Religious people aren't built for logical debate.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by universaldistress, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I can actually think of one. That a future scientific discovery might prove that God exists. That's what you're so excited about isn't it?

    Of course. In fact once upon a time it was common for philosophers to be scientists and for scientists to be philosophers. They've always been (and still are) complimentary.

    I don't have it backwards at all. I have always embraced philosophy just as much as science, metaphysics especially.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You should understand that I was providing an explanation for why the great names of history weren't necessarily more brilliant than those who are alive today. It's simply because they were picking all the low hanging fruit. I'm not saying that they didn't possess exceptional intellects, because they clearly did, but you can only discover that the world is round, or that it revolves around the sun, once. Yet some assume that the people who made such discoveries did so because they were unequaled in their brilliance by anyone alive today. We remember their names because of the magnitude of the discovery, not because of the magnitude of their intellects. Just because certain people alive today didn't get the chance to make these same perspective shattering discoveries doesn't mean that they wouldn't have if they were born during a time when we really didn't know a whole lot about the nature of reality.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I agree that talent isn't in line with rosey glasses. Magnitude of discoveries can increase. When people first discovered that the earth was round did it have a drastic effect on the everyman? Future discoveries have the potential to be massive due to the willingness and ability to apply understanding in a universal and global fashion.

    It doesn't pay to be final or finite when mankind potentially is still in the cradle.

    To assume that present human physiology is a bounding factor would be a bit strong. With genetic engineering and nano-mechanised enhancements the potential of an individual as we know it could move so far beyond what we fundamentally take as a given today; one shouldn't try to impose restrictions on speculation.

    I really believe that the future will see far greater minds and individual discoverers than einstein, newton. Who is to say that a hivemind human outpost isn't an individual? (one example)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    True enough. The Borg are, after all, a technological force to be reckoned with

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Thought I may be going out on a limb with this one. It was a bit of a stirrer to open debate. Very hard to acquire evidence I reckon. Could be valid in certain contexts.
     
  9. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Sadly they may not have the stomach for it I feel. . .
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Here, we can ask:

    Why should anyone make the concession that their goals might not be realistic?
    Is total flexibility truly the superior principle?

    Such questions would require omniscience to be answered. IOW, the answers to them are not within our reach.

    Secondly, at first glance, it might seem reasonable to always be open to doubt. However, such an attitude has its inherent problems as well.
    For starters, "Always be willing to doubt" is a paradox, like "This sentence is a lie."

    From at least a formal perspective, how can we thus say that it is a flaw that "religion is not prepared to make the concession that god may not exist"?
     
  11. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Is believing in god a goal?
    Willingness to be flexible is superior to unwilling to be flexible?

    Total flexibility could be a important prerequisite for the ultimate success of humankind?
    Fact the answers are not in reach shouldn't colour the method of approach? Is it beneficial to limit one's approach? Stalwart belief in a parametered god being the limit.

    We answer our own questions. Unwavering belief prevents all the evidence being scrutinised, and a picking and choosing culture to be fostered.

    Paradox or infinity or play on words. Is this really meaniful or relevant though? I do not see "Always be willing to doubt" as a paradox. Just because one doubts doesn't mean one is unwilling to believe or do if enough evidence is accrued. I wouldn't give this serious weight within the context of my statement.

    Open to evidence that could lead to doubt is the key. A religious individual has this potential, many lose faith. But the Religions themselves do not have this flexibility.

    It is a fundamental flaw because it stops science and effective practice taking religious input seriously. I feel a new religious approach must be on the cards. I do not deny the fact it is feasible religions could fracture and evolve a new understanding that could have the potential to mesh more convincingly with science. But if the present philosophy is maintained religion will evolutionarily find itself increasingly marginalised by a forward thinking culture.

    I think that there is a theory out there that could bring the whole thing together, a bit like a theory of everything. Maybe a theory of unification will solve both of these fundamental issues (not only the physical but the spiritual in one hit), possibly the two most important issues humans face as we move further into the 21st century?
     
  12. audible un de plusieurs autres Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    954
    Well you would your a theist, you whole philosophy is based on a maybe, it would be a first if any of you thought critically.
    Philosophical debate can only end on maybes, if it is clearly evident (Ie a fact) then it has no need for debate especially a philosophical one. You cannot arrive at facts via philosophy you can only debate possibilities.(maybes)
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    universaldistress -

    (To explain my brevity - I wrote about a half of reply to you, in detail, and then the power went out.
    I don't feel like writing it out again, so I am just going to sum it up.)

