint of sentience. How can we explain that a bundle of inert energy (super powerful rays of light) became alive?
God said 'let there be light' so the Fallen Angel and his many minions would have a suitable purgatory...http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/horror/dancing-devil-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/dancing.devil-emoticon-3838.html) http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?pictureid=7048&albumid=815&dl=1381536131&thumb=1 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/album.php?albumid=815) :arrgh!:
Ich glaube an Spinozas Gott, der sich in der gesetzlichen Harmonie des Seienden offenbart, nicht an einen Gott, der sich mit Schicksalen und Handlungen der Menschen abgibt. I believe in Spinoza (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Spinoza)'s God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Einstein_tongue.jpg/220px-Einstein_tongue.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_tongue.jpg) "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

[Rockin Robbins]

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for multi-dimensional universes, multiple big bangs followed by big crunches, or anything at all beyond 13 and a fraction billion years ago.

Whatever is said about those things is not science at all. It is baseless speculation. Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.

Well, that is false. Mathematics is a descriptive language, like English or German. All three languages have the ability to describe internally consistent falsehood as well as truthfulness. Imagine the foolishness of saying "It is said in English (or German) so it MUST be true." Nobody would buy that bag of horse squeezings. But they write a blank check to mathematical theory. It is utter foolishness.

[Sailor Steve]

Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.
I agree. Speculation is speculation, nothing more.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality."
-Albert Einstein, Geometry and Experience

[Skybird]

i just read dawkins on krauss. He (Dawkins) seems to me to a very angry and close minded man brushing aside some very serious questions but may be thats just who he is, Im fine with that. Personally I look at all possibilities including the idea that we are not humans seeking a spiritual experience but rather spiritual beings having a human experience. Unfortunetlay at the moment there seems to be only way to prove if that is true but, Im fine with that too.

Anyway I will be sure to read Krauss. Dawkins? Well the way I see it he's just like me, a man with an opinion based on some elses work. Fortunately Im content with my own as we all should be :)

sorry seems I might have gotten of the path of science a bit.

I read Dawkin's God-Delusion book and liked it - but also his book on evolution, The Selfish Gene. He knows his stuff as a biologist. The first book is a battleground, obviously, and it is intended to be that, but his Selfish Gene is different but brilliant from an academic POV. There is a reason why it gets predominantly extremely positive reviews only - from 30 years back until today. Don't take him as a light-weight, he isn't. There are a few more books by him as well, popular science books.

[Rockstar]

Science is based on evidence. There is no evidence for multi-dimensional universes, multiple big bangs followed by big crunches, or anything at all beyond 13 and a fraction billion years ago.

Whatever is said about those things is not science at all. It is baseless speculation. Many have some kind of a love affair with mathematics, thinking that if something is mathematically consistent, it must be true. It is true that baseless speculation can set you on a course of investigation to find the true nature of things. But it is not true that reality must yield to the power of baseless speculation.

Well, that is false. Mathematics is a descriptive language, like English or German. All three languages have the ability to describe internally consistent falsehood as well as truthfulness. Imagine the foolishness of saying "It is said in English (or German) so it MUST be true." Nobody would buy that bag of horse squeezings. But they write a blank check to mathematical theory. It is utter foolishness.


I dont understand your argument because I dont believe anyone here said 'theory' is truth or law, it is just a theory. I just said I was open to all possibilities and I do agree that without an imagination we would still be beliving we are the center of the universe and it all revolved around us.

Keep in mind too 13 billion years isnt an absolute. Thanks to the brains and imagination of man his math and theory time is seen as something relative to ones frame of reference. ;).

[Rockin Robbins]

I dont understand your argument because I dont believe anyone here said 'theory' is truth or law, it is just a theory. I just said I was open to all possibilities and I do agree that without an imagination we would still be beliving the sun revolved around the earth.
A scientific theory is confined to things for which evidence exists. No evidence exists for multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery.

Therefore, nothing said about any of them merits the distinction of being called a theory. Theories are explanations of a collection of evidence, not speculation based on imaginative fantasies. Elevating imaginative fantasies to the status of theory would be the end of science.

Just to give you one example of why these fantasies don't deserve to be called theories, a theory, in order to be called such, must be falsifiable. If you posit the theory that the force of gravity between two objects is related to the sum of the masses and the distance of their centers of mass, then merely showing one example where that is not true is enough to falsify that theory. The theory was built on evidence and it will die by evidence.

