Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Jan Ardena]

How so? I expect.
It all adds up.
Alex

What does?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What does?

All observations, the science, logic ... It points to an eternal universe...not highly speculative but speculative nevertheless however the choices are...an eternal God who pops out of eternity to create a finite universe, still of unimaginable size, to provide a planet for beings he makes out of mud in his image.....or in effect he didn't. . that the universe has always been and humans and their planet are nothing special.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

All observations, the science, logic ... It points to an eternal universe...not highly speculative but speculative nevertheless however the choices are...an eternal God who pops out of eternity to create a finite universe, still of unimaginable size, to provide a planet for beings he makes out of mud in his image.....or in effect he didn't. . that the universe has always been and humans and their planet are nothing special.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

What big eyes you have..but those balls ...you have my attention.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

So I suggest potential recognises something.. it deals with various things which finally must be described as something. I feel we are in agreement...at least as far as your proposition supports my view.

Thanks Alex for your kind words. The best I can do is attempt to present my intuitive assumptions.

I must admit this is more inductive than deductive. I just don't know enough about cosmology. But there are a few aspects of common knowledge that draw my attention.
The Hartle-Hawking State.

Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time.

According to the Hartle–Hawking proposal, the Universe has no origin as we would understand it: the Universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. However, Hawking does state "...the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.", but that the Hartle-Hawking model is not the steady state Universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time or space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

IOW, it was a timeless purely "permittive" state (condition).

But this pre-BB permittive condition must have had inherent potentials.

1. the pre-universe already had a geometric language (the mathematics of values and functions)
2. the universe had scalars. Scalars are quantities that are fully described by a magnitude (or numerical value) alone.
3. the universe had vectors. Vectors are quantities that are fully described by both a magnitude and a direction.
4. the universe was dynamical.

The dynamical system concept is a mathematical formalization for any fixed "rule" which describes the time dependence of a point's position in its ambient space.

The concept unifies very different types of such "rules" in mathematics: the different choices made for how time is measured and the special properties of the ambient space may give an idea of the vastness of the class of objects described by this concept. Time can be measured by integers, by real or complex numbers or can be a more general algebraic object, losing the memory of its physical origin, and the ambient space may be simply a set, without the need of a smooth space-time structure defined on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamical_system_(definition)

So, speaking abstractly, regardless what state existed at the time of the BB, it had certain dynamical mathematical potentials just by being "something". Even as that was not physical in substance, it was mathematical in "essence".

It is the pure definition of the term Potential that truly drew my attention;
Potential = a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

To me that presented as;
"while not all potential becomes reality, all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential"
"potential is the mathematical value of the "cause" which becomes expressed in the "effect"

It makes for a nice fundamental general assumption of a potential mathematical universe from whatever abstract properties the Hartle-Hawking Space may have had.
......

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The best I can do is attempt to present my intuitive assumptions.

Best? Let this not limit expectation of better.

Attempt? You will do fine be confident.

Intuitive assumptions? Leave an escape open.. perhaps " reasonable speculation"...

I just don't know enough about cosmology.

No one does.

Even our best scientific model is built upon an approach using an un testable proposition.

We really need to realise we may not know all there is to know.

I get impatient with humans cause they speculate and the speculation becomes fact...religion and science can do this...of course while calling out the other neglect to see how they speculate.

The Hartle-Hawking State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

Consideration of an era close to the suspected beginning of time relies upon maths and maths without evidence and a testable correlation between the two does not move us past speculation.

If speculation is the tool we use then I speculate that time perhaps will not somehow merge or disappear.

I see speculation that there was no time as wishful thinking driven by the need probably found in every human to tie down a start and avoid a comptemplation of a universe that has always existed.

GR no doubt takes us there but it also takes us to a singularity a proposition not entirely understood ..but it tells us we have got to the point where that math does not work, so on my reconning considering a picture a few steps back from showing a glimpse of a singularity to find no time, just does not instil me with confidence that the notion of time disappearing has any validity whatsoever...

But this pre-BB permittive condition must have had inherent potentials.

To be obvious...such a statement is no better ( or worse) than saying there must be a creator...a must be conclusion is the most dangerous conclusion available.

However let us proceed.

1. the pre-universe already had a geometric language ( the mathematics of values and functions)

Although we can remember maths is firstly a human language and our attempt to qualify stuff that attempt is perhaps trying to manage much more than we currently understand.
However 1,2,3,4 are worth working with...and all seem reasonable
Let's move on....