    If you are so sure of your stance, then why discuss and debate with the theists?
     
  14. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    The whole point is that my stance isn't as fixed as theirs lol. . .
     
  15. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    God I hate it when that happens (they might be listening

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). Computers are so blase about which motes of info they terminate.

    I am not sure whether I am a theist or not as well. Plus I wasn't aware that atheists do not frequent this board. I have felt emanations from a few people.

    If I was a god I am not so sure I would be so interested in the earth. If science has got it right and there are other cultures in the cosmos then it would mean we may not be the interest or simply one of many. I feel I would be pretty hands-off, let evolution run its course type thing.

    So if we find evidence of life elsewhere or if we find aliens, is that a positive or negative for religions. Will they assimilate the findings and make it their own as they seem so increasingly ready to these days (except in america (sarcky) or will the old religions fold or even evolve naturally away from present modes?

    Why is religion so against these kinds of realistic, logical topics of discussion?

    The discovery of life elsewhere would be a tricky one for religion to talk its way out of. Alien religions will be again as diverse as the earths. How can people entertain the idea of their being a creative force, which I do, but be so against the realisation that traditional religion is simply a mankind-muddled, even bastardisation of any type of realistic, believable-for-all theory of an intelligence behind the universes workings. Some would say that the fact the universe computes makes it a computer, therefore it is only one conclusion/discovery away from being aware.

    But what does traditional religion have to do with that?

    May I excerpt from a post of mine from another thread?:

    "I don't buy-into the idea that we are born with the propensity toward religion though I do think the propensity is hardcoded into the genes. Only through possible effections like physical weakening and our genomes interacting with environments does a, shall we say, spiritual phenotypic expression of needs to seek out god, forgiveness, community creep in. The so-called 'finding (of) God'. Well I found god (a belief/theory) and found that God's interest (if he/she/it exists) would not be alligned to Man's limited wonts and desires. And would be more focused on the success of the universe; hardcoding already built into the fabric of the universe.

    The human physical/mental and spiritual experience and our ability to find meaning where there is little did allow religion to flourish.

    Go back three thousand years to a hypothetical scenario:
    One group of 10 settlements are peaceful and trade among each other.
    A second group of 10 settlements not only trade goods but also spiritual belief and a common religion is founded.
    The peninsula that both groups share suffers a severe drought one summer and the crops fail.
    Which grouping survives?

    This is indeed natural selection, but as to the genetic feedback resulting from suchlike scenarios. These types of pressures effect on the genepool is a very interesting field of study I would imagine (I wouldn't know as this is all my own ponderings).

    (fraggle rocker spoke of religion based on instincts)
    What is an instinct in a human. Is it something we cannot deny?
    Can a man keep his hand in a fire if he wants to?

    Conscious thought is malleable and though I do think the weakness of humans can give an individual the propensity for religious belief. One will only find the belief that oneself is capable of uncovering. Most people are fed tradition and are trapped by its routine, and their own propensity for routine.

    I for one have never been trapped by routine and have evolved my own theory of how the universe ad infinitum could work."

    I really do feel that for religion to flourish in an uncertain future it has to evolve or at least show willing to do so. I already get inklings of this happening. And mark my words, it will happen. Established religions are like any other form of social collection. They possess the drive for self-perpetuation. And people power (money), I feel, will push forward radically these changes. Almost like a possible religious singularity.

    People's desires are more important now, and people want what they want. They want to believe in something that fits in with the world they see around them, and they see so much more these days.

    The monkey took its head out of the box.
     
  16. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    It would, eventually, but not right away, for we already see that the quantum fluctuations jiggle into and out of existence, yet, emotions, being what they are, want want they want, yet there is still progress, and it is accelerating, just as information has in the last century. It is more that the old believers will die off rather than be converted.

    The new theory begins with the observation that there is nothing to make the basic stuff out of, and therein lies the answer.
     
  17. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Yes I agree there will be dying off going on. The hardcore religious establishment will have to make an attempt at appeasement. I suppose the mode of transition will be coloured by many interlinked variables. And the one you state will have effect.

    Do you suggest that something could be made of nothing? I am not sure I am following your exact meaning with your last statement, would you be able to embellish on the direction of your thoughts for me please, would be much appreciated?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Yes, we would have to arrive at the conclusion that the basic something is ever made of nothing, a distribution of it, such as we see with the quantum fluctuations going in and out of existence, and which is why there is positive and negative polarity of charge, along with matter and antimatter, and the balancing of the positive kinetic energy of stuff with the negative potential energy of gravity.

