Life is generative and evolvative, isn't it?

[786]

It is natural in my view.

What is natural about it? Seems to me life is actually to a degree very unnatural.l

Please note the words, “given enough time”:

Even with time, how? Are not the non-life material given the same time.

Nothing. It could just as well have been chance.

I don't think invoking 'chance' answers the question... Because assuredly this attribute must come from the physical and chemical interactions. Sure the interaction itself may occur by chance, but my question is what is this interaction that gave life its generative ability which is not happening in the 'non-life' material- as all things are still being influenced by the same laws.

The fact that we Humans exist here on Earth, have consciousness, can perceive time, seem intelligent seems very special, but the fact that we are here cannot be changed.

Sure- but that is after the fact, my question was related to you 'generative' assertion.

How we got here cannot be determined.

Hmm, I'm sure someone will make a complete hypothesis sometime int he future. A more interesting question would be can we note any exceptions to have occurred? Is the universe exception-less? Because if exceptions can occur, then a 'a goes to b' theory wouldn't really suffice.

Anyhow if we truly are a product of natural phenomenon, (which I also believe we are to a great extent) then there should a be step by step mechanism that could 'potentially' lead to humans- this would be based on evolution, physics, and chemistry- I would expect physics and chemistry to answer the very small details.

But I think everything goes back to the beginning for such a theory to be developed.. for that someone need to answers some of these interesting questions:

what determines the strength of the different forces?
How do these Physical Laws come about?
Why is it that the physical laws can interact together? Its as if a english person can understand japanese... What is it that allows these physical laws to work together? Why aren't they totally separate laws that have no bearing on each other? What allows these laws to work together?

Why is it that the Laws are constant and not random? What determines its 'constant-ness'?
Since laws are constant, what gives rise to randomness (chance)?
(If there is nothing that gives rise to chance, then how a Human got here should be something that can be determined)

Why is it that everything was not at equilibrium at the moment it was made? These laws supposedly made the individual atoms and gave mass to them and so on- why were they not made in an equilibrium? (If it were already at equilibrium entropy would be max and nothing like 'life' would result)
Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

What is natural about it? Seems to me life is actually to a degree very unnatural.

And you have every right to see it that way because there is no evidence to the contrary. But it does boil down to opinion and neither of us knows the process that the other goes through to form opinion. Mine is as good as yours and visa versa. But in the absence of evidence, why go to supernatural. It seems that the supernatural has baggage. Natural lets us form any opinion without recrimination.

...
I don't think invoking 'chance' answers the question... Because assuredly this attribute must come from the physical and chemical interactions. Sure the interaction itself may occur by chance, but my question is what is this interaction that gave life its generative ability which is not happening in the 'non-life' material- as all things are still being influenced by the same laws.

I understand that the emergence of life seems to require the hand of God. It is very special. If you see God in it I support your right and value your opinion even though we disagree. I trust you are as open minded as I am about it.

Sure- but that is after the fact, my question was related to you 'generative' assertion.

There must be a natrural instant when the exact puzzle piece falls in place that unlocks the latent life then, maybe.

Hmm, I'm sure someone will make a complete hypothesis sometime in the future. A more interesting question would be can we note any exceptions to have occurred? Is the universe exception-less? Because if exceptions can occur, then a 'a goes to b' theory wouldn't really suffice.

I think we all see exceptions, even if they are only things which science cannot yet explain. That doesn't make them supernatural.

I grant you that in each of our lives there are moments of extreme circumstances that might be exceptions to an individual, but personal exceptions don't serve as proof to anyone by the individual. They are not usually accepted as irrefutable evidence of the supernatural.

Anyhow if we truly are a product of natural phenomenon, (which I also believe we are to a great extent) then there should a be step by step mechanism that could 'potentially' lead to humans- this would be based on evolution, physics, and chemistry- I would expect physics and chemistry to answer the very small details.

I would too if the details can ever be known or if we are ever capable of observing in the quantum realm.

But I think everything goes back to the beginning for such a theory to be developed.. for that someone need to answers some of these interesting questions:

what determines the strength of the different forces?
How do these Physical Laws come about?
Why is it that the physical laws can interact together? Its as if a english person can understand japanese... What is it that allows these physical laws to work together? Why aren't they totally separate laws that have no bearing on each other? What allows these laws to work together?

