Jump to content
Eternal Lands Official Forums
furio

Big Bang and Black Holes

Recommended Posts

As far as Black Holes go... *shrugs* I don't know. They're big, they have a lot of gravity, and beyond that, they're billions upon billions of miles away from me, so they don't exactly qualify as a pressing problem. If pressed to offer a guess, I'd say they're a sort of "dimensional locus", where the accumulation of density has hit such a point as to create a re-virtualization of particles into the active vacuum. This theory precludes the need for "wormholes" or "white holes", or potentially even other universes, as mass/energy exchanges constantly cycle between observable and virtual states. But that's just a guess, and there's probably an even cooler truth to the whole bit. *shrugs*

 

you've made some good points and i agree with most of it.

 

the problem is that while i can accept religion as an exploration of human spirituality, i in fact believe that humans are spiritual and moral beings, but this originates from nothing more than a collection of cells transmiting electrical signals, not by the existance of a greater being who somehow guides us. if i do something nice for someone its not because of any guidance or direction from anything but years of evolution that has hardcoded all living things to ensure the contination of thier genetic line or a genetic line close to theirs.

 

the problem i have is that religions teach their beliefs as if they actually happend, over half of americans dont believe in evolution, which is ridiculous, this very fact proves it is not the minority who want ID to be seen as truth but the majority of christians at least, as an exercise in human nature religion is fine but as a way to determine the truths of the universe, something they very actively do, i can't accept it.

 

as the bit of your post ive quoted above, hopefully your second sentence will soon be false and black holes will be created when the large hadron collder is turned on in a few weeks(ive probably mentioned this before), i really cant wait and this discussion may be a completely diffrent one in a few months when those results have been collated and tested against the current viable theories of the universe.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem as I see it isn't a matter of "which one is right".. because frankly, they're both involved in completely different arenas. Religion exists to cater to the spiritual needs of man. Science exists to derive hard facts about the Universe. The problem is that a great many "believers" in *both* sides are so insecure of themselves that they wind up *insisting* that their particular side is the "be all, end all, of Truth".

 

Ask a Priest about the correct frequencies needed to produce a standing columnar wave in electromagnetics.. You will *not* get a useful answer from the body of knowledge that his vocation employs. Ask an astrophysicist whether the soul, being made manifest by Divinity, inherently obtains Divine characteristics to its nature or if it rather requires a separate dispensation of those characteristics, and you will *not* get a useful answer from the body of knowledge that his vocation employs.

 

Obviously neither side can lay claim to being "absolute" in terms of knowledge.. Science by its very nature is constantly reinventing itself (or should be, anyway) through the accumulation of new learning and new experimentation. Religion even admits its imperfect knowledge by the oft-turned phrase "The Lord works in mysterious ways."

 

To say "I do not know" is perhaps one of the most courageous things a human can say. It acknowledges that we are imperfect, limited, and vulnerable, as we all know we are. In the saying, it means we have to look our own weakness squarely in the eye, and it takes a certain security of self to do so. On the other hand, any fool can loudly proclaim that "This is the only, absolute truth".. and allow themselves to be completely convinced by their own bravado. It's a convenient way for many to avoid having to look at the things they fear within themselves.

 

Eheh, science has left behind the idea of absolute truth since ages (but i agree not all the scientists around do the same) substituting it with the absolute doubt (the "I dont know" you where talking about), a thing that is absent in religion where you have a mystery instead. A doubt can be answered with some effort, a mystery is unsolvable by definition...hence science is dynamic and tends to increase knowledge, whereas religion (not spirituality, just religion) is static (look at how slowly clumsily the churchs catched up in the centuries...)

 

 

I dont see this matter as silly...actually religious and scientific fanatism are both the "evil" of this centuries. On one side we have the "faith" on the Market and the neverending Progress. I heard people telling me that global warming is not a real problem, because soon we will colonize other planets...

On the other side we have the "faith" is some god which tells you not to have sex, not to use condoms (spreading this way HIV all around Africa), not to study evolution and so on.

Both examples of what happens when you lack an healthy doubt guiding your actions and thoughts. And it is even worse when the two help each other.