It is the pure definition of the term Potential that truly drew my attention;
Potential = a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

I think I can see that however "things" may exist subject to rules that determine they must do something in particular rather than somehow enjoying an option to do or not to do. It is almost as if even in this pre BB we deal with "freewill" of a "thing"...

To me that presented as;
"while not all potential becomes reality, all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential"
"potential is the mathematical value of the "cause" which becomes expressed in the "effect"

Most reasonable... it's just that I feel uncomfortable that things somewhat have opportunity to do or not do ...would not all things be bound to follow a particular path thereby taking potential out of the picture? And it seems my approach still fits your concept of potential with a little tweak.

It makes for a nice fundamental general assumption of a potential mathematical universe from whatever abstract properties the Hartle-Hawking Space may have had.

Yes...but they grew up with GR and it's suggestion what happens with time at the pointy end.

If we look at things around us so much follows a cycle, why not birth of the universe not be following and earlier death...as I said we are in a place where all we have is speculation.

Now if you have religious views or were educated in religious schools (many private schools attract clients because they follow and promote a particular religion) I suspect the need will be to look for a beginning...for no other reason than that would be a slight adjustment of the culture you inhabit...also who can imagine anything with no start...who won't look for a satisfying way to avoid concluding a no beginning proposition.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

by the need probably found in every human to tie down a start and avoid a comptemplation of a universe that has always existed.

However "always" has no definable time frame and might as well be addressed as "timeless".

To be obvious...such a statement is no better ( or worse) than saying there must be a creator...a must be conclusion is the most dangerous conclusion available.
However let us proceed.

I hoped you would pose that analogy....

There is no functional creative difference between the concepts of God and Potential. But there is a world of practical difference. What separates the concepts?

a) God functions with "motive" or "intent" as a divinely ordering causality. An intentional act.
b) Potential is a stochastic mathematical property which may or may not be causal to an evolutionary self-ordering process. A spontaneous creative act.

Religion proposes a motivated intent to create reality. These are qualities of a prior required sentience! IMO, such qualities cannot exist before the creation of a sentient causal entity.
It's a circular argument.

OTOH, Potential proposes a state of purely abstract mathematical values that may or may not become expressed in reality as a series of self-ordering patterns.
It is a purely stochastic function. And all of science uses this as the foundation for understanding the universe and is the basis of the concept of cause and effect based on relative values (potentials) and mathematical functions.
It argues for the emergence of Abiogenesis.

What makes Potential an acceptable scientific term is its very stochastic nature, which does not require sentience of any kind, but just some 32 relative values and a dozen or so constant mathematical functions which have been proven to self-assemble in a host of functional patterns. I like the simple conceptual elegance of that proposition. Occam.

Tegmark's Mathematical Universe...

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

However "always" has no definable time frame and might as well be addressed as "timeless".

I am far too casual.

Religion proposes a motivated intent to create reality. These are qualities of a prior required sentience!
IMO, such qualities cannot exist before the creation of a sentient causal entity. It's a circular argument.

I agree with most all you have said but particularly with this...mind you this is not to be taken in any way that I have given up on my current status. You may or may not know I have decided that I will not be either an atheist or a theist.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

You may or may not know I have decided that I will not be either an atheist or a theist.
Alex

Yes, I gathered as much. It is a cautious approach, the mark of wisdom and scientific prudence.

May I suggest for consideration a perfect term that addresses both apparently conflicting perspectives perfectly;

Mathematical functions based on relative values may be correctly interpreted as; Quasi-intelligent functions.
It does not require a brain or intent to exhibit logical behaviors. Mathematical imperatives fill the requirement nicely.

These quasi-intelligent mathematical behaviors are abundant in the universe and also explains the human interpretation of a possible motivated causal intelligence. It really looks that way, but it does not need to be that way.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It does not require a brain or intent to exhibit logical behaviors.

Sounds good to me... A mob mentality but in one place.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Sounds good to me... A mob mentality but in one place.
Alex

A perfect example of quasi-intelligent communication and group behavior is found in the hive-mind communication and behaviors of insects, but is already present in "quorum sensing", the language and behaviors of bacteria! If you haven't watched it yet, this is really vey informational and well presented by Bonnie Bassler.

And now it is supected that viruses (which are not technically alive at all) are able to communicate with each other through "quorum sensing", the chemical language of nano-scale organic patterns. I might add that chemical language is of a mathematical nature in that it relies on the interactions and processes of relative values and mathematical functions, which seems to work very efficiently (quasi-intelligently) in processing information.