Why is it that the Laws are constant and not random? What determines its 'constant-ness'?
Since laws are constant, what gives rise to randomness (chance)?
(If there is nothing that gives rise to chance, then how a Human got here should be something that can be determined)

Why is it that everything was not at equilibrium at the moment it was made? These laws supposedly made the individual atoms and gave mass to them and so on- why were they not made in an equilibrium? (If it were already at equilibrium entropy would be max and nothing like 'life' would result)
Peace be unto you

And to you.

What you say is truly unknown. To ask why is natural. To answer with the supernatural is not unusual. But how many of those who answer with the supernatural were raised to believe and trust in the supernatural instead of finding it themselves through study and contemplation?

I submit that the God we find, if we find God on our own, is not the same God we are introduced to as we grow up.

 

[786]

And you have every right to see it that way because there is no evidence to the contrary. But it does boil down to opinion and neither of us knows the process that the other goes through to form opinion. Mine is as good as yours and visa versa. But in the absence of evidence, why go to supernatural. It seems that the supernatural has baggage. Natural lets us form any opinion without recrimination.

Actually I wasn't referring to something supernatural- I was referring to the fact that life seems to be working against Entropy which makes it a very unusual and in that regards 'unnatural' phenomenon. It wouldn't be an expected outcome through natural means- doesn't mean it couldn't happen with the right conditions- but for all conditions to come about and for everything to work against entropy to produce it- it surely is far more 'unnatural' than what nature would have you say. Does that mean 'supernatural', no- could it- yes.

I understand that the emergence of life seems to require the hand of God. It is very special. If you see God in it I support your right and value your opinion even though we disagree. I trust you are as open minded as I am about it.

I know that you know that I believe in God. BUT my questions are purely naturalistic and are devoid of any assumption of God... The fact that life is generative according to you- my question is what made it that way when in fact everything is following the same laws. This question was not demanding God as an answer but simply what is it in the laws that caused this differentiation- for if it is a product natural laws there must be something that causes it to be different.

There must be a natrural instant when the exact puzzle piece falls in place that unlocks the latent life then, maybe.

Exactly, as you see 'god' was not required to say that. But what exactly is this 'differentiating' force? Unknown, yes- but it seems to be highly selective as to only make 'life' as such and nothing else.

I think we all see exceptions, even if they are only things which science cannot yet explain. That doesn't make them supernatural.

Again, I wasn't demanding 'supernatural' as an explanation, I was simply referring to the fact that theories such as Evolution fail to recognize that exceptions can exist. Supernatural would certainly be an exception- but it would go unaccounted- My thought was simply that science would simply overlook such events if they took place- not that those event were supernatural- but it simply shows that to hold that everything is naturalistic is a belief, as is that some things are supernatural.

I grant you that in each of our lives there are moments of extreme circumstances that might be exceptions to an individual, but personal exceptions don't serve as proof to anyone by the individual. They are not usually accepted as irrefutable evidence of the supernatural.

Actually I was not providing proof for the supernatural but simply the problem of naturalistic thought that separating itself from not being a belief (faith)- which in my definition it certainly is.

But how many of those who answer with the supernatural were raised to believe and trust in the supernatural instead of finding it themselves through study and contemplation?

The problem in what you say is that trusting in the supernatural somehow eliminates the opportunity to conduct science- which it doesn't. As far as I understand my own religion- science is highly encouraged because it serves as a 'sign' to better appreciate the creation of God.

I submit that the God we find, if we find God on our own, is not the same God we are introduced to as we grow up.

The problem here is that if you do 'find God'- that finding would only be a realization of God- because you can't find a being in physics. Can physics prove me? No. You may infer that something is 'intelligent' and has this 'ability' but you can never prove a being like human who is so much more than simply a collection of atoms as it also has feelings and emotions and a will.

So I submit, the only God you will find is the abstraction of God but not God. So yes, you will never find the God we are taught and grow up as you can't even find Human in physics.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Actually I wasn't referring to something supernatural- I was referring to the fact that life seems to be working against Entropy which makes it a very unusual and in that regards 'unnatural' phenomenon. It wouldn't be an expected outcome through natural means- doesn't mean it couldn't happen with the right conditions- but for all conditions to come about and for everything to work against entropy to produce it- it surely is far more 'unnatural' than what nature would have you say. Does that mean 'supernatural', no- could it- yes.

