Did God create the universe?

[ольга]

It's not "my ideas about man'[kind]". It is what we know by research and study and evidence.

You believe there is something called a soul. It's a nice thing to want to believe, but as I said before, you're going to have a tough time defending that with any kind of empirical evidence.



My actions are determined by what I think.

How does your introduction of a soul change that? Whatever "will", "purpose" or "mastery" you may attribute to this soul you believe in, can instead be attributed to our minds in our bodies.

Т.е. ваш разум является своеобразным "государством в государстве", и не подчиняется законам природы? Как вы можете это объяснить?

 

[DaveC426913]

So your mind is a kind of "state within a state" and does not obey the laws of nature? How can you explain this?

What? Who said any such thing?

Do you think "a mind is state within a state"? If not, why write it?
Do you think "a mind does not obey the laws of nature"? If not, why write it?

Much like this:

I am simply now reasoning within the framework of your ideas about man. If a man is a biorobot consisting of some kind of sensors that react to the environment, then he is completely dependent on this environment. All his actions are determined by the environment. What kind of "master of fate" is there?

It seems like you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Do you think man is "a biorobot consisting of some kind of sensors that react to the environment, then he is completely dependent on this environment"? If not, why write it?

 

[billvon]

The universe was formed by an explosion.

No, it wasn't. That's your misconception.

When you do not understand the theory you are criticizing, it is safe to dismiss any of your objections to it as uninformed.

Look, a theory proved in half is not proved at all. You must do better. Right now, you have no A, no D, neither an F. You have a Zero. ha ha ha ha

Again, when you understand absolutely nothing about the theory, you can safely be ignored.

The background microwaves are not valid evidence, those can be residuals from past supernovas.

Nope. If that were the case it would not be uniform. It would be concentrated around supernovas.

Now: location. Call the fire department of your jurisdiction to help you with this, finding the place of the explosion. Do not disappoint me again please.

THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION.

Your ignorance will lead to a lifetime of disappointment. I recommend you remedy it.

 

[ольга]

What? Who said any such thing?

Do you think "a mind is state within a state"? If not, why write it?
Do you think "a mind does not obey the laws of nature"? If not, why write it?

Much like this:


It seems like you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Do you think man is "a biorobot consisting of some kind of sensors that react to the environment, then he is completely dependent on this environment"? If not, why write it?

У меня такое впечатление, что переводит ИИ. Я писала:"государство в государстве", он переводит:"состояние внутри состояния".

 

[DaveC426913]

I have the impression that it is translated by AI. I wrote: "a state within a state", it translates: "a state within a state".

What difference does it make? They're all concepts you brought to the table and apparently are trying to fit into my mouth.

Why don't you stick to what you think, and let me worry about what I think?

 

[ольга]

What difference does it make? They're all concepts you brought to the table and apparently are trying to fit into my mouth.

Why don't you stick to what you think, and let me worry about what I think?

О.к.

 

[James R]

Anyway, it's not my battle alone. I doubt there is an astrophysicist alive today that would countenance - let alone voice - the idea that the BB was an explosion. They will fall over themselves to correct it.

I might beg to differ on that. But this is not a hill that I feel I need to die on.

 

[James R]

It's generally difficult when trying to describe anything for which there is no real reference, using language that by it's very nature is referential.

Yes.

The big "Bang" invokes the idea of an explosion, for example, so from the getgo it's more difficult than it might be.

As somebody else already mentioned, the term "big bang theory" was originally invented by somebody who didn't think much of the theory. It was meant to be disparaging, because it suggests a simple and probably wrong mechanism, but the term was later adopted by champions of the theory as well.

I see such language in such instances as just metaphor, and the key being to not get too attached to the metaphor but to what is actually happening.

That's a common trap that people sometimes fall into when encounting scientific jargon for the first time.

And when science isn't entirely clear what is actually going on, choice of language may push/pull you in one direction at the exclusion of other valid interpretations.

Yes.