But there is no evidence of the list above, multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery. Therefore they are not falsifiable. Therefore they are not theories. Well, maybe on-time mail delivery can be falsified.:D:D:D

[Skybird]

I agree on that certainties are hard to know in science, though on more profane issues you cannot deny them - Newtonian physics ruling billiards, for example. What Rockin Robbins and Sailor Steve express in doubts on general validity of maths, I would say about philosophy in general - it all is speculation only, to give us the comfortable illusion opf being able to understand and master the chaos this world confronts us with, and the unpredictability of events making us fear afraid of our future. We probably are in exitstential need of living by such self-made self-deceptions and illusions, else despair might overwhelm us. Saying that as an ex-psychologist. I might disagree with the content of religions (or mphilosophies), but I certainly absolutely can understand the attractiveness of them and why maybe they even serve a need in man craving for being reassured that he is not lost and at random mercy in this chaotic, non- controllable chaos of a world. "Wer ein Warum zum Leben hat, erträgt fast jedes Wie", wrote Viktor Frankl, survivor of the KZ and later founder of the logotherapy-school of psychotherapy (He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How).

Krauss admits that the natural laws we know, might be not founded on the universe's traits and characteristics, but may be random generations, and can be totally different in other universe - even in different corners of this our own universe we happen to exist in. If so, same might be true for maths. But as I said earlier, science is not so much about discovering absolutes, but allowing us pragmatically making sense of our conditions of existence, and to address the needs of our life by inventing new things helping us, from medicine to technology, agricultural approvments to space travel. Its without doubt the most potent intellectual tool mankind ever invented. Its claims always are preliminary, are theories. Theories get chnaged or replaced with ebtter once, if they fail to pass verification and retest. this is the essence of science, theory-building and testing them. Absolute truths are not science's business. Other schools, namely religions, claim to know them - without caring to ever give evidence, however. And to me, science always means that man creates the order and systematic hierarchy that he uses to sort his observations and results. "Die Wirklichkeit wird weniger von unsgefunden als vielmehr von unserfunden", said Paul Watzlawick: reality does not so much get discovered by us, but gets more like invented.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would go so far as to say that religion is as much a necessary nutrient for human life as oxygen and food. We have no choice of whether we will have religion in our lives. We only have a choice of what we will worship.

This leads directly to the worship of mathematics, or material wealth, or athletic achievement, power over other people, certain other people.....the list is endless. All those needs are irrational, and I agree that irrationality is a necessary component of life, and reality itself.

There is no reason that the speed of light should be exactly what it is, for instance. It doesn't seem rational that only one value (in a vacuum--light does change speeds in different mediums) is possible. It doesn't seem fair in an "everything is possible" universe that if you do jump off that 1000' cliff you will impact the ground on the bottom of that cliff and will die. Surely the universe should have more fairness than that. What about those who fall by accident? The universe is arbitrary and irrational.

Why should we be surprised if irrationality is a basic constituent of humanity?

[Aktungbby]

Thanks to the brains and imagination of man his math and theory time is seen as something relative to ones frame of reference. ;). Let's leave relative out of it BBY! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Einstein_tongue.jpg/220px-Einstein_tongue.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_tongue.jpg) A happy (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Happy) man is too satisfied (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Satisfied) with the present (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Present) to dwell too much on the future (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Future). I am convinced that when my homo-sapient ride on a spinning 1000 mph mudball; circumnavigating a sun; in a spinning galaxy; in an expanding universe is blessedly over...all will B manifestly made clear on a 'need 2 know' basis... :woot:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg/220px-Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg)

[vienna]

Bright flash of light? Aw, that's just the little swimmer having an after-ciggie...



<O>

[AndyJWest]

I would go so far as to say that religion is as much a necessary nutrient for human life as oxygen and food. We have no choice of whether we will have religion in our lives. We only have a choice of what we will worship.
...


Speak for yourself. I have no religion, and worship no imaginary beings, or anything else.. And I am very much alive without any of this.

[Aktungbby]

Bright flash of light? Aw, that's just the little swimmer having an after-ciggie...



