The problem with the "God did it" premise is that it adds to the complexity and answers are being found without resorting to "God did it". prologos, you are not going to find a satisfying answer that challenges your confirmation bias on a discussion board. These are sound bytes at best, and sloppily written. We enter the realm of philosophy where debate is endless. Pleasurable for some....
" the universe made itself " but---
by prologos 111 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
J. Hofer
look up "bootstrapping". it's commonly used in information technology.
-
prologos
It is not named "SchnuerSENKEL*" for nothing. it si not a "SchnuerLIFTER" sorry for circumventing rule 8.
You can not levitate yourself by your bootstraps. * senken, like sinking.
If one can explain a concept in simplest terms perhaps one understands it. just learning.
-
jgnat
I very much enjoyed the wiki article on bootstrapping. Thank you, J. Hofer.
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little...Isa 28:9-10 KJV.
To simplify too far is to lose meaning. It also becomes too easy to dismiss new knowledge. I suggest rather you get a primer on the subject of abiogenesis or the origins of the universe and build one precept upon the other. Wikipedia, a little reading of Feynman, a video from an Italian physicist, and I have at least a passing understanding of what they are talking about. It can start by asking what forms the rainbow in a grease spot (polarization, the dual nature of light).
-
prologos
bohm, there are of course many unanswered question about the "big bang" energy singularity and particularly about the anti-matter / matter asymmetry.
I f you understand it, you are in a unique position.
The authors whose work I read imply that the nothingness has energy, not just the casimir effectand I like to hear how people figure all that energy was funneled through the singularity to coalesce into the matter that is our universe.
The quoted phrase :--the universe made itself--" is interesting in that it implies that it is MADE indeed, so the question remaining really is: How was it made,
auto-creation, or by a maker, as everyTHING is we observe.
Even lifting yourself by the shoe-laces implies the existence of shoes and you.
pulling like that is hard on the hands.
-
bohm
prologos: The authors you reference are likely advancing one particular scenario suggested by one particular interpretation of quantum gravity. Like I wrote, they have no idea if they are basing it on the correct theory, and they have no experimental evidence to back any of this up.
So when you say: auto-creation, or by a maker, as everyTHING is we observe.
what about a third option, that some yet unknown mechanism (different from god) caused it? are you ruling that out, if so, why?
The evangelics insistence big bang theory is about "nothing becoming everything" is a total strawman, we dont now that.
-
J. Hofer
prologos, the concept is that complex things come from very simple things. to start a complex software, you first start a very simple software. in linux/unix environments among others, this is called bootstrapping. also, simple computers were used to design more complex computers. it's quite trivial actually. simple organisms evolved to more complex organisms etc.
-
prologos
Hofer, of course, obviously, our greater brain power was a good development from simpler days. but we are dealing with more basic THINGS here like noTHINGs.*
I like to amend the Topic/ Threat to read:
"--the Universed Made itself--" HOW?
please give us your understanding.
* IBM has moved from providing fire guidance for the BISMARK and punch cards to tabulate ethnic populations to the pc.
-
jgnat
Moving target, prologos. You started with the universe, then threw in the origins of life, then went back to the universe.
-
rawe
Hi Everyone,
In the universe of "origin of..." questions the universe itself is unique. A couple words that appear in prologos posts above is 'pre' and 'thing' (or 'stuff'). We say the universe came from 'nothing' not to be flipped, but to express this issue. All that relates to time (before, pre, now, later, etc) and material (stuff, thing, etc) is a result of the universe existing.
As to the origin of the universe it appears we can only be certain of two things, that it did happen and it was about 13.7 billion years ago. As to the origin of life, it of course must have happened, since life exists, but in this case we can talk about reasonable pre-conditions that naturally resulted in the first living thing.
The problem with God is the speculation is unconstrained. The observed expansion of the universe implies that it had a beginning. Computer models of how the universe expanded factor in known things like the four fundemental forces. In fact all of science works that way. But God can do anything, be anything, interact without normal means of detection and on and on.
That is a different kind of speculation than, say for incidence, the speculations of Roger Penrose in Cycles of Time, where he gets around the 'before' problem by looking forward in time to a vastly expanded universe that grows so big that it loses a grasp of time and space and thus sets up the next pop, or cycle, that looks for the world like a big bang event. Key to this speculation is massive black holes that echo across this boundary. This, if I have understood Penrose well enough (and I sure may not have), is key to what makes is speculation potentially observable.
Cheers,
-Randy