    And, of course, that there is literally nothing to make stuff of, ‘nothing’ being the eternal basis, the prime mover also qualifies as infinite, positrons, electron, and photons ever popping out, with some of them remaining rather enduring and leading to more complexity. Curiously, it is all because ‘nothing’, being the simplest state, cannot be or stay as such. The vacuum fluctuates, yet there is no true vacuum that can form as a stable state, being the lack of anything, which ever would have been the state, if it could have been.

    It is also that cause-and-effect cannot go on forever beneath, in an infinite regress, and so it has to be replaced by an equation: the zero balance of opposites.

    The only other possibility remaining, then, is that the original stuff has been around forever, but that is rejected since the stuff would then have had definition without ever having been defined in the first place, for that place never was.

    This definition would include, but not be limited to, the total amount, the particle forms, charge, mass, size, location, properties…

    So, of the two choices, both of which are eternal states that prohibit any creation of the basis (and a Creator), we know for sure that one must be correct, no matter how unintuitive each seems at first glance.

    To me, of the two possibilities, it seems that the ‘why’ would be that ‘nothing’ cannot be, for we also note that the simpler and simple states are prone to be ever more reactive, plus that this is a complete solution, whereas “stuff having been forever” seems to have an incompleteness about it, as noted.

    It is also that, since this formation of oppositely balanced has been happening forever (and ever will), that one could even nearly say that stuff was around forever, too, in general; however it wasn’t the same exact stuff, so, not quite.

    This knowing of why anything exists allows us to better comprehend the cosmos, for it then explains, or leads to, somehow, as to why their is a balance of oppositeness of charge and matter/antimatter from pair production, which may even be the root of energy conservation, and that time, the 4th dimension, may be related to charge, for it seems that it would have to be charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, although this can’t happen in actuality. Motion, not stillness, seems to be the natural norm. The great question of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" was stated backward.

    It also explains why the cosmos is so vast, for not only is space infinite (with the ever present quantities of volume and QM jitterbugging), but that its complement, the Planck size and within has to be so infinitely (infinitesimal) tiny. Our finiteness exists at the mid-point in-between. Infinite largeness and infinite smallness are really the same vacant ends of nothing, one dispersing to zero and one contracting to zero. Total solidity is just as impossible as total nothing, and, so here we are, perched in-between.
     
  19. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    In life these days it seems I could endlessly search to try and find people like you who have taken the time to posit on the universe and beyond, and are prepared to present away from endless amounts of -isms and jargon and just present a much more personal 'meism' if you will.

    I see in this suggestion philosophical crossroads where you have turned one way and I am not so sure I would do likewise, but I am prepared to analyse and digest this on its merits.

    I can see in answering this post I am coming dangerously close to revealing my own theory, which I couldn't do on this forum, too public. Though I am willing to dance around the ideas a little

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    -flowing along with this-

    I can agree that stuff is made of mostly nothing; I do not say I can accept that nothing is definitely the eternal basis, though of course it is interesting to hear your theories. I am more inclined towards infinity of matter up and down without and within is more likely.

    But just because an atom quark or smaller are moved, it doesn't necessarily hold that these forces are projected down into the innards. Maybe these forces only project outwards to protect interiors. Or Arenas much smaller within these structures it may be possible are impervious to outside movement and reaction because of inherent stabilising forces built into the evolution of infinity? Maybe a positive force pressure has developed to allow function to continue further down the scale?

    I think infinity is literally infinite. I do not see an end or beginning, or any decoherence of this assertion. For me non-infinity is impossible.

    But a specific creator isn't the limit to a possible creational force? No home base is needed if a naturally occuring start point can occur within the system. And anyway. The system isn't limited, there is a without, always.

    It could be in the same way life exists itself. There was an inception of life. So another inception is possible?

    This doesn't seem personally conclusive for you?

    Systems of change would be a prerequisite of energy dissipating through infinity, up or down (you get the meaning); sorry have to stop there . . .

    Same stuff, different form/energy spectrum/distribution.

    Infinity for me is the only ending. Mathematics tends to fall to it in the end.

    For me it is more "How can something be made of nothing?"

    For me it is all evolution, whether there is a creational force or not. It equates to the same thing.

    This seems very subjective. Have you ever delved deeper into possible modes, organisations of infinity?

    Infinity. Different assertions of what it could be. You seem uneasy with the idea that infinity is true. I like to embrace it as I can see no other way. Around this I build my theory.