<O>
We are in god's image:shucks:: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg/220px-Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg) = really http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/farting/brain-fart-smiley-emoticon.gifa celestial 'brainfart'! @ AndyJ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Man_factor) And I am very much alive without any of this. I completely agree with your lack of a 'coping bicameral mechanism' :haha:

[Platapus]

Scientists don't have a problem claiming that "we just don't know... yet".

Religious leaders have more of a problem which may explain the fall back position of "the [deity of choice] works in mysterious ways, but we should just trust that it will work out."

If the answer is "god's will"; where is the motivation to further attempt to find an answer?

The essence of science is accepting not knowing but at the same time being motivated to find the solution... even it it takes thousands of years.

Science continues to make discoveries/generate explanations because we don't know and it bugs us that we don't know.

[Aktungbby]

If the answer is "god's will"; where is the motivation to further attempt to find an answer?




Well, 72 virgins seems a good motivation lately these days!:O:

[vienna]

Science also has the distinction of being the only discipline when, even if it is apparent the answer is "known", every effort is made to disprove the "knowledge"; it is in this way science strives for the most extreme accuracy possible, something, again, not seen in other disciplines. The concept of contradiction is anathema to science and is attacked at every instance; something, again, not seen in other disciplines. It is the blind acceptance of "knowledge" based on a bed of contradictions that has caused so much of the miseries in world history -- I cannot recall there ever being a war fought over a difference in scientific views...


<O>

[Rockin Robbins]

Speak for yourself. I have no religion, and worship no imaginary beings, or anything else.. And I am very much alive without any of this.
Okay, so you have faith in yourself, worship yourself and have an irrational belief in your own self-sufficiency.

Even science is irrational. It believes it can understand everything and that there is nothing that science is not the best investigative tool. But science has an end, which is when it runs out of evidence.

We have no evidence for why the gravitational constant is what it is, or why Avagadro's number of molecules equals one gram (although we occasionally refine both constants). Science clusters around a group of indefinable constants, which stand alone with no explanation, no derivation, no history, no reason for being. And these constants are truly discovered. They are not made.

Cosmology has ceased to be a science and is nothing but a religion wearing scientific terminology and mathematics now. It is a faith in things for which there is no evidence, but only an unknown probability. Or perhaps these things are impossible and just an extension of our own irrational desire for fairness. Fairness is an irrational concept born of our insecurities, you know. That is why there must be other universes with perhaps different constants from our own.

Evolution is the same way. There is evolutionary science, relying on the evidence, and there is evolutionary religion, having faith that life is ever seeking upwards, not satisfied with non-sentient one-celled existence, wanting to become ever more complex, ever more capable until it becomes the god of evolutionary religion: man. Read Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould, who was the leading world SCIENTIST of evolution. He talks at length about that, and how the religion of evolution has been a major stumbling block to the science of evolution. But science is based on evidence. Stephen Jay Gould knew the difference between science and not science. He wasn't bashful about calling out the irrational among his own enthusiasts.

No irrationality is part and parcel of human existence. It is like fire. It can cripple our ability to understand. It can make it possible to understand. It can make situations we cannot function into situations we can handle. It breeds Ted Bundy. It breeds Isaac Newton. It is mysterious. It, because it IS irrational, has no explanation. It cannot be analyzed properly. It is at the center of what it is to be human. At one end of the spectrum it is imagination. At the other it is insanity.

[AndyJWest]

Okay, so you have faith in yourself, worship yourself and have an irrational belief in your own self-sufficiency.

Wrong again. You have an irrational belief in your mind-reading skills.

[Betonov]

Science has an end when evidence stops, religion has an end when evidence stops.
But science admits it is wrong, makes a U-turn and finds a new route.
Religion just stands at the end and yells that the brick wall in front is really an open avenue.

[Oberon]

One flash of light, but no smoking pistol. :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

Even science is irrational. It believes it can understand everything and that there is nothing that science is not the best investigative tool. But science has an end, which is when it runs out of evidence.
Science believes nothing. It's just a tool.

We have no evidence for why the gravitational constant is what it is...
We also don't know why electricity works the way it does, but we use it and have done for a very long time now. The same is true of many fields.

Cosmology has ceased to be a science and is nothing but a religion wearing scientific terminology and mathematics now. It is a faith in things for which there is no evidence, but only an unknown probability.
Only for some people. Much of humanity seems to have a need to believe in something, and that does create problems, but that does not apply to all.