 

 

Last i disagree on subjective and objective knowledge to be unmixable. I think i pointed out in some post before that science cant give you a moral or a ethic, but can help you build one to achieve the civilization you strive for. Your moral guides your actions and they modify the world...isnt better to know how the world works to a good extent before choosing a moral?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope no one minds that I tackle both responses in a single post... seems to avoid multiposting that way..

 

you've made some good points and i agree with most of it.

 

the problem is that while i can accept religion as an exploration of human spirituality, i in fact believe that humans are spiritual and moral beings, but this originates from nothing more than a collection of cells transmiting electrical signals, not by the existance of a greater being who somehow guides us. if i do something nice for someone its not because of any guidance or direction from anything but years of evolution that has hardcoded all living things to ensure the contination of thier genetic line or a genetic line close to theirs.

 

You pose a somewhat paradoxical dilemma here, Anima.. While I have no problem with the idea of "morality" being able to arise from the genetic expression of a successful trait-strain, it's really rather hard to have the notion of "spirituality" without the notion of "spirit".. a notion which both genetics and neurochemistry get really nervous around. However, just for the sake of exploration of the topic, I would put forth that the notion of a "Deity", or some other sort of "transcendent entity" to which we relate, in one sense or the other, via spirituality, does not necessarily mean that said entity "guides us".. It is perfectly within the realm of possibility that we are here to "learn to figure things out for ourselves", after all.

 

This, of course, isn't meant as a dismissal of your beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, you have every right to believe whatever you like on a personal level, be that genetics or an invisible flying spaghetti monster. If the notion serves you well, by all means embrace it. This is just a playing of "devil's advocate" on the notion of spirituality.

 

the problem i have is that religions teach their beliefs as if they actually happend, over half of americans dont believe in evolution, which is ridiculous, this very fact proves it is not the minority who want ID to be seen as truth but the majority of christians at least, as an exercise in human nature religion is fine but as a way to determine the truths of the universe, something they very actively do, i can't accept it.

 

I share a great many of your criticisms and misgivings about religion, Anima. I majored in it in college, and have been studying it with interest for many years on my own. While I'm deeply interested in the subject, I don't think this is the appropriate spot for me to dig into the theological and philosophical problems inherent in any one doctrine or group of doctrines, so I'll avoid it. I will say again, however, that I don't think there's any way for science to tackle the issue of "existence or non-existence of deity", and to quote a line from my own initial statement -

 

The problem is that a great many "believers" in *both* sides are so insecure of themselves that they wind up *insisting* that their particular side is the "be all, end all, of Truth".

 

This is a problem I see with most dogmatic religions. It's part of the "social control" structure that such religions embody which encourages this "absolutism" as a means of promoting group unity. It's a severely flawed proposition, but it does remain effective, regardless of its detrimental effects on the believer and/or society at large. In essence, however, although our individual outlooks on the notion of Spirituality and Divinity may differ significantly, I think we're largely in agreement on the notion of the problems created by rigid, absolutist belief systems.

 

as the bit of your post ive quoted above, hopefully your second sentence will soon be false and black holes will be created when the large hadron collder is turned on in a few weeks(ive probably mentioned this before), i really cant wait and this discussion may be a completely diffrent one in a few months when those results have been collated and tested against the current viable theories of the universe.

 

I, too, am looking forward to reading about the new interpretations of physics that will inevitably result from the LHC's activation. I just caution you not to be too optimistic about the speed of changes in the interpretations of the commonly accepted models.. Science seems to have a rather solid ideological inertia about itself these days, much like religion... and its just as unhealthy in either case.

 

Ok.. On to Fedora's post :D

 

Eheh, science has left behind the idea of absolute truth since ages (but i agree not all the scientists around do the same) substituting it with the absolute doubt (the "I dont know" you where talking about), a thing that is absent in religion where you have a mystery instead. A doubt can be answered with some effort, a mystery is unsolvable by definition...hence science is dynamic and tends to increase knowledge, whereas religion (not spirituality, just religion) is static (look at how slowly clumsily the churchs catched up in the centuries...)