For example, many might think that the expansion of the universe is because space itself is expanding, and this results in objects being further apart. But it is equally valid to describe it as space not expanding and objects moving apart "while under the influence of their mutual gravity" (or so suggests wiki).

I don't see much of a distinction there. There's a bit of a problem with the second description, because intuition suggests that gravity always tends to cause attraction between two objects, which tends to decrease their separation, not increase it. Yet the expansion of the universe has all these things with mass moving further apart all the time.

Also, per wiki (and who are we to disagree...):

wikipedia is not perfect or error-free.

"The expansion of the universe is the increase in distance between gravitationally unbound parts of the observable universe with time."
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

That's a reasonable definition, though it does risk communicating the incorrect idea that gravity has a limited range of influence. It's sort of true, in a way, but not quite true.

So is this due to the metaphorical push or pull?

In physics, there is no important distinction between "push" and "pull". Both are forces. "Push" and "pull" are only useful, in some circumstances, to indicate the direction that a force is acting. Attraction between two objects is sometimes described as a mutual "pull", while repulsion is sometimes described as a "push", but this is not universal and the usage is usually context dependent.

 

[James R]

Then provide us with your version of what:
1. What is a charge.
2. What is the cause of the mass of the electron.
3. The cause of gravity.

If I may jump in...

The answers to your questions are:
1. Nobody knows, exactly. It's a property that some particles have, but only ones that are affected by the electromagnetic interaction.
2. The Higgs mechanism is now understood to be the cause of the mass of every massive particle.
3. Nobody knows. There are four known fundamental interactions. Gravity is one of them. Gravity acts on things that have mass or energy. Electromagnetism acts on things that have electric charge.

 

[Pinball1970]

Anyway, it's not my battle alone. I doubt there is an astrophysicist alive today that would countenance - let alone voice - the idea that the BB was an explosion. They will fall over themselves to correct it.

It's just an analogy, you watched the Feynman video? "Explosion" is good enough talking about it, BB was actually supposed to be a snipe at the Theory but that is the name now.

You read the Weinberg ref?

From the first three minutes?

"In the beginning...."

 

[ольга]

If I may jump in...

The answers to your questions are:
1. Nobody knows, exactly. It's a property that some particles have, but only ones that are affected by the electromagnetic interaction.
2. The Higgs mechanism is now understood to be the cause of the mass of every massive particle.
3. Nobody knows. There are four known fundamental interactions. Gravity is one of them. Gravity acts on things that have mass or energy. Electromagnetism acts on things that have electric charge.

Спасибо. Ключевое слово здесь: "не знает". Как на комсомольском собрании: "не знаем, но осуждаем"...

 

[river]

God is about life . God , life , can not create space nor the physical things . Of which the universe has .

But Life manipulates the periodic to its needs .

 

[Write4U]

God is about life . God , life , can not create space nor the physical things . Of which the universe has .

But Life manipulates the periodic to its needs .

Seems to me that life or biological animation is just another expression of dynamical systems that exhibit growth. This already happens at mineral level, such as crystal growth and even more fundamentally, the expansion of the universe itself.

 

[river]

Crystals don't think . Life does .

 

[Write4U]

Crystals don't think . Life does .

Bacteria don't think, yet they communicate. Slime mold have no brain, yet they seem to think! Define thinking.
Is thinking right or wrong, or can it be either, or both?

p.s. Is anybody familiar with this: https://thinkingispower.com/about/

 

[river]

They evolve .

thinking is defined as taking information , form reason , and then form the logic , from the reasoning .
from experience . Environment .

 

[Write4U]

They evolve .

From what initial state? What does it take to process information. Evolved senses? Do you see the problem with that argument?

Ever you considered that thinking may not need life at all. We have already created non-living, but thinking artificial intelligence.
And what man can create, nature already has practised in some fundamental form, long before Gods were invented and evolved.

 

[river]

Simple life forms that evolve to us . Or any life form . Fauna or Flora .

 

[river]

Artificial intelligence needs life to create it .

 

[Mr. G]

Artificial intelligence needs life to create it .

Think of the possible religions that might arise in AI communities.