That is why there must be other universes with perhaps different constants from our own.
"Must be"? Why do you assume a "must be" for anything? If we don't know then we don't know. Assuming that there "must be" something is pure belief, nothing else. There may indeed be, and it's grand to think about it, but if there is no evidence then claiming there must be something is no better than claiming there "can't be". It's just speculation.

Evolution is the same way. There is evolutionary science, relying on the evidence, and there is evolutionary religion, having faith that life is ever seeking upwards, not satisfied with non-sentient one-celled existence, wanting to become ever more complex, ever more capable until it becomes the god of evolutionary religion
While this is true for many people, it is not true for all. Yes, there are people who believe in Evolution to the point of worship. I believe they are few and far between, at least among real scientists, and it is the religious believers who make such a big deal out of the concept, since if most people actually worship a scientific contest then that concept is reduced to the level of the religious belief, i.e. it is no longer science but faith. The fact is that no matter how many people believe or don't believe in anything, scientific or religious, it doesn't alter the truth, or untruth, of the thing itself. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution, they accept the evidence as it's been shown so far, and are aware that new evidence could alter their perceptions at any time. Believers, on the other hand, are convinced of their belief and no amount of evidence will ever change that.


As Lawrence M. Krauss put it "The lack of understanding of something is not evidence for God. It's evidence for a lack of understanding."

[Betonov]

One flash of light, but no smoking pistol. :hmmm:

You do realise what the smoking gun might be when we talk about conception :haha:

[Rockstar]

Let's leave relative out of it BBY! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/Einstein_tongue.jpg/220px-Einstein_tongue.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_tongue.jpg) [/COLOR]I am convinced that when my homo-sapient ride on a spinning 1000 mph mudball; circumnavigating a sun; in a spinning galaxy; in an expanding universe is blessedly over...all will B manifestly made clear on a 'need 2 know' basis... :woot:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg/220px-Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/File:Most_distant_Gamma-ray_burst.jpg)



LOL careful you are speculating and that might get burned at the stake around here.

[Sailor Steve]

LOL careful you are speculating and that might get burned at the stake around here.
Speculation is a great thing. It's where all the best fantasy and science fiction comes from. Speculation isn't the problem - calling speculation fact is the problem.

Oh, and I'm curious about what seems to be going undiscussed. What's the story on the "flash of light" that started this thread? Have there been other observances?

[Rockstar]

A scientific theory is confined to things for which evidence exists. No evidence exists for multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery.

Therefore, nothing said about any of them merits the distinction of being called a theory. Theories are explanations of a collection of evidence, not speculation based on imaginative fantasies. Elevating imaginative fantasies to the status of theory would be the end of science.

Just to give you one example of why these fantasies don't deserve to be called theories, a theory, in order to be called such, must be falsifiable. If you posit the theory that the force of gravity between two objects is related to the sum of the masses and the distance of their centers of mass, then merely showing one example where that is not true is enough to falsify that theory. The theory was built on evidence and it will die by evidence.

But there is no evidence of the list above, multi-dimensional universes, cyclical big bang/big crunch cycles, parallel universes with different basic constants and properties, alternate time streams, alien life, alien intelligence, or on-time mail delivery. Therefore they are not falsifiable. Therefore they are not theories. Well, maybe on-time mail delivery can be falsified.:D:D:D

I understand what you're saying. Look, I may not agree with Multi Universe Theory and I don't. But I do from time to time read the oppositions paper. When say I Ive read about it and that I have but a feeble underatanding of it. Rest assured I dont need to be chastised over the deffenition of what a theory is, for the simple reason I am not the one who said it was a theory, the theoretical physicists and centers of education who came up with this idea did. This why I dont understand your argument with me. If you want to call it speculation or foolishness go ahead call it what you want. The fact remains people have suggested it and did the math. Right or wrong wrong what I truely admire is the brains that can come up with things like this.

[Rockstar]

I read Dawkin's God-Delusion book and liked it - but also his book on evolution, The Selfish Gene. He knows his stuff as a biologist. The first book is a battleground, obviously, and it is intended to be that, but his Selfish Gene is different but brilliant from an academic POV. There is a reason why it gets predominantly extremely positive reviews only - from 30 years back until today. Don't take him as a light-weight, he isn't. There are a few more books by him as well, popular science books.