I am gathering info on this. Kinda topical right now...

 

[Michael 345]

(which are not technically alive at all)

Not sure about that

A strange reproductive system ie a dormant stage where no activity takes place followed by a reproductive stage via conditions being suitable for a virus to hijack a living cell to make copies of itself

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Not sure about that

A strange reproductive system ie a dormant stage where no activity takes place followed by a reproductive stage via conditions being suitable for a virus to hijack a living cell to make copies of itself

I wonder about how virus played in our development..all life for that matter..I must at least read a wiki entry and actually learn a little..it surprises me I have never looked specifically relying on the odd thing you hear...funny how one can be casual and go happily along with just hearsay.
I will look up how long they have been around if we know...sure a little thing but you could spend a life time and find there is so much we don't know.
No cloud up your way that I can notice...rain won't stop down here.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am gathering info on this. Kinda topical right now...

I was just thinking how virus must play a part in our evolution...what systems must they activate...what came first the virus or the cell...was a virus a cell that left home with the bare essentials taking only what it required to reproduce?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

was a virus a cell that left home with the bare essentials taking only what it required to reproduce?
Alex

As I understand it, a virus is so small that it can easily invade a single cell of say a Paramecium and find something to eat. so when the paramecium cell divides it actually makes a copy of the virus and now there are two paramecium and two viruses. This is very simplified but, AFAIK this is basically how it works.

Imagine how a large organic biome evolves. A mini universe of interacting and interdependent symbiotic organisms where the combinatory richeness of biological functions all are necessary for the whole biome to thrive. It is astounding, trillions of cells and nano scale organisms forming a functional wholeness. Then to know that these individual populations of beneficial bacteria communicate with each other via quorum sensing, it boggles the mind.

If you watched Bonnie Bassler, she cites a remarkable ability of a little squid that uses a bioluminescent bacteria as a cloaking devise and in return offers a rich environment inside its body for a colony of bacteria to thrive in. The squid has evolved an entire cloaking system using the light of the bacteria to mask it's own shadow on the ocean floor and become invisible to predators. Astounding stuff!!!

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The squid has evolved an entire cloaking system using the light of the bacteria to mask it's own shadow on the ocean floor and become invisible to predators.

I accept believe support etc evolution but I wonder how it happens when you see something like this..I know it is over years and all that but I do find it hard or rather exciting that creatures end up with some unusual way of managing the world...
The virus interests me greatly. We don't have them on my planet.
You don't see the chicken or the egg thing going on here.
I guess what is going on in my head...the virus seems to sit a long ways down the ladder of life such that we have to stretch to concede it although humble is life...this suggests it probably would be earlier than a cell...you know the virus perhaps the first primtive form of life and a cell comes along a billion years later approach...so where did something relatively primative, if that is indeed a reasonable assumption, go for a cell to inhabit...I guess we need to find out how this curious relationship started...there can only be chemical signals at play somehow...a mechanism at their level that enables the virus to track its prey initially..you would think things being so small they might need a mechanism...mmm the journey of a single virus..do they die or just somehow chemically isolated?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

The virus is not even considered a living thing by many. It's halfway between purely biochemical and biological.
It appears to have evolved from a common ancestor with the bacteria, but where bacteria have evolved in complexity, the virus has evolved into pure streamlined simplicity.

What came first, cells or viruses?

Today, viruses are so small and simple, they can’t even replicate on their own. Viruses carry only the essential genetic information they need to be able to slip inside a host cell and coax it into making new copies of the virus. The influenza virus, for instance, has a mere 14 protein-coding genes. Because viruses are usually so basic, many biologists didn’t think they could even be classified as a life form.

But just over a decade ago, our view of viruses began to shift. French scientists who were examining a mystery microbe that looked like a bacterium, but was genetically quite different to bacteria, realised they’d discovered a giant virus. They named this bacteria look-alike the “mimicking microbe,” or “mimivirus”.

And the mimivirus wasn’t only physically large. They showed that it carried more than 1,000 genes – a huge genome for a virus, just a few hundred genes smaller than some bacteria. Several giant viruses have been discovered since, with pandoraviruses packing around 1,100 genes.

The researchers developed algorithms to compare the protein shapes of 3,460 viruses and 1,620 cells. They found that 442 protein folds were shared between cells and viruses, but 66 folds were unique to viruses.