    Sorry I can't say more.
     
  20. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Sciwriter, do you see the universe as one in a multiverse, or as an endless area of endless areas of fluctuation?
     
  21. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    In life these days it seems I could endlessly search to try and find people like you who have taken the time to posit on the universe and beyond, and are prepared to present away from endless amounts of -isms and jargon and just present a much more personal 'meism' if you will.

    Yes, for sweeping generalizations without specifics goes nowhere in a hurry. Physicists like Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger work for what is and what is known, such as quantum mechanics, which surely works. That’s where I come from, too, so there’s really no personal wishes involved.


    I see in this suggestion philosophical crossroads where you have turned one way and I am not so sure I would do likewise, but I am prepared to analyse and digest this on its merits.

    Well, I turned to the only two possible ways that the substance of stuff could be, knowing that one of them had to be correct.

    I can see in answering this post I am coming dangerously close to revealing my own theory, which I couldn't do on this forum, too public. Though I am willing to dance around the ideas a little

    OK, but it leaks out, and that’s what we’re here for.



    Originally Posted by SciWriter
    Yes, we would have to arrive at the conclusion that the basic something is ever made of nothing, a distribution of it, such as we see with the quantum fluctuations going in and out of existence, and which is why there is positive and negative polarity of charge, along with matter and antimatter, and the balancing of the positive kinetic energy of stuff with the negative potential energy of gravity.

    -flowing along with this-


    And, of course, that there is literally nothing to make stuff of, ‘nothing’ being the eternal basis, the prime mover also qualifies as infinite, positrons, electron, and photons ever popping out, with some of them remaining rather enduring and leading to more complexity. Curiously, it is all because ‘nothing’, being the simplest state, cannot be or stay as such. The vacuum fluctuates, yet there is no true vacuum that can form as a stable state, being the lack of anything, which ever would have been the state, if it could have been.

    I can agree that stuff is made of mostly nothing;

    Some say all is so-called empty space mostly, but they forget that fluctuation is everywhere, again showing that ‘nothing’ cannot be. Furthermore, fields from the particle spigots are everywhere around the particles and way, way beyond, so, again, that space is not empty at all. We might say that it is less dense, which is fine, for the actual mass-energy concentrated in a small region, like as the analogy of it being only second base in a baseball stadium, goes a long way, it having an effect much more that its size would dictate.


    I do not say I can accept that nothing is definitely the eternal basis, though of course it is interesting to hear your theories. I am more inclined towards infinity of matter up and down without and within is more likely.

    One would have to say how the stuff got there.



    It is also that cause-and-effect cannot go on forever beneath, in an infinite regress, and so it has to be replaced by an equation: the zero balance of opposites.

    But just because an atom quark or smaller are moved, it doesn't necessarily hold that these forces are projected down into the innards. Maybe these forces only project outwards to protect interiors. Or Arenas much smaller within these structures it may be possible are impervious to outside movement and reaction because of inherent stabilising forces built into the evolution of infinity? Maybe a positive force pressure has developed to allow function to continue further down the scale?

    They would still have cause and effect, even if only stabilizing, but it is still stuff, and no effect could settle in if it took forever for the downward chain to have cause. Stuff still has to be accounted for, as we can’t use magic to have defined stuff never having been defined.



    The only other possibility remaining, then, is that the original stuff has been around forever, but that is rejected since the stuff would then have had definition without ever having been defined in the first place, for that place never was.

    I think infinity is literally infinite. I do not see an end or beginning, or any decoherence of this assertion. For me non-infinity is impossible.

    Yes, there has to be infinity and eternity for Totality. It wouldn’t be the all at all if something were before it or outside it. So, the prime mover must have these qualities.

    A composite complex Being is ruled out, too, since it would be dependent on its parts, which would have been there even a long time before, so, the Being could not have been fundamental as the first, planning and creating everything else.



    So, of the two choices, both of which are eternal states that prohibit any creation of the basis (and a Creator), we know for sure that one must be correct, no matter how unintuitive each seems at first glance.

    But a specific creator isn't the limit to a possible creational force? No home base is needed if a naturally occuring start point can occur within the system. And anyway. The system isn't limited, there is a without, always. [I/]

    The only naturally occurring starting point is the lack of anything, not something already there, yet, this ‘nothing’ is so unstable that it can’t exist even for an instant, and never could, and never will be able to.

    It could be in the same way life exists itself. There was an inception of life. So another inception is possible?