I'll be honest Skybird, I have preconceived notions. 60 years ago it was thought the universe was eternal then two fellas Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered echos of a big bang. Now for the last fifty years or so science is, I think, in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Something a 3000 year old book had already stated.

Also, one of the reasons I disagree with Multi Universe Theory it is used in an attempt to deny the universe has a beginning and direction that it is just one big random chance or fluke. And it just doesnt matter to me if we evolved from the simple to the complex. What matters for me is today.

What I want to know, is the brain a function of the soul or is the soul a function of the brain that needed to interpret the energy surrounding us in this dimension of space time and matter. Why are we sentient self aware capable of emotion thought amd feelings when the matter of the universe that from which our bodies come from is not.

Though this too was written some 2-3 thousand years ago. Will this be the next big discovery?

...and breathed into his nostils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. [And the Adam became a soul of life.]. - Targumin Onkelos

Anyway as for my intial post I found the flash of light at conception just reminded me of the intial intense light at the beginning of the universe which eventually became time space matter.

And I will try to find a used book of Dawkins and give it a go. :)

[Betonov]

I like the multiverse theory.
It means there's somewhere a me that didn't turn out a complete looser.
Then again there's somewhere a me that turned out a complete looser and does not realise it.
And then again, there's somewhere a me that was allready killed.
A me that has normal blood pressure and a me that has a brain tumor.
A me that won the lottery and a me that lives in a cardboard box.
A me that never tried pot and a me that got addicted to it.

[Skybird]

I'll be honest Skybird, I have preconceived notions. 60 years ago it was thought the universe was eternal then two fellas Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered echos of a big bang. Now for the last fifty years or so science is, I think, in agreement that the universe had a beginning. Something a 3000 year old book had already stated.

Also, one of the reasons I disagree with Multi Universe Theory it is used in an attempt to deny the universe has a beginning and direction that it is just one big random chance or fluke. And it just doesnt matter to me if we evolved from the simple to the complex. What matters for me is today.

What I want to know, is the brain a function of the soul or is the soul a function of the brain that needed to interpret the energy surrounding us in this dimension of space time and matter. Why are we sentient self aware capable of emotion thought amd feelings when the matter of the universe that from which our bodies come from is not.

Though this too was written some 2-3 thousand years ago. Will this be the next big discovery?

...and breathed into his nostils the inspiration of life, and there was in the body of Adam the inspiration of a speaking spirit, unto the illumination of the eyes and the hearing of the ears. [And the Adam became a soul of life.]. - Targumin Onkelos

Anyway as for my intial post I found the flash of light at conception just reminded me of the intial intense light at the beginning of the universe which eventually became time space matter.

And I will try to find a used book of Dawkins and give it a go. :)

Well, we can make clear statements about that the Big Bang is the most likely scenario indeed, the hints and evidence is all around us and is overwhelming, it radiates right through us while sit here and talk. Its a theory - but a damn well proven one by now, and thus the by far dominant paradigm. But then the question is: why did a Big Bang happen? And where did it take place when time and space did not exist? This is where cosmologists today try to give answers. Inflation of the universe also is an observation that you cannot deny currently: we know, by all reason, that the universe is constantly inflating/expanding, we know it for sure, we have proven it, the evidence is not objected by anyone: and we know that thus objects like other galaxies do race away from us the faster the further away they are - by this phenomenon even the speed of light in the future will be broken. The analogy often used here is that of rosins in a cake dough that is working and expanding. You mentioned that book, the Bible. But the Bible gives no explanation on the mechanism described by modern astronomy and cosmology, and many fundamental Christians take form that book that Earth is just 6000 years old and that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs - while science knows and can prove so much better that Earth is several billion years old, 4.8 I think, and that the Big Bang is 13.72 billion years ago. Finally, attributing the cause of existence to a deity, like the Bible does, does nothing for me, because then the next question is: where did ''God come from, where did he exist, how did it/her/she come into being?" Same question like about the Big Bang, only that science tries to answer this question about why there was a Big Bang, where as fundamentalist believers simply chose to see "Its the deity!" as the absolute, penultimate answer to these questions. You understand that I cannot share your attempt therefore to link science and religion here. They are no companions, but antagonists, and they always have been and they always will and must be - necessarily.