Yes, I put in more of an emphasis on you relying on the supernatural than you implied. And I would agree with you that reverse entropy is a good way to describe the emergence of life, but it is not scientifically an example of reverse entropy. If the energy of the system were accounted for quantum by quantum, the emergence of life would increase entropy in the sense that useful energy was expended in the process of the emergence of life.

I know that you know that I believe in God. BUT my questions are purely naturalistic and are devoid of any assumption of God... The fact that life is generative according to you- my question is what made it that way when in fact everything is following the same laws. This question was not demanding God as an answer but simply what is it in the laws that caused this differentiation- for if it is a product natural laws there must be something that causes it to be different.

I agree. There must be something in the natural laws or otherwise.

Exactly, as you see 'god' was not required to say that. But what exactly is this 'differentiating' force? Unknown, yes- but it seems to be highly selective as to only make 'life' as such and nothing else.

We could debate that but then ... we are .

... My thought was simply that science would simply overlook such events if they took place- not that those event were supernatural- but it simply shows that to hold that everything is naturalistic is a belief, as is that some things are supernatural.

I agree. The specific belief is that there is an explanation for the existence of life that does not depend on the supernatural, and there is a supernatural explanation. We as individuals choose how we believe but it is a belief either way.

Actually I was not providing proof for the supernatural but simply the problem of naturalistic thought that separating itself from not being a belief (faith)- which in my definition it certainly is.

Agreed.

The problem in what you say is that trusting in the supernatural somehow eliminates the opportunity to conduct science- which it doesn't. As far as I understand my own religion- science is highly encouraged because it serves as a 'sign' to better appreciate the creation of God.

I don't presume that trusting in the supernatural would keep anyone from examining the evidence and conducting science. People in a religion that says you are not to examine dogma and doctrine would soon wonder about how important the truth really was to the religion. Religions can and have evolved and responded to the circumstances of the faithful just as science evolves and responds to its its people.

The problem here is that if you do 'find God'- that finding would only be a realization of God- because you can't find a being in physics. Can physics prove me? No. You may infer that something is 'intelligent' and has this 'ability' but you can never prove a being like human who is so much more than simply a collection of atoms as it also has feelings and emotions and a will.

So I submit, the only God you will find is the abstraction of God but not God. So yes, you will never find the God we are taught and grow up as you can't even find Human in physics.

We are at a point of real disagreement. The same point we reached in the "Nothingness" thread. You and I consider two different explanations for the existence of the universe. My view is that the universe has always existed. On that basis it is eternal. Any definition of God that I know of sees God as eternal. I consider it possible that if there is a God, God and the universe might be one in the same.

That is why I say that the God that we find on our own may not be the God the we would believe in within a given religion.

As you pointed out and I agreed, both require belief.

 

[quantum_wave]

The most likely candidate would be a bacteria. They have survived multiple catastrophes on Earth, and it's possible for some of them to survive in space. Some can live in suspended animation within salt crystals for tens of thousands of years. You wouldn't need to preserve advanced life, just like the bacteria seed itself wherever it goes. Also, fungus spores are amazingly hardy.

This really does broaden my perspective on the possibility that life forms can survive the destruction of their home planet, even their solar system for that matter.

I don't know why I was thinking that it had to be intelligent life that carried the flame if the flame gets carried at all. Life could still be prevalent from the generative force, even if each instance had to start over from the beginning emergence of bacteria.

This is not to say that intelligence and technology couldn't result in a life form making the leap from one star to another, it is not an impossibility and there is no way of knowing the probability but it would have to be very small. Given the possibility that there have been and will be repeated circumstances where intelligent life contemplates the possibility of space colonization, I would believe that it has happened and will happen again.

Now, from what you suggest though, it would seem far more likely that the bacteria and mold seed idea would have also happened and with a much greater frequency. It allows for evolution to take it course and for any advanced life forms to fit and adapt to the environment instead of requiring the advanced life forms make the environment fit their metabolism.

 

[786]

Well, about the entropy... That is why I was wondering that why was everything not made in maximum Entropy in the first place.