    Inception of life is ever possible, even such as alien beings and life forms way beyond our own, but they can’t be fundamental and first, as they were much later inceptions of what was. For, example, we took four billion years to evolve, and that was even with luck, so, we were relatively speedy.



    To me, of the two possibilities, it seems that the ‘why’ would be that ‘nothing’ cannot be, for we also note that the simpler and simple states are prone to be ever more reactive, plus that this is a complete solution, whereas “stuff having been forever” seems to have an incompleteness about it, as noted.

    This doesn't seem personally conclusive for you?

    Only the second part, which is why I go for the first.


    Systems of change would be a prerequisite of energy dissipating through infinity, up or down (you get the meaning); sorry have to stop there . . .

    Yes, if all had been inert, nothing would have happened. Looks like simple stuff has to readily combine and/or go through phase changes, just as we see.



    It is also that, since this formation of oppositely balanced has been happening forever (and ever will), that one could even nearly say that stuff was around forever, too, in general; however it wasn’t the same exact stuff, so, not quite.

    Same stuff, different form/energy spectrum/distribution.

    Infinity for me is the only ending. Mathematics tends to fall to it in the end.

    We could still admit this as a third possibility, but incomplete solutions are not really solutions. Even, so, though, what all three have in common that the basis, whether nothing or actual stuff, was eternal and infinite, and that any creation of this basis never happened at all, which is a sure thing for humankind to note, someday, when more are able to. We’ll have to look for even more evidence of a balance of opposites to further decide upon ‘nothing’, which would even be a further shock to many, beyond that of no creation.



    This knowing of why anything exists allows us to better comprehend the cosmos, for it then explains, or leads to, somehow, as to why their is a balance of oppositeness of charge and matter/antimatter from pair production, which may even be the root of energy conservation, and that time, the 4th dimension, may be related to charge, for it seems that it would have to be charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, although this can’t happen in actuality. Motion, not stillness, seems to be the natural norm. The great question of "Why is there something instead of nothing?" was stated backward.

    For me it is more "How can something be made of nothing?"

    I know, for either way seems impossible, and that makes it hard to choose either one. It’s just that something has to give, for there’s nothing to construct it of.


    For me it is all evolution, whether there is a creational force or not. It equates to the same thing.

    Eternity is long enough and infinity is wide enough for everything to go through all of its paces time and time again. And so here we are in one of those more productive parentheses of forever and everywhere.



    It also explains why the cosmos is so vast, for not only is space infinite (with the ever present quantities of volume and QM jitterbugging), but that its complement, the Planck size and within has to be so infinitely (infinitesimal) tiny. Our finiteness exists at the mid-point in-between. Infinite largeness and infinite smallness are really the same vacant ends of nothing, one dispersing to zero and one contracting to zero. Total solidity is just as impossible as total nothing, and, so here we are, perched in-between.

    This seems very subjective. Have you ever delved deeper into possible modes, organisations of infinity?

    Infinity. Different assertions of what it could be. You seem uneasy with the idea that infinity is true. I like to embrace it as I can see no other way. Around this I build my theory.


    Infinity and eternity must always be so. You can count on them, in whatever way.


    The Why of existence, too, comes out of all three propositions: it has to be. All we need to do now is some more localization, by noting more of the mechanics of the How.

    Why two and only two stable matter particles, the electron(-) and the proton(+) (and their antiparticles)? Just two, for neutrons decay in about 12 minutes or so. Why only two ways to make them stable?

    Why only one stable energy particle, the photon (neutral charge)?

    It is that this is the only way the cosmos can be?

    Why only one specific speed of light and no other? It is the one and only dimensional equivalent between distance and time, a ratio.

    Why 3 dimensions of space? We have three dimensions because the singularity of nothingness demands existential closure, which demands compositional parity of positive and negative, which demands cubic space. Our universe’s dimensionality is as inevitable as its existence. The three dimensions of space are compositional, and thus the nullification of existence at totality must be carried out by the fourth, charge, which must be an aspect of time, as well as motion is, too.

    Our existence in the finite realm must occur at the mid-point of infinite largeness and infinite smallness (infinitesimal), both of which are the same vacant truths, of zero, the first dispersing away into nothing and the second shrinking away to nothing. It is no wonder that scientists have trouble reconciling the large versus the small.


    1 + (-1) = 0

    Largest * smallest = 1 (finite unity)

    Conservation laws: because all must sum to zero.

    Reality: as real as real can be; a balance of opposites.

    The ground state: necessarily causeless.