 

I disagree that a "mystery is unsolvable by definition".. If you get into the early use of the word, the "Mystery Traditions" that formed early religion are somewhat of a "selective mystery".. They were unknown to the general public, but taught "hidden truths" via a system of instruction and initiation that revealed "knowledges beyond that commonly accessible".. Thus to "know the mystery" is to possess a secret understanding that only the initiated have access to. It is entirely a parallel with the modern practice of a "priesthood" having advanced knowledge and authority on spiritual matters. But I digress a bit.

 

Science, while it may ideologically claim to have left behind the idea of "absolute truth".. hasn't done so when it comes to practice. Certain branches of the sciences, such as astrophysics, quantum physics, etc... maintain a much greater state of "openness to new ideas" than others, but this is primarily because those branches are in a tremendous state of flux at the moment, with volumes of new data pouring in, and models being constantly re-developed in light of new data. Other branches of Science, for example, Electrodynamics, are working on assumptions that were made over 100 years ago, and *never* challenged, even though quantum physics and related disciplines have produced *reams* of data that strongly suggest they should. This "Ideological Inertia" parallels the "static" nature that you attest to religion.

 

And, in certain ways, just as the Roman Catholic Church refused for centuries to accept the "new" notion that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and even had people put to death for espousing the idea, Science *still* hasn't embraced the truths that Lorentz' assumptions on Maxwell's equations are full of bunk, even though 2 Nobel Prizes have been awarded on the subject (1 for the theory, 1 for the experimental proof) and around 50 years have passed. Each system has their own "detrimental resistance to change" present.

 

I dont see this matter as silly...actually religious and scientific fanatism are both the "evil" of this centuries. On one side we have the "faith" on the Market and the neverending Progress. I heard people telling me that global warming is not a real problem, because soon we will colonize other planets...

On the other side we have the "faith" is some god which tells you not to have sex, not to use condoms (spreading this way HIV all around Africa), not to study evolution and so on.

Both examples of what happens when you lack an healthy doubt guiding your actions and thoughts. And it is even worse when the two help each other.

 

Perhaps it would be better if I used the word "foolish" instead of "silly?" Fanaticism and Extremism are not just the "evil" of this century, but have exerted a titanic negative effect upon societies for thousands of years. And they have, historically, for all the atrocity and barbarism they have wrought, been proven to be very foolish positions. If there can be said to be a true "constant" to reality, that "constant" must be "change." Rigid and absolutist belief systems change only with extreme reluctance, and become a severe detriment to those who cling to them, thus, I would call it "foolish" or "silly" for a person to take up such a position. Time will, inevitably, prove their absolutism incorrect.

 

Last i disagree on subjective and objective knowledge to be unmixable. I think i pointed out in some post before that science cant give you a moral or a ethic, but can help you build one to achieve the civilization you strive for. Your moral guides your actions and they modify the world...isnt better to know how the world works to a good extent before choosing a moral?

 

I never suggested that subjective and objective knowledge are "unmixable"... What I stated was that they cannot be *substituted* for each other. A person's life is a perpetual mix of both subjective experience and objective knowledge. That any given event happens is objective... but the *meaning* that a person assigns to the event is entirely subjective. We *have* to combine the two sorts of knowledge to deal with our lives. The problem arises when "authorities" on subjective knowledge start making decrees about the efficacy or "truth" of objective knowledge subjects, and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

first let me compliment you on your well thought out and written post, it was a joy to read

 

i perhaps used the word spirituality wrongly, i mean nothing more than an awareness that you are more than the sum of what creates you, a fact i believe in itself to be false. it is a feature of the very genetic code that humans are built upon to think that there is more beyond this code, nearly every civilization has independently created a form of religion, those these in general differ as much as chalk and cheese they do all share some common features and for this to be coincidence is beyond comprehension, there must be something within each and every human that leads them to the conclusion that there is greater being(s).

 

The problem is that a great many "believers" in *both* sides are so insecure of themselves that they wind up *insisting* that their particular side is the "be all, end all, of Truth".