You believe the universe is eternal. Ok. But do you believe that the universe is infinite in size? If so, what is the density of the universe? Is it infinte? If not, then we know that there is 'space' that is out there where these particles could come about- in effect everything could have been made in an equillibrium but it wasn't? What prevented that from happening? It would seem to me that it would be the most obvious beginning if all laws were acting the same way they are acting now.

The overall process is that of low to high entropy. When there was 'nothing' and only the initial quantum field that created everything- why wasn't everything in a max entropy state, obviously there is nothing 'stopping' the laws to reach its ultimate goal of high entropy in the beginning of things- again 'beginning' here referring to the quantum field not Big Bang beginning.

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Well, about the entropy... That is why I was wondering that why was everything not made in maximum Entropy in the first place.

You believe the universe is eternal. Ok. But do you believe that the universe is infinite in size? If so, what is the density of the universe? Is it infinte? If not, then we know that there is 'space' that is out there where these particles could come about- in effect everything could have been made in an equillibrium but it wasn't? What prevented that from happening? It would seem to me that it would be the most obvious beginning if all laws were acting the same way they are acting now.

The overall process is that of low to high entropy. When there was 'nothing' and only the initial quantum field that created everything- why wasn't everything in a max entropy state, obviously there is nothing 'stopping' the laws to reach its ultimate goal of high entropy in the beginning of things- again 'beginning' here referring to the quantum field not Big Bang beginning.

Peace be unto you

This is a difficult set of statements for me to deal with because context is important and we are dealing with various contexts. Let me start by saying that in this thread I am talking about a different cosmology from standard Big Bang Theory. The universe in Big Bang terms is not infinite as you know; it is finite in space, time and energy. But the universe in Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) is infinite. It is infinite in space, time and energy.

Also, the universe in Big Bang theory has a beginning. The theory says that some huge event occurred but we don’t know what exactly it was. What we know in BBT anyway is that the very instant after time began, within the first micro second, there was exponential inflation sometimes referred to as an explosion of space. Welcome to the expanding Big Bang universe, right?

But in QWC I look at things differently. There was no beginning since the greater universe has always existed. There was no explosion of space because space has always existed and has always been infinite. In QWC, an event occurred in the same time frame 13.7 billion years ago, our Big Bang, but it was not the same event that is usually considered in BBT. It wasn’t a beginning, it didn’t mark the start of time, and there was no explosion of space. It is characterized as the burst of a big crunch. It requires some physics that is not observable because it only takes place under the maximum energy density conditions of a big crunch. When a natural maximum limit of energy density is reached, matter is negated into energy and that leads to the burst. It only takes a finite amount of energy to form a crunch and so with an potentially infinite amount of energy in the QWC universe, there are a potentially infinite number of crunch/bang type events going on across the landscape of the greater universe.

In BBT, the Big Bang is the universe, but in QWC because there are a potentially infinite number of crunch/bursts each equivalent to our single Big Bang, I refer to them as arenas. The landscape of the greater universe therefore consists of a potentially infinite number of arenas.

With that comparison on the table, a comparison of how entropy works in BBT vs. QWC can be addressed. Entropy in BBT starts out low because there is a lot of useful energy that originated with the Big Bang. Entropy will increase as the Big Bang universe expands, until finally at the end of things (the heat death of the Big Bang universe) entropy will be complete, i.e. at its maximum.

Entropy in QWC is defeated and there is an average universal level of entropy that remains stable on a grand scale. Entropy in each arena however starts low as it does in BBT, and as the arena expands entropy increases like it does when the BBT universe expands. However, In QWC there is no heat death, no complete entropy because the expansion of an arena is interrupted before entropy becomes complete. The interruption occurs because spatially separated arenas expand until they intersect and overlap. It is the intersection and overlap that allows gravity to take over and causes the formation of big crunches.

In QWC there is also an overall average level of energy density that remains stable on a grand scale, but that starts very high in each arena and declines as the arenas expand. In BBT the energy density is continually declining.

So you may be able to see why I find it difficult to respond to your post without explaining the context. Please consider the comparison between BBT and QWC in regards to entropy and energy density, and put you statements in that context if you can.

Also can you put your reference to the quantum field in context for me?

