Creation

[gallo]

Quote by: Simonius If the Panthiests are correct the universe is God, God is the universe. He therefore came into being with the big bang, was the big bang. Scientists feel no need to explain how that started, so a panthiest can happily dodge the question!

That's just not true. Scientists would very much like to explain how the universe came to be. The problem is that science doesn't currently have to tools, and may never have the tools, to examine anything within a Planck time of the origin. However, that doesn't mean that scientists don't try. Many have proposed some sort of quantum fluctuation similar to those that have been observed in empty space. Hawking introduced imaginary time into his singularity calculations which enabled him to run the universe backwards past the big bang. The trouble is that he found an identical universe on the other side.

There is also the matter that you seem confused about science, methodological naturalism and pantheism (I mean even more so than in spelling). There is no logical connection between science and pantheism.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo That's just not true. Scientists would very much like to explain how the universe came to be. The problem is that science doesn't currently have to tools, and may never have the tools, to examine anything within a Planck time of the origin. However, that doesn't mean that scientists don't try. Many have proposed some sort of quantum fluctuation similar to those that have been observed in empty space. Hawking introduced imaginary time into his singularity calculations which enabled him to run the universe backwards past the big bang. The trouble is that he found an identical universe on the other side. There is also the matter that you seem confused about science, methodological naturalism and pantheism (I mean even more so than in spelling). There is no logical connection between science and pantheism.

If Hawking found a identical universe by going in reverse past the Big Bang then this would suggest that our universe is one copy of many copies. So who or what is printing off all those copies.... king haw haw? (hawking spelled backwards). That mythological idea would suggest that there were perhaps billions of reproduced universes that all evolved in a identical way.

Or (to edge into speculation) could it be that the count-back point of "1" acted like a mirror because Hawking had no other additional terms or "values" to place on his numbering other then those known about on this side of the Big Bang? What if the values (names) used on the other side of the big bang are totally different then on this side? If the math beyond the Big Bang was of a novel structure then he could have discovered that and therefore visioned in that new set of phyics a different kind of para-landscape that does not reproduce this one as it's clone.

[Kamehameha34]

If Hawking found a identical universe by going in reverse past the Big Bang then this would suggest that our universe is one copy of many copies. So who or what is printing off all those copies.... king haw haw? (hawking spelled backwards).

1. Hawking spelled backwards is gnikwah. What you spelled was wahwahgnik.

2. The fact that we don't know yet doesn't even come close to suggesting a god is responsible.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 1. Hawking spelled backwards is gnikwah. What you spelled was wahwahgnik. 2. The fact that we don't know yet doesn't even come close to suggesting a god is responsible.

I did not reverse the letters only seperated the King from the Haw. and then put the king in front of the haw. and added one more haw. Which has nothing to do with anything other then to suggest his idea is the king of the "ho ho hee haws" .

Concerning #2. Just because you do not know yet does not mean that I do not know. Just because I cannot prove what I aleady know does not mean that I do not know what I know. so there....!

You have something in common with Hawking because your name ends in "ha". How about that?

[Technosoul]

Now the Hawking idea that he could use physics to reverse time to a dimension beyond the Big Bang is still more of a Big Ha then a Big Bang theory.

Where are the lab experiments that can prove that an old man can grow back into a baby and then become a one-celled micro organizem? Go ahead and make your test. Show me the factural results of that labortory test. Or stop with all the mathamatical mythology.

How can time and space implode back to point #1? Where is that so called center of the universe that the universe is expanding out of? It does not exsist. The objects within the universe are not moving away from a center point that would represent a location for such a big bang incident to have taken place at.

Let us illustrate the concept this way.

A seed grows from a nut in the soil and becomes a tree that then produces a nut that falls to the soil to take root and to repeat the cirular momentum, for as long as the circular process of motion continues.
Nothing is growing backwards unless you think the tree's nut is a the reverse growth of an adult tree. Which is difficult to grasp as a practical concept.

Now the first nut and the first tree via reproduction would expand from that point outwardly to create a forest of trees, expanding it's universe of trees.
By making more objects to fill a larger space. Not by moving the first tree to another location.

So where is the center of that circular momentum of reproductive forestation? What is beyond the center of that first nut? Or that first mature tree? We cannot know because at most we would only discover another nut or another tree, perhaps as a fosil imprint or at least by logical deduction. The cirular momentum is seamless. And yet, it had to have a point of orgin where the first circle began at because motion would suggest the need of energy to get things rolling, ether pushing form behind or as some sort of attraction in the future objective.

In order to maintain new energy to keep the spinning wheel spinning you must determine what is causing that continued surge in energy.

Such could be the will or the spirit to live. A desire, which as found in what we can call "the mind". Or the self reproduced generation of circular motion that has overcome friction as a slowing down force, aka - liberation.