 

as for this, i do accept there is some of what you describe in science, but falsifiability is still a great pillar of scientific progress, a theory is still only properly accepted if it can be proved false by a single example. a principle thought up Karl Popper who said this was the very definition of science, and what sperated it from psuedoscience/religion/mysticism/whatever. while the people on the frontiers of science have created some outlandish unfalsifiable theories of late im not sure these are fully accepted. even string theory may take a massive blow at the LHC if the supersymmetry it predicts does not make itself evident.

 

as for the LHC, i think so much effort and money has gone into it that whatever results it produces maybe taken as wrote, something equally as dangerous as clinging to old theories. this could be the biggest experiment of all time, im not sure anyone is gonna spend $6billion on a science experiment again anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the first post only to make my own honest reply...

 

I believe in me, and accept it. I believe what I see. (Knowing)

I don't believe in anything that stupid, scared human monkeys have come up with. All *ist's for ex. Religions.. w/e.

 

I think black holes are insane gravity, so if you get close it pulls you in at such extreme speed that your whole body (body for example lol) wont get pulled at the same time. Therefore you dissolve - but dissapear? Nah, I think it gets compressed. Extreme measures :P

 

"Thinking" is entertaining, but crap actually. *teasing for replies* ;)

 

<3

Tvinn

 

good approach to the world :)

 

when you are near a black hole you get stretched not compressed, which sounds counter intuitive but is a result of basic newtonian equations that say gravity is inversley proportional to the square of the distance between the masses, so your feet get pulled a lot more than your head.

 

nothing ever reaches the singularity in the time frame of the singularity and so you would never enter the black hole since it would take forever to reach the singularity, even though a person could watch something fall into a black hole. there is no time in a black hole if a force can stop light then all of relativity breaks down and lengths of time always come out to inifinty.

 

 

I meant the center of the "hole" is extremly compressed, but seems not ;)

What your saying about getting stretched is what I tried to explain.

 

And I'm kind of stepping away more then approaching the world by now :/ To much crap going on I cry myself to sleep (not really).

 

Everything else... just interesting! :D

 

<3 Tvinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first let me compliment you on your well thought out and written post, it was a joy to read

 

i perhaps used the word spirituality wrongly, i mean nothing more than an awareness that you are more than the sum of what creates you, a fact i believe in itself to be false. it is a feature of the very genetic code that humans are built upon to think that there is more beyond this code, nearly every civilization has independently created a form of religion, those these in general differ as much as chalk and cheese they do all share some common features and for this to be coincidence is beyond comprehension, there must be something within each and every human that leads them to the conclusion that there is greater being(s).

 

Thank you for your kind words, Anima. I likewise enjoy your responses. It's a great pleasure to be involved in this kind of dialogue.

 

It is this very "incomprehensible commonality" that lies at the root of much of the more reasonable arguments for the existence of a deity or transcendent being, in my opinion. I'll be completely honest here... I am primarily a mystic and spiritualist by personal orientation. That being said, however, I do try to be as rational about it as possible. I also freely accept anyone's right to disagree with that outlook, as we all have different understandings that best serve our individual needs.

 

In terms of a sort of notion of "Science vs. Spirit" (a notion I am somewhat reluctant to wade into, for obvious reasons,) there is a distinct separation present between the concepts of "brain" and "mind". From a neurological point of view, for instance, let's take the example of the Delta brainwave. From the standpoint of Biology and Neurology, Delta waves occur in two circumstances. The first is when a person is deep in REM sleep. The second is when a person is in a deep coma. According to the established body of scientific research, Delta wave brain function equates to a state of non-interactivity, and a general state of non-functionality. However, there does exist a body of research, done by investigators at the University of Washington, which has documented several investigations done on the neurological activity of spiritualists, psychics, and so called "faith healers". This research has documented several cases where subjects were shown to be both in a Delta Wave brain pattern *and* completely alert, responsive, and communicative during their particular practices.

 

From a "brain" point of view, they should be unconscious. From a "mind" point of view, they're still functional. Then there's a fellow by the name of Wim Hof.. who's ability to withstand what should be fatally freezing temperatures absolutely baffles doctors. He's a practitioner of an ancient form of meditation from the Himalayas called "Tummo", which is reputed to generate heat.. Physiologically, the notion is nonsense.. but there has been nothing else put forth by anyone to suggest how this man is able to perform what should be "physically impossible."