To make sense of the data, the team arranged the protein folds into a tree that grew a new 'branch' every time a new type of protein fold evolved. Wherever possible, the team used fossil evidence to put an approximate date on the budding of specific branches. For example, one particular protein fold was first seen in cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and later appeared in all its descendants. By comparing when cyanobacteria first appeared in the fossil record (2.1 billion years ago) to when its offspring later emerged, they could establish this particular fold appeared around 2 billion years ago.

Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, pre-date viruses and are one of the oldest forms of life on Earth.
– Brand X Pictures/Getty Images

According to Caetano-Anolles’s microbial family tree, viruses are ancient – but they were not the first form of life. In fact, his family tree suggests viruses and bacteria share a common ancestor – a fully functioning, self-replicating cell that lived around 3.4 billion years ago, shortly after life first emerged on the planet. From this cell, bacteria have evolved in the direction of increasing complexity, while viruses have gradually shed genes they found they didn’t need – until they could no longer even reproduce on their own.

A key step in the virus evolutionary journey seems to have come about around 1.5 billion years ago – that’s the age at which the team estimated the 66 virus-specific protein folds came on the scene. These changes are to proteins in the virus’ outer coat – the machinery viruses use to break into host cells.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/what-came-first-cells-or-viruses

 

[Write4U]

Evolution and natural selection has been responsible for some of the most astounding survival methods.
This is the very reason for the Irreducible Complexity argument. It is truly remarkable the ways an organism can use nature for its existence.
Just think of a Mayfly, an ancient insect, which lives all over the world, but have but no more than 24 hrs to mate before it dies. You'd think that an organism with that short a lifespan runs a real risk of extinction, especialy because they swarm only once a year for a few days and must mate and lay their eggs in water or no offspring.

Despite their name, mayflies are active during the warmer months of the year, not just May. They tend to be gray, yellow, or brown and have long, thin abdomens. Mayfly larvae are aquatic and found in nearly all types of water bodies, from streams to lakes. The larva is often used as a bioindicator species to measure the health of water. Mayflies can vary in size, growing anywhere from a quarter-inch (0.6 centimeters) to 1.1 inches (2.8 centimeters).

Mayflies are found throughout North America and worldwide. Most of the nymphs develop in streams and rivers that are relatively clean.

Mayfly larvae feed on detritus and other plant materials. Some may feed on insects. The adults do not feed.

Females deposit eggs in the water. Mayflies spend most of their lives in the water as nymphs and then emerge as adults for only a short while. Adults will live only a day or so, but the aquatic larvae lives for about a year.
There are more than 600 species of mayfly in the United States and 3,000 worldwide.adults for only a short while. Adults will live only a day or so, but the aquatic larvae lives for about a year.

https://www.nwf.org/Educational-Resources/Wildlife-Guide/Invertebrates/Mayflies

The most interesting feature is that the female Mayfly communicates via pheromones which may attract a male from as far as 20 miles, and unless their are strong winds, lays an airborne trail which the male follows unerringly to the female to mate. It needs to do this in 24 hours, after which they die. The female must lays her eggs in the water in the act of dying. If she dies over land the eggs dry up and do not develop. The nymphs live a year in the water before metamorphing into adults with wings.
The nymphs are a favorite food of fish. The mayfly is copied as lure by many river anglers.

You'd think how can such a beautiful flying organism live just one day, only to mate and die. What meaning can such a life possibly have?
Apparently very much, the species is one of the oldest, most succesful insects on earth.

 

[Michael 345]

No cloud up your way that I can notice...rain won't stop down here.
Alex

Currently up my way is Bali

 

[Michael 345]

I wonder about how virus played in our development..all life for that matter..I must at least read a wiki entry and actually learn a little..it surprises me I have never looked specifically relying on the odd thing you hear...funny how one can be casual and go happily along with just hearsay.
I will look up how long they have been around if we know...sure a little thing but you could spend a life time and find there is so much we don't know.
No cloud up your way that I can notice...rain won't stop down here.
Alex

You might enjoy this

https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/...ed-from-engulfed-prokaryotes-that-once-lived/

The chloroplast and mitochondria are likely to have evolved from engulfed prokaryotes that once lived as an independent organisms.The supporting evidence for this is that they both
I. Possess capability to synthesize their own proteins.
ll. Possess genetic material.
lll. Possess a lipid bilayer membrane.
lV. Possess characteristic ribosomes.