I would use the symbol of " 0 " as the name for that circular momentum. Containing a center of relative stillness that I subtitle "nothing" because in true math the numbers 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 and 9 are orbiting around the 0. The center or base for the seamless momentum. as in 01 and 10. Back and front sides of that momentum.

See how simple that is? Simular to hawking and kinghaw. only add another haw. because you would add 20 to 10, to make the next completed unit of another circular manifestation as you progess in units of 10 from a unit of 01.

In true math you are not adding more numbers just adding another 0 to the known numbers. The more nothings you add the larger the appearence is if you use space as the value assigned to the symbol 0.

You can plant a nut in the soil and test my idea in a lab. ( or in a labortory field experiment).

If you want to ride the train get hep to the trip. I have just planted my nutty idea to expand your mind. Have a nice day.

[Simonius]

Quote by: gallo That's just not true. Scientists would very much like to explain how the universe came to be. .

It was rather meant tongue in cheek, of course they would love to explain it, but it is beyond their means and this quite important factor is assumed to be irrelevant to their therios.

Quote by: gallo There is also the matter that you seem confused about science, methodological naturalism and pantheism (I mean even more so than in spelling). There is no logical connection between science and pantheism.

Please provide quotes and accompanying explanations as to why you have assumed I am confused about such things. A typo does not indicate that. Your last sentence is a straw man, and makes absolutely no sense.

[gallo]

Quote by: Simonius Please provide quotes and accompanying explanations as to why you have assumed I am confused about such things. A typo does not indicate that. Your last sentence is a straw man, and makes absolutely no sense.

Maybe it was just your confused presentation. You aren't very clear in explaining your ideas. Perhaps it was when you connected science and pantheism in the same sentence when you said, "Scientists feel no need to explain how that started, so a panthiest [sic] can happily dodge the question!" What on earth does pantheism have to do with anything that scientists think? As I pointed out, scientists do feel a need to explain "how that started" even if science currently lacks the tools to do so. And since scientists do feel that need, where does that place pantheists?

Do you see how confused your presentation is? If my inference from your words was not correct, perhaps you should reread your message before posting.

[Kamehameha34]

I did not reverse the letters only seperated the King from the Haw. and then put the king in front of the haw. and added one more haw. Which has nothing to do with anything other then to suggest his idea is the king of the "ho ho hee haws" .

I know you didn't, that's why I brought it up. You shouldn't have said that you 'spelled' his name backwards then, eh?

Concerning #2. Just because you do not know yet does not mean that I do not know. Just because I cannot prove what I aleady know does not mean that I do not know what I know. so there....!

What it does mean that you're unsupportable 'knowledge' will have no respect in the acedemic or scientific fields.

You have something in common with Hawking because your name ends in "ha". How about that?

That, and our mutual tendency to disregard fairy tales.

[Simonius]

Quote by: gallo Maybe it was just your confused presentation. You aren't very clear in explaining your ideas. Perhaps it was when you connected science and pantheism in the same sentence when you said, "Scientists feel no need to explain how that started, so a panthiest [sic] can happily dodge the question!" What on earth does pantheism have to do with anything that scientists think? As I pointed out, scientists do feel a need to explain "how that started" even if science currently lacks the tools to do so. And since scientists do feel that need, where does that place pantheists? Do you see how confused your presentation is? If my inference from your words was not correct, perhaps you should reread your message before posting.

No, I can't see how confused my presentation was. At no point did I attempt to connect science and pantheism together, you simply misread some quite simple English and as a result accused me of ignorance regarding subjects that had not even been mentioned!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I know you didn't, that's why I brought it up. You shouldn't have said that you 'spelled' his name backwards then, eh? What it does mean that you're unsupportable 'knowledge' will have no respect in the acedemic or scientific fields. That, and our mutual tendency to disregard fairy tales.

That was a poor choice wording on my part. But it should have become evident what I did in the next sentence of my post. Unless you are grading things simply for their gammer it would not confuse anyone.

I have enough self respect to tide me over. So what makes you think my goal is to seek respect in the acedemic or scientific community?

Why are you sidetracking this topic by a focus on my text and me, instead of debating the ideas and concepts that I wrote about? Do you lack that abililty or are you limited to petty "name calling" modes of operation?

Gee, you are comparing your self to Hawking. If Hawking is not interested in fantasy as you suggested then why is his name connected with the book "Physics of Star Trek"

Amazon.com: The Physics of Star Trek: Lawrence M. Krauss,Stephen Hawking: Books

Lookie everyone. a fantasy TV show has scientific support, what would Mr Spock our hero of unemotional logic think about that?

Now, please, let's get back on topic.

[Dr_Acula]

Quote by: Winter wind Logically this isn't so. If the natural state is existence, then everything would exist in every space, and it would be unusual for there to be even one of the infinite things to not be in existence in a single space. Also, most mathematical equations balance at zero and not at something else.

Not logically. Psycologically. Your assumption relates to common sense, not logic. And like I said before, common sense = not reliable.