 

There are also examples of the mind managing to affect the brain.. even things as intrinsic as brain chemistry. From a physiological, scientific standpoint, "mind" is simply a phenomena of neurotransmitters and brain-cell firings.. the physiology being the "causal" factor. Yet we have countless studies done affirming that a patient's attitude influences their chances at a physical recovery, and even the powerful example of the "placebo effect". On a personal level, I was diagnosed many years ago with severe clinical depression, the result of an imbalance in my brain chemistry. I was told I was going to have to be on medication to correct that imbalance for the rest of my life. I was on the medication for approximately 3 weeks. By that point, I had worked on the psychological end of the equation... changing my Mind, and how it reacted to circumstances.. I discontinued the medication, and have been fine ever since. The brain chemistry imbalances have disappeared.

 

While I do not conclude this sort of thing as a "proof" for the brain/mind separation, it does appear to me to be a powerful statement leaning in support of the notion. From that basis then, I tend to view the "incomprehensible commonality" between the widely disparate world religions, including the nearly omnipresent belief in some sort of "supreme" or "transcendent" being(s) as suggestive that, at some deep level of our nature, we hold an awareness that such being(s) actually exist. Again, not "proof".. but highly suggestive, at least via my interpretation.

 

That doesn't get into the notions of "morality", or the like, which I will fully admit could simply be a product of trait expression related to social efficiencies.. but for the notion of "Spirituality", or that "awareness", it seems a rational, if subjective, conclusion. If such an awareness were purely genetic, I'd expect to see it on a much more comprehensive scale, as it transcends most normal "barriers" to genetic intermingling.. In other words, atheism should be much less common, from my perspective.

 

The problem is that a great many "believers" in *both* sides are so insecure of themselves that they wind up *insisting* that their particular side is the "be all, end all, of Truth".

 

as for this, i do accept there is some of what you describe in science, but falsifiability is still a great pillar of scientific progress, a theory is still only properly accepted if it can be proved false by a single example. a principle thought up Karl Popper who said this was the very definition of science, and what sperated it from psuedoscience/religion/mysticism/whatever. while the people on the frontiers of science have created some outlandish unfalsifiable theories of late im not sure these are fully accepted. even string theory may take a massive blow at the LHC if the supersymmetry it predicts does not make itself evident.

 

as for the LHC, i think so much effort and money has gone into it that whatever results it produces maybe taken as wrote, something equally as dangerous as clinging to old theories. this could be the biggest experiment of all time, im not sure anyone is gonna spend $6billion on a science experiment again anytime soon.

 

Indeed, I fully agree that falsifiability is of tremendous importance to Science, and should be thusly embraced. Within the standards that Science demands, it's quite essential. I was not meaning to impugn Science itself.. only to illustrate that certain *practitioners* thereof can often be guilty of the same "militant unreason" or "dogmatic adherence" as practitioners of religion.

 

However, one ought not dismiss out of hand such things as pseudoscience, religion, and mysticism either.. True, they do not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny, and some forms may present serious detriment to individuals and societies involved with them.. but they can, potentially, also offer insights and inspiration upon which Science can draw. After all, in terms of application, all Science still requires a human being to make something of it, and to drive it forward, and humans often find the impetus for brilliance in some very unusual places.

 

Regards,

Drue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of a sort of notion of "Science vs. Spirit" (a notion I am somewhat reluctant to wade into, for obvious reasons,) there is a distinct separation present between the concepts of "brain" and "mind". From a neurological point of view, for instance, let's take the example of the Delta brainwave. From the standpoint of Biology and Neurology, Delta waves occur in two circumstances. The first is when a person is deep in REM sleep. The second is when a person is in a deep coma. According to the established body of scientific research, Delta wave brain function equates to a state of non-interactivity, and a general state of non-functionality. However, there does exist a body of research, done by investigators at the University of Washington, which has documented several investigations done on the neurological activity of spiritualists, psychics, and so called "faith healers". This research has documented several cases where subjects were shown to be both in a Delta Wave brain pattern *and* completely alert, responsive, and communicative during their particular practices.