[Skybird]

I like the multiverse theory.
It means there's somewhere a me that didn't turn out a complete looser.
Then again there's somewhere a me that turned out a complete looser and does not realise it.
And then again, there's somewhere a me that was allready killed.
A me that has normal blood pressure and a me that has a brain tumor.
A me that won the lottery and a me that lives in a cardboard box.
A me that never tried pot and a me that got addicted to it.
Report back at the end of time once you are finished. :D

[Betonov]

Report back at the end of time once you are finished. :D

Somewhere there's a me that invented immortality and used the extra eternity to make a time machine so he came back from end times and reported it.

[Rockstar]

Well, we can make clear statements about that the Big Bang is the most likely scenario indeed, the hints and evidence is all around us and is overwhelming, it radiates right through us while sit here and talk. Its a theory - but a damn well proven one by now, and thus the by far dominant paradigm. But then the question is: why did a Big Bang happen? And where did it take place when time and space did not exist? This is where cosmologists today try to give answers. Inflation of the universe also is an observation that you cannot deny currently: we know, by all reason, that the universe is constantly inflating/expanding, we know it for sure, we have proven it, the evidence is not objected by anyone: and we know that thus objects like other galaxies do race away from us the faster the further away they are - by this phenomenon even the speed of light in the future will be broken. The analogy often used here is that of rosins in a cake dough that is working and expanding. You mentioned that book, the Bible. But the Bible gives no explanation on the mechanism described by modern astronomy and cosmology, and many fundamental Christians take form that book that Earth is just 6000 years old and that humans lived side by side with dinosaurs - while science knows and can prove so much better that Earth is several billion years old, 4.8 I think, and that the Big Bang is 13.72 billion years ago. Finally, attributing the cause of existence to a deity, like the Bible does, does nothing for me, because then the next question is: where did ''God come from, where did he exist, how did it/her/she come into being?" Same question like about the Big Bang, only that science tries to answer this question about why there was a Big Bang, where as fundamentalist believers simply chose to see "Its the deity!" as the absolute, penultimate answer to these questions. You understand that I cannot share your attempt therefore to link science and religion here. They are no companions, but antagonists, and they always have been and they always will and must be - necessarily.


Im not Christian so I got that going for me :haha: Many unanswered question in this universe so many great minds postulating ideas and food for the mind.

But lets think about the word deity.

What is the scientific thoughts on what created the universe? If you look at NASA website it says identifies something called quantum fluctuation which is; Not physical, Acts on the physical, Created physical from nothing, Predates universe.

Now What is the biblical definition of God? Not physical, Acts on the physical, Created physical from nothing, Predates universe.

Now Skybird Im not trying to preach or convert. Its just where my thoughts are at the moment. As I said Im not Christian I dont believe in human sacrifices, or a place where devils with pirchforks torment you if you dont believe in mens idea of who God is.

Me, Im just wandering, wondering, seeking, its what we do.

[Oberon]

I wonder when it was that the religious establishment gained the reputation of hindering science rather than promoting it, it was, after all, the scientific leader for many centuries. Was it when Copernicus came up with his Heliocentric theory? However I believe that Pope Clement VII was interested in the theory rather than enraged. Perhaps it was Pope Paul V, who took a harder approach to Catholic diplomacy, and his cardinals who sought to condemn Galileo for following the Copernican position.
In short, then it must be at the dawn of the Renaissance that science left the bosum of the religious establishment and sought to make its own way in the world. :hmmm:
Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion. :hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion. :hmmm:

NONSENSE: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/MayorFFH2011.pdf (http://web.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/MayorFFH2011.pdf) Being a tad Titanic we could relate to this! :O: Of course there were two zinc flashes when I came along...:timeout: "Before there were any humans on Pallene, the story goes that a battle was fought between the gods and the giants. Traces of the giants' demise continue to be seen to this day, whenever torrents swell with rain and excessive water breaks their banks and floods the fields. They say that even now in gullies and ravines the people discover bones of immeasurable enormity, like men's carcasses but far bigger."
--Greek historian Solinus, c. AD 200
The ancient Greeks told stories of giants, describing them as flesh-and-blood creatures who lived and died--and whose bones could be found coming out of the ground where they were buried long ago. Indeed, even today large and surprisingly human-like bones can be found in Greece. Modern scientists understand such bones to be the remains of mammoths, mastodons, and woolly rhinoceroses that once lived in the region.
But ancient Greeks were largely unfamiliar with these massive animals, and many believed that the enormous bones they found were the remains of human-like giants. Any nonhuman traits in the bones were thought to be due to the grotesque anatomical features of giants... http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/greek-giants/ (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/greek-giants/)

[Sailor Steve]

What is the scientific thoughts on what created the universe?
None. True science isn't about thinking (as in speculating, not considering), it's about discovering. Individuals can speculate, but that's not scientific method, just guessing.