 

[786]

What I meant by 'quantum field' was basically what you are referring to as QWC.

But anyhow, in both cases you acutally do not explain why entropy starts low.. You say that there is 'good energy'- but this 'good energy' had to come from somewhere, no? So fundamentally everything came from the Quantum Field that existed- which is eternal-

You can say there is infinite space and time and all that- but for this particular universe (arena?) it was not at some point. You can say there were infinite number of BB events, we're just in one of them. But on a bigger picture all of these arenas were a result of something similar to BB happening at all those 'spots'-

The question is- Where did this 'good energy' come from? And why was not it all in an equillibrium and a state of ideal entropy (max entropy? average entropy) when in fact this is where things were going to be pushed?

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

What I meant by 'quantum field' was basically what you are referring to as QWC.

But anyhow, in both cases you acutally do not explain why entropy starts low.. You say that there is 'good energy'- but this 'good energy' had to come from somewhere, no? So fundamentally everything came from the Quantum Field that existed- which is eternal-

No, there is no eternal quantum field in a state of equilibrium. QWC is a perpetual process. The average energy density of the greater universe is above the matter formation threshold and so a portion of the energy of the greater universe is always in the form of matter. There is a stable ratio between matter and energy in QWC on a grand scale. Matter collapses around a center of gravity, but the maximum limit of energy density causes the collapsing arenas to burst into expansion long before all of the matter in the universe collapses into them; they contain a finite amount of energy when they burst and there are a potentially infinite number of arenas at any time because there is an infinite amount of energy in the greater universe. See the perpetual process below.

You can say there is infinite space and time and all that- but for this particular universe (arena?) it was not at some point. You can say there were infinite number of BB events, we're just in one of them. But on a bigger picture all of these arenas were a result of something similar to BB happening at all those 'spots'-

The question is- Where did this 'good energy' come from? And why was not it all in an equillibrium and a state of ideal entropy (max entropy? average entropy) when in fact this is where things were going to be pushed?

No, they are different. Big Bang Theory implies that the universe either came from nothing or originated at a point in time as an infinitely dense point in space, i.e. it contained all of the energy of our universe in zero volume of space. When the Big Bang occurred there was an explosion of space and all of the energy that was in the zero volume point expanded with the space to create our expanding universe. I don't subscribe to that theory.

The QWC crunch/bangs occur when two expanding arenas overlap. The overlap interrupts the expansion momentum of the galaxies in each arena and gravity takes hold. The affected galaxies collapse around a new center of gravity until the crunch reaches the maximum possible energy density (infinite energy density is not possible in QWC). When the maximum energy density threshold is reached the crunch fails and bursts into an expanding ball of energy.

So you see the history of entropy of a QWC arena is explained by a perpetual process. Low entropy crunches form when high entropy arenas overlap. The low entropy crunches burst into expansion, expansion increases entropy until expansion is interrupted by the intersecting and overlapping arenas. Overlapping arenas, each at high entropy, cause new big crunches which have low entropy and the process continues perpetually. The collapse of the galaxies from the overlapping parent arenas into big crunches is where the entropy reversal takes place.

Peace be unto you

Thank you.

 

[786]

So all these 'arenas' always existed? Were there infinite arenas or did arenas started to exist at some point in the infinite universe?

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

So all these 'arenas' always existed? Were there infinite arenas or did arenas started to exist at some point in the infinite universe?

Peace be unto you

Arenas come and go. You could say they have a life cycle. The landscape of the greater universe has always been littered with arenas. But like I said, the cycle of an individual arena starts from the intersection and overlap of two parent arenas. Once they overlap, the expansion momentum of the galaxies is interrupted and gravity takes over in place of expansion. Gravity causes the big crunches to form from the galaxies that are caught up around a new center of gravity.

The perpetual arena process defeats entropy, maintains the average energy density of the greater universe, and maintains the ratio between matter and energy on a grand scale though all three measures fluctuate within an arena during their finite individual existence. Since there are always a potentially infinite number of arenas in various stages of the cycle, the average entropy and energy density are maintained on a grand scale. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic on a grand scale as predicted by the cosmological principle.

I’d like to hear about your view of life on Earth and throughout the universe too.