    Beyond the ground state: cause and effect; determinism.

    Implications of infinity and eternity: everything, in all forms, again and again, even more instances of us somewhere, sometime. No first anything. No first matter from light; no first light from matter. No first star, which, by the way, requires some amount of higher atomic matter for ignition, yet this is only produced by stars. No first anything, no last anything. This is the third revelation to mankind, beyond the eternal.infinite and of ‘nothing’, the seemingly strange properties of forever systems being able to be their own precursors, like some kind of mobius strip; yet, this makes them complete, and completeness is what we like, for they contain their own history and future, everywhere and always.


    Now the “ism’s” of imagination’s claims, right and left, as mere pronouncements and proclamations to be endlessly repeated as made-up, ungrounded wishes pale in comparison to actually getting down to the nitty gritty, which few will do, anyway, as emotions get in the way, blocking even the thinking of going down that path.
     
  22. universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    "One would have to say how the stuff got there."

    pulling away from infinity.

    "They would still have cause and effect, even if only stabilizing, but it is still stuff, and no effect could settle in if it took forever for the downward chain to have cause. Stuff still has to be accounted for, as we can’t use magic to have defined stuff never having been defined."

    External energies can be deflected into usable elements within, getting tangled up into different forms of energy. Is there a time gap between relevant cause and effect? Or does it just happen and cascade instantaneously (effectively). There is no distance to travel subjectively, well tiny fractions upon fractions. This doesn't preclude the fact it is there just because we do not know its nature?

    Talking about matter reacting with not something within, but with iteself. Is there a time lapse?

    And anyway, much stranger notions are entertained within the assessment of the quantum. Basing theory on present evidence alone is a limit?

    "A composite complex Being is ruled out, too, since it would be dependent on its parts, which would have been there even a long time before, so, the Being could not have been fundamental as the first, planning and creating everything else."

    Yes but do we speak of a god of universes or multiverses or infinity. How can a composite complex universe arise? same thing . . .

    "The only naturally occurring starting point is the lack of anything, not something already there, yet, this ‘nothing’ is so unstable that it can’t exist even for an instant, and never could, and never will be able to."

    Lack of anything is impossible if infinity is possible.

    There can always be areas of control within the infinity. But I suppose a creator of infinity itself is a hard concept to understand. Maybe that is how god (this type of god) limited us, to not see him/her/it? It could be simply a conceptual limitation built into the fabric of the universe, or maybe we are too dumb. Or maybe a wave has to come back around to see the truth, and then just find higher non-understandings.

    "Inception of life is ever possible, even such as alien beings and life forms way beyond our own, but they can’t be fundamental and first, as they were much later inceptions of what was. For, example, we took four billion years to evolve, and that was even with luck, so, we were relatively speedy."

    Localised gods are plausible, and if we go down far enough this equates to a subjective infinity anyway. But of course despite our own limitations we can always take a few more pieces and find a theoretical way around. We are only thinking as a human and not as a creator of infinity.

    "I know, for either way seems impossible, and that makes it hard to choose either one. It’s just that something has to give, for there’s nothing to construct it of."

    Always something on the other side.

    "Our existence in the finite realm must occur at the mid-point of infinite largeness and infinite smallness (infinitesimal), both of which are the same vacant truths, of zero, the first dispersing away into nothing and the second shrinking away to nothing. It is no wonder that scientists have trouble reconciling the large versus the small."

    There is no mid-point if infinity is actual.

    Having this discussion has just opened up a new direction of thought, a new mode of infinity that I am not sure meshes into my present theory but it should as it is an extrapolation from the existing one. Isn't it funny how just thinking about stuff even if it is against your own, can trigger a new understanding in ones-own already direction?

    The above has been the same problem I have been running around in my head. I gave up on finding the answer. How can infinity be created by an agent of intelligence. But now I think I have a model that could work. I am writing a book you see. It's fiction, but it will build this idea; I think i may have just decided on the finale of book 6. I am writing a paper as well but I am not so sure how these types of musings are received into publication, are you?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
  23. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Yes but do we speak of a god of universes or multiverses or infinity. How can a composite complex universe arise? same thing . . .

    Complex, composite non Gods are fine, but they can't be the Creator of everything.

    Infinity also goes against the gain of intuition, for the word essentially means "that which can never be attained", as does eternity meaning "that which never began nor will end", but accept these we must, for beginnings are more impossible, for any theory with a beginning or a boundary have something before or outside it, which really takes away from it being the All.
     

Share This Page