If you look at NASA website it says identifies something called quantum fluctuation which is; Not physical,
Okay

Acts on the physical,
How, exactly? Do they explain this process, or is it more guesswork?

Created physical from nothing,
How would they know this? Looks like more guesswork to me.

Predates universe.
Again, how would they know this? Speculation applies what we want to think onto what we know. Science looks for more data until there is enough to form a viable theory, then looks for evidence to the contrary.

[Rockstar]

I wonder when it was that the religious establishment gained the reputation of hindering science rather than promoting it, it was, after all, the scientific leader for many centuries. Was it when Copernicus came up with his Heliocentric theory? However I believe that Pope Clement VII was interested in the theory rather than enraged. Perhaps it was Pope Paul V, who took a harder approach to Catholic diplomacy, and his cardinals who sought to condemn Galileo for following the Copernican position.
In short, then it must be at the dawn of the Renaissance that science left the bosum of the religious establishment and sought to make its own way in the world. :hmmm:
Before then too, I think in the Roman and Greek eras science was generally seperate from religion. :hmmm:

My thoughts are division came when great minds nolonger saw church leaders as an authority and as the church leaders began to see their authority diminish.

[Rockstar]

None. True science isn't about thinking (as in speculating, not considering), it's about discovering. Individuals can speculate, but that's not scientific method, just guessing.


Okay


How, exactly? Do they explain this process, or is it more guesswork?


How would they know this? Looks like more guesswork to me.


Again, how would they know this? Speculation applies what we want to think onto what we know. Science looks for more data until there is enough to form a viable theory, then looks for evidence to the contrary.


Prove you exist.

[Sailor Steve]

Prove you exist.
I can't. I can only fall back on Descartes' first principle, and even then I accept the concept that I may be wrong.

[AndyJWest]

Prove you exist.

What evidence would you accept?

[Skybird]

Isness comes from the music of the Ainur.

:)

:shucks:

[Fahnenbohn]

Prove you exist.

http://static.telecharger.01net.com/design/smilies/custom/hello.gif

[Oberon]

My thoughts are division came when great minds nolonger saw church leaders as an authority and as the church leaders began to see their authority diminish.

That makes sense enough. I think we'd probably say that was around the late 1500s, early 1600s. :hmmm:

I can't. I can only fall back on Descartes' first principle, and even then I accept the concept that I may be wrong.

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" POOF! The horse disappears.
This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore, I am.
But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.

[Rockin Robbins]

Predates universe.

Interesting. Present religious and scientific thinking is that at the time of creation/big bang time itself came into being along with the universe it governs. Time did not exist before, so predating the universe is impossible. This isn't science, it is implications of mathematics used to describe the big bang.

But isn't it interesting that factions of both camps regard time as a creation, co-founded with the universe?

[Rockstar]

Interesting. Present religious and scientific thinking is that at the time of creation/big bang time itself came into being along with the universe it governs. Time did not exist before, so predating the universe is impossible. This isn't science, it is implications of mathematics used to describe the big bang.

But isn't it interesting that factions of both camps regard time as a creation, co-founded with the universe?

It is interesting.

However I am curious why you think something cannot predate the universe (time, space, matter) if said universe had a beginning?

pre·date1
[prēˈdāt]
VERB
exist or occur at a date earlier than (something):
"this letter predates her illness", "quantum fluctuation predates the big band", "Skybird predates the creation of the time, space and matter".