 

[786]

Can you define the boundary of an 'arena"? Is the arena with some type of membrane, or is it an open system. Also what determines the placement of these arenas because if they are open systems and there are significant number of other arenas in the same locale, then I can't believe once it explodes then it wouldn't immediately overtake another nearby arena. It would seem to me that the expansion of an exploding arena (which engulfs other arenas in the process) would cause a domino engulfment of the infinite arenas given infinite time and that would in effect leave 1 arena the size of the infinite universe which, if it went through a Big Crunch would never be able to Explode due the the infinite mass and practically infinite gravity. And there is nothing that can stop this domino engulfment and explosion that will result from just 1 arena.

I would think that it is like a domino effect taking in every single arena in the 'infinite' universe in itself while it explodes. Also if this were happening there would be many bursts of background radiation from all directions, which I don't think have ever been discovered. Since this would be so frequent in the universe (as its infinite?) then the bursts and huge variation of background radiation would be experienced- and it would practically make determining the 'age' of our arena (currently known as the universe) impossible- but we have done so because there is pattern and consistency in the background radiation...

By the way since the infinite universe is static, as you can't possibly be bigger than 'infinite' and that these explosions will engulf the surrounding arenas resulting in a bigger explosion each time (actually there should not be a explosion after a critical mass is reached in one of those big crunches). That this process will be exponential and would be occurring in infinite points of the infinite universe. I can't see this working, I would like people well versed in Physics to say something- but on a lay-man basis I simply don't see how such a 'universe' would be- of course it could exist as such but we would have overwhelming evidence of this because of the frequent explosions and on top the domino effect should take everything out in a very short period of time because the it would be exponential with the exponent being infinity!

Peace be unto you

 

[quantum_wave]

Can you define the boundary of an 'arena"? Is the arena with some type of membrane, or is it an open system.

There is no discernible boundary. The boundary is an energy density differential. When the big crunches burst they have very high energy density which is expanding into the surrounding low energy density space.

Note that when the crunch forms, it pulls in not only the galactic material in the overlap of two expanding arenas, but it even pulls in and does not emit electromagnetic radiation during much of the crunch formation process. So the surrounding space has given up a significant amount of its energy to the crunch while at the same time the portions of the parent arenas that are not caught up in the crunch continue to move away from the newly formed center of gravity. This leaves the surrounding space around the crunch of very low energy density. The boundary of an arena is the expanding spherical wave of high energy density as it intrudes into the lower energy density around it.

It will expand until the energy density becomes equalized with that of the greater universe or until the expansion is interrupted by intersecting and overlapping with another arena.

Also what determines the placement of these arenas because if they are open systems and there are significant number of other arenas in the same locale, then I can't believe once it explodes then it wouldn't immediately overtake another nearby arena.

The determining factor in the frequency of the occurrence of arenas is the average energy density of the universe. Higher energy density makes for a higher ratio of matter to energy in the greater universe and that would make the crunches closer together.

Our expanding and accelerating arena has been going for only 13.7 billion years which is a short period of time if you ask me. I speculate that it could take much longer for a big crunch to from because of the swirling and mixing that would naturally go on as two arenas overlap. The expansion is a much more radial event (IMHO).

It would seem to me that the expansion of an exploding arena (which engulfs other arenas in the process) would cause a domino engulfment of the infinite arenas given infinite time and that would in effect leave 1 arena the size of the infinite universe which, if it went through a Big Crunch would never be able to Explode due the the infinite mass and practically infinite gravity. And there is nothing that can stop this domino engulfment and explosion that will result from just 1 arena.

I would think that it is like a domino effect taking in every single arena in the 'infinite' universe in itself while it explodes. Also if this were happening there would be many bursts of background radiation from all directions, which I don't think have ever been discovered. Since this would be so frequent in the universe (as its infinite?) then the bursts and huge variation of background radiation would be experienced-

And I do think there are bursts of energy emanating from the burst of each big crunch, but remember, the expanding sphere of energy from an arena travels at the speed of light. And the energy impact of that expanding sphere is subject to the inverse square rule. By the time such an intersection between our arena and another arena occurs the energy density of the expanding arena has been equalizing with the lower energy density of the greater universe for billions, maybe hundreds of billions or even a trillion years. It would be a rare event when an overlap of arenas occurs and I don’t envision the energy impact to be as great as you are envisioning,

The near isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation that we observe is entirely within our own arena but is is composed of the thermalized energy from our own burst plus the background energy of the greater universe that it is mixing with and equalizing with as our high energy density wave intrudes on the low energy density of the greater universe.