Physics (the study of the actual universe and... stuff) and Mathematics are different things, the second one is created by us and it's based on our logic, and it's mostly a tool to organize the second one, but is not a source of physical knowledge, simply a deduction and induction tool. Assuming something in physics because it happens in mathematics is not valid, they are 2 different worlds.

So as before, I say all those things can be solved by accepting that the natural state is existance, even if it goes against common sense.

And about the infinite part, I beg to differ. A limited amount of matter can exists in a limited amount of space. And if you want to go really deep, Dirac sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But unusual? almost everything in advanced physics and chemistry is unsual and crazy. But it makes sense, in a very complex need-a-degree way. In fact, being unusual makes it more consistent with the other stuff, more believable, at least for me.

Quote by: Winter wind Not really, well He shouldn't, but people make it out to be like that...

But he does. I'm not sure if he does anything else, actually.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: dr acula Not logically. Psycologically. Your assumption relates to common sense, not logic. And like I said before, common sense = not reliable.

Doesn't supersymmetry make my common sense argument more of a logical trend?

Physics (the study of the actual universe and... stuff) and Mathematics are different things, the second one is created by us and it's based on our logic, and it's mostly a tool to organize the second one, but is not a source of physical knowledge, simply a deduction and induction tool. Assuming something in physics because it happens in mathematics is not valid, they are 2 different worlds.

hahaha, physics is the real world application of math, no?

Speaking of two different worlds, there is a widely accepted theory that there is a mirror universe of this one, that uses the same rules as this one, except that it is comprised of anti-matter. The balance. There seems to be a strong chance that everything in the universe has an equal but opposite [insert unit].
All energy, momentum, and charge has an equal an opposite.

So as before, I say all those things can be solved by accepting that the natural state is existance, even if it goes against common sense.

But it isn't. non-existence is more stable then existence.

Non-existence, when surrounded only by non-existence, remains non-existent.
existence when surrounded by existence, does not always remain existent (annihilation).

And about the infinite part, I beg to differ. A limited amount of matter can exists in a limited amount of space. And if you want to go really deep, Dirac sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, the other theory on anti-matter.

There is a major hole in this theory. A vacuum would have to contain an infinite energy. A couple of other holes in this theory mean it isn't very elegant (this matters in math).

It sound similar to what scientists thought the atom was before they found out it was mostly empty space. The "plum pudding" theory.

But unusual? almost everything in advanced physics and chemistry is unsual and crazy. But it makes sense, in a very complex need-a-degree way. In fact, being unusual makes it more consistent with the other stuff, more believable, at least for me.

yah quantum physics is pretty insane, but there is a mathematical elegance to it.

But he does. I'm not sure if he does anything else, actually.

I actually view Him as a God of the unbalanced. If nothing is the stable and natural state (as I think it is), he would be the variable. The object of change. I mean, without the chaos that is the universe, nothing should exist.

[Scorpion_Saga]

Long winded bunch huh.
A simple question would be, Who created the creator?
And since no human being at this time knows this, our mere existence is speculative.

[Scorpion_Saga]

God= Anything people don't or did not understand.

Religion= I am stupid, therofore I need somthing to control the minds of others that cannot be proven, or is not fact.

[RealRockingham]

Well, to be fair the scientific account of how the universe STARTED doesn't make much sense either- "suddenly their was something, caused by nothing"

[Scorpion_Saga]

True enough. Although, my mind still does not make the inexplicaple jump to "oh ya, this has to be a Diety of some sort, therofore a pox on all that don;t beleive my crap"

Ok, thats rather sarcastic and oversimplified. I think civilization is at a oint where we are openly questioning anything and everything. Which is good, only then can we attain true knowledge about the universe around us. And we need to, because, as we now know, Humanity, like America (The West) Is self important not really important at all. If we continue slaughtering people for oil, we are never going to get the heck off this planet anyway.

Then we will be but a blink in the cosmos eye (we may be anyway)

Rant over :)

[Winter wind]

Quote by: scorpion saga A simple question would be, Who created the creator?

Well then I ask you, what law of science made science laws possible? Why are the laws the way they are?

It's not that simple, or maybe it is...

[gallo]

Quote by: Winter wind Well then I ask you, what law of science made science laws possible? Why are the laws the way they are? It's not that simple, or maybe it is...

It's even more simple than that. Scientific laws are just statements made by humans that describe relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions. Not only can such statements be wrong, that have been wrong in the past. Those statements (laws) are then rejected or changed.

[Winter wind]

ya, but the world runs according to some kind of laws. The question is why those laws. It's almost like living inside a clock. You can learn all you want about the machinery, and yet never learn how the things got there in the first place. I'm not saying the logical answer is God, I'm saying we don't know what put the machines there, if anything at all.

[Jack]

The question is why those laws.

"Why" is the stuff of philosophy. All science can do is reveal the relationships between processes. Perhaps there isn't a why. There had to be a way nature worked. Why this one and not another? Who can say? Is there another option?