[vienna]

In an odd way, if time did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it (sound familiar?). Time is a construct that has been mutable since the beginning of, well, time. Think about our way of breaking down the measurement of time: why is it hours are basically a sort of base 12 system, why are the increments in between the 12 segments in base 5? In the matter of more extended human demarcation of time, there have been almost as many calendars as there have been religions. If we have a concept of time, it is because we humans have created such; in a system viewed as eternal, there is no beginning, no end; it is just there. If humans, over the ages, had not sought to quantify their existence and the passage of their lives, time would not have been necessary. The necessity for such a "framework" only came about from some human inclination to classify, organize, ritualize, and, ultimately, memorialize their existences. When the universe began, there was no "master clock" broken down into second, minutes, or hours nor was there any construct of days, weeks, months, years, and so on. Whatever the moment was, that was it. All humanity has done is take something essentially subjective and try to cast it in an objective frame. Even our age as individuals is fungible: it used to be common custom in some areas of the world to denote the birth of child as his/her first birthday; so when you would ask two people, born on the exact same day, but from areas with differing birth customs, their ages, one would say "21 years old" and the other would say "22 years old" even though, in terms of days, months, and years, they had both been alive exactly the same amount of "time". The construct of time is wholly a human one, as may be certain other constructs and concepts...


<O>

[Sailor Steve]

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it's an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies "I think not!" POOF! The horse disappears.
This is the point in time when all the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or I think, therefore, I am.
But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse.
Yes indeed, I posted that many moons ago in the Joke thread, though in the version I heard back then it was Descartes himself who disappears. :sunny:

[Catfish]

All the perception we have of what surrounds us comes from our (very limited) senses. We cannot think out of the box (brain), because all we 'think' is made up by it, and our senses.
We think there are dimensions, but the whole concept of "dimensions" derives from our hard-wired perception, and way of thinking.

"...putting Descartes before the horse"
I see what you did there. So there are several ones? Poor horse :03:

[Skybird]

All the perception we have of what surrounds us comes from our (very limited) senses. We cannot think out of the box (brain), because all we 'think' is made up by it, and our senses.
We think there are dimensions, but the whole concept of "dimensions" derives from our hard-wired perception, and way of thinking.

Thinks you. :D

[Catfish]

Thinks you. :D

Hah, exactly! :haha::up:

[Skybird]

It is interesting.

However I am curious why you think something cannot predate the universe (time, space, matter) if said universe had a beginning?

pre·date1
[prēˈdāt]
VERB
exist or occur at a date earlier than (something):
"this letter predates her illness", "quantum fluctuation predates the big band", "Skybird predates the creation of the time, space and matter".

Thinking fails us there, since by "universe" we mean to address All And Everything existing, the mere essence of "existence". What exists before "existence" exists? That's the problem. Before the universe sprung into existence by a Big Bang, there only was "non-existence", obviously, and that already is a term that obviously refers to something "existing": Non-existence thus exists. And so is no non-existence. What is being aimed at, is the total and complete antithesis to "existence" and that can neither be described in terms and words, nor imagined.

I remind of the so-called four-fold Buddhist denial ("Its not Yes, and its not No, and its not Yes and No, and its not Yes or No"), or the Jewish word on that the name of God cannot be pronounced. And Lao Tse had it in the very first chapter of the Tao Te King already: "The essence that can be told is not the eternal essence. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth." And Nagarjuna, using the four-fold Buddhist denial, claims that there is neither birth nor death, neither lasting nor ending, no oneness and nor diversity, no coming into and no leaving from existence.

To be honest, I think this is the realm that can be best approached only in metaphors, and the diverse languages of arts and poetry.

[Catfish]

^ "universe", "before", "time".

If time does not play a role for an entity, the whole idea of "before" or "after" becomes obsolete.

+1 for the Tralfamadorians :D

[Rockstar]

indeed it is hard for me and I think anyone for that matter to concieve or comprehend of something outside the box of this universe you and I live in.

Especially when you start thinking about those tiny little particals that make up atoms and other seemingly solid material in this world. Protons, neutrons and electrons may actually be wavelets of information are not particals at all. Could be the world is made up of totally ehtereal information. We might be tuned to sense the physical world because thats what we are a part of, anything else doesnt register.

Inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of exisitence have appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the 20th century. This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units of matter such as atoms of which objects are composed are ordinary physicals objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here quantum theory has created a complete change in the situation... The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the oridinary sense of the word; they are - in Plato's sense - Ideas.

Werner Heisenberg

Interesting too something similar was written 3000 years ago. "With wisdom God created the heavens and earth"

[Sailor Steve]

+1 for the Tralfamadorians :D
You're turning this thread into a slaughterhouse. :O:

[Catfish]

You're turning this thread into a slaughterhouse. :O:

I just curtly wanna make it good