… and it would practically make determining the 'age' of our arena (currently known as the universe) impossible- but we have done so because there is pattern and consistency in the background radiation...

We don’t make the determination of the age of our arena based solely on the temperature of the background radiation though the measured nearly isotropic temperature of ~2.7 degrees Kelvin is consistent with the estimated fifty or a hundred billion degree hot Big Bang and the 13.7 billion year time frame. There are other factors used to determine the age of the universe as we know it.

By the way since the infinite universe is static, as you can't possibly be bigger than 'infinite' …

Yes, good point. QWC is a steady state cosmology.

… and that these explosions will engulf the surrounding arenas resulting in a bigger explosion each time (actually there should not be a explosion after a critical mass is reached in one of those big crunches). That this process will be exponential and would be occurring in infinite points of the infinite universe. I can't see this working, I would like people well versed in Physics to say something- but on a lay-man basis I simply don't see how such a 'universe' would be- of course it could exist as such but we would have overwhelming evidence of this because of the frequent explosions and on top the domino effect should take everything out in a very short period of time because the it would be exponential with the exponent being infinity!

Above I mentioned that the spacing of the crunches has to do with the average energy density of the universe. As long as the average energy density is high enough for matter to form from energy, then the factor that determines the spacing of the crunches that form is dependent on the level of energy density and the ratio of matter to energy. It is just speculation but there is no evidence within our arena that we have yet intersected with any other arenas that were close enough not to have already equalized with the energy density of the backgound of the greater universe.

You mention the explosions engulfing the surrounding arenas and that leading to bigger explosions, but that accumulative effect is defeated by the maximum limit to energy density. When a crunch forms and reaches that level of energy density it bursts into an expanding ball of energy. Since I imagine or speculate that the arenas are spaced at such great distances, when two parent arenas overlap, they do so in an otherwise pretty lonely space.

Also, I mentioned that the space surrounding the crunch is pretty much swept clean of galaxies, galactic remnants, dark matter, electromagnetic radiation, etc, leaving a wide corridor of very low energy density space surrounding the crunch by the time the maximum level of energy density is achieved and the burst occurs.

BTW, you don’t have to of course but I am interested in your view of the life on Earth and in the universe, the time frame of its origin, the particulars if you have any thoughts.

 

[786]

BTW, you don’t have to of course but I am interested in your view of the life on Earth and in the universe, the time frame of its origin, the particulars if you have any thoughts.

I don't know anything about when life began or if it exists in the universe elsewhere.. It potentially could and I have no problems with it. I don't understand why some religious folks have problems with Aliens but I certainly don't.

If intelligent life exists elsewhere I expect that they too will have a concept of God. The particulars of life's beginning are unknown to me.

Peace be unto you

 

[albertchong1999]

contemporary science knowledge just too primitive to me...... it seems like 2010 BC science... the answer lies in my older threads about the existence of life on planet earth...

 

[Dywyddyr]

contemporary science knowledge just too primitive to me...... it seems like 2010 BC science... the answer lies in my older threads about the existence of life on planet earth...

Yes, but we all know you're a crackpot with nothing valid to back you up.

 

[albertchong1999]

there are many evidence out there, just stubborn scientists can't find the answers or don't know how to answer it and just neglect the facts.

 

[786]

No problem.. Its just I don't know how life began. I can say that life began because God wanted life to exist.. but that would be the end of it which isn't something I thought you were looking for.

Life probably began in a primordial soup as the Evolutionists suggest, and actually I believe Evolution is the process through how it played out. Its just I don't agree that there are 'random' mutations that led to it. Look at my thread 'God of Science' in which I try to point out that if selected mutations were to happen in the past science could not discover them and they too would be labeled 'random'- on the other hand science can never prove anything is 'random' to begin with.

Again this piece also goes along with what I had said in another thread. God wrote the 'code' of the universe, and that code plays out to form everything. Its like HTML language the <b> and <body> tags are like the forces that come together and the result is a website. The binary language being the fundamental laws of nature. I believe the very fact that science exists is proof of God. The fact that the laws are consistent and not random and that they interact... Otherwise I would expect a completely 'random' set of laws that don't work together in any systematic way which would unable science to exist. Science sees the 'code' and it just stuck there because it realizes that the 'code' created everything as we are part of that code, but what a 'code' can't find itself is that it was designed by someone.. To us the 'code' is everything and that is the limit of science.

Peace be unto you

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Life probably began in a primordial soup as the Evolutionists suggest, and actually I believe Evolution is the process through how it played out. Its just I don't agree that there are 'random' mutations that led to it. Look at my thread 'God of Science' in which I try to point out that if selected mutations were to happen in the past science could not discover them and they too would be labeled 'random'- on the other hand science can never prove anything is 'random' to begin with.

Are you saying you don't believe its possible for random copying errors to occur during procreation for any animal or plant? Because that's what a random mutation is due to, the sequence of your DNA is reshuffled every so slightly. Too much and you don't survive to term or have some defect which prevents you procreating but small amounts can be survived.

believe the very fact that science exists is proof of God. The fact that the laws are consistent and not random and that they interact... Otherwise I would expect a completely 'random' set of laws that don't work together in any systematic way which would unable science to exist. Science sees the 'code' and it just stuck there because it realizes that the 'code' created everything as we are part of that code, but what a 'code' can't find itself is that it was designed by someone.. To us the 'code' is everything and that is the limit of science.

Flawed logic. The fact the universe seems coherent and obeys various principles consistently is not 'proof of God', its not even evidence of God. If the speed of light kept going up and down atoms wouldn't form and we'd not be possible. Your argument fails in the face of the anthropic principle. We shouldn't be surprised we fit into our particular niche of the universe, if the universe were different we either wouldn't exist or would have evolved differently to fit the new niche.

The fact the universe exists doesn't imply someone[/u] created it. It exists and one might ask what something created it but to anthropomorphise the question of the origin of the universe is to ask a loaded question.

 

[quantum_wave]

No problem.. Its just I don't know how life began. I can say that life began because God wanted life to exist.. but that would be the end of it which isn't something I thought you were looking for.

Life probably began in a primordial soup as the Evolutionists suggest, and actually I believe Evolution is the process through how it played out. Its just I don't agree that there are 'random' mutations that led to it. Look at my thread 'God of Science' in which I try to point out that if selected mutations were to happen in the past science could not discover them and they too would be labeled 'random'- on the other hand science can never prove anything is 'random' to begin with.

I don’t know either. No one does. What I am looking for is what people think and we all have different perspectives. I know you believe in God and you seem to be open as to at what point in the process of life’s origin God leaves things to nature; I assume you see natural processes to be the work of God, maybe on autopilot . I’m not going to judge your logic and I don’t believe my logic is above reproach.

Again this piece also goes along with what I had said in another thread. God wrote the 'code' of the universe, and that code plays out to form everything. Its like HTML language the <b> and <body> tags are like the forces that come together and the result is a website. The binary language being the fundamental laws of nature. I believe the very fact that science exists is proof of God. The fact that the laws are consistent and not random and that they interact... Otherwise I would expect a completely 'random' set of laws that don't work together in any systematic way which would unable science to exist. Science sees the 'code' and it just stuck there because it realizes that the 'code' created everything as we are part of that code, but what a 'code' can't find itself is that it was designed by someone.. To us the 'code' is everything and that is the limit of science.

Peace be unto you

That makes sense if you start from the perspective that God is ultimately behind the sum total of the physical universe. When it gets right down to it I consider that a possibility to the extent that if the universe has always existed, then life could have always existed too. Both the universe and life could be eternal and that might be the common denominator between your view and mine.

We may never agree about the point in time or the level of active participation that God might have had in the picture but I can’t rule out God and you can’t rule out an eternal physical universe. Let’s just say that maybe they are one in the same.

My intention is to speculate about the possibilities of life in an eternal universe. That is why I liked spidergoat’s view that bacteria or mold could seed life across space boundaries. But can intelligent life spread across space boundaries? What is the potential realistically to escape our solar system? In the long history of the universe how likely do people thing it is that it has been going on and to what extent.