 

From a "brain" point of view, they should be unconscious. From a "mind" point of view, they're still functional. Then there's a fellow by the name of Wim Hof.. who's ability to withstand what should be fatally freezing temperatures absolutely baffles doctors. He's a practitioner of an ancient form of meditation from the Himalayas called "Tummo", which is reputed to generate heat.. Physiologically, the notion is nonsense.. but there has been nothing else put forth by anyone to suggest how this man is able to perform what should be "physically impossible."

 

There are also examples of the mind managing to affect the brain.. even things as intrinsic as brain chemistry. From a physiological, scientific standpoint, "mind" is simply a phenomena of neurotransmitters and brain-cell firings.. the physiology being the "causal" factor. Yet we have countless studies done affirming that a patient's attitude influences their chances at a physical recovery, and even the powerful example of the "placebo effect". On a personal level, I was diagnosed many years ago with severe clinical depression, the result of an imbalance in my brain chemistry. I was told I was going to have to be on medication to correct that imbalance for the rest of my life. I was on the medication for approximately 3 weeks. By that point, I had worked on the psychological end of the equation... changing my Mind, and how it reacted to circumstances.. I discontinued the medication, and have been fine ever since. The brain chemistry imbalances have disappeared.

 

While I do not conclude this sort of thing as a "proof" for the brain/mind separation, it does appear to me to be a powerful statement leaning in support of the notion. From that basis then, I tend to view the "incomprehensible commonality" between the widely disparate world religions, including the nearly omnipresent belief in some sort of "supreme" or "transcendent" being(s) as suggestive that, at some deep level of our nature, we hold an awareness that such being(s) actually exist. Again, not "proof".. but highly suggestive, at least via my interpretation.

 

That doesn't get into the notions of "morality", or the like, which I will fully admit could simply be a product of trait expression related to social efficiencies.. but for the notion of "Spirituality", or that "awareness", it seems a rational, if subjective, conclusion. If such an awareness were purely genetic, I'd expect to see it on a much more comprehensive scale, as it transcends most normal "barriers" to genetic intermingling.. In other words, atheism should be much less common, from my perspective.

 

 

First, let me add my compliments for all your arguments (and for your mystical attitude which i share with you).

 

Brain vs Mind is another epic struggle. My spirit suggests my consciousness that whenever a struggle arise, it is due to my inadequate knowledge or approach to things. Brain is the organic substrate on which the mind works, mind is what the brain does. A part of the mind is so developed to be able to create a fictional world where a character called "I" exists. There is nothing unexplainable or mysterious about a change of the mind affecting the brain, since due to the structure of the brain, it's inner workings are able to change it's electrical behaviour and viceversa. The brain highly affects the body, and again, nothing strange in a change of the mind changing the body...i have personal experiences about this, i have seen many psichiatric patients at the edge of death for complex and unexplainable diseases, coming back to life in a week with a couple of drugs AND the help of analysis (unseparable imo). Your case is in the same line, an imbalance being caused by a neurotrasmitter alteration or by some "unhealthy" relation of the mind/brain with the world (a.k.a. your life) has been corrected by meditation or, in other words, a forcing of the mind/brain on a certain path of behaviours.

 

For EEG and delta wave...eeg is a very primitive instrument, very inaccurate apart to detect macroscopic phenomena (epilepsy). EEG should be intracranial to be at least usable in such researches, and still is very inaccurate. This said, is completely possible, by the definition of mind, that healers, mediums and the like can enter a not-yet-studied electrical state of the brain...maybe a state where most of the "normal" activities are shut down so some other of them can perform a better attuning to the world and an awesome prediction/empathy capabilities. (As for healers...often is a matter of how you approach the patient, just that...).

 

For the "Tummo", i wont say much since i dont know about it (look, i said i dont know ;)). Still, mind/brain controls Simpatic System, which in turn is able to act on the body brown fat to generate heat...i wouldnt be so baffled.

 

Last, the "incomprehensible commonality" of religions and more generally of human behaviours are the result of our structure as beings and as a specie (imo). Life is evolution, and the brain/mind is based on the same process (selection of behaviours by sinaptic changes). Evolution is also slow and boring, it repeats the same scheme for ages until an useful variation occurs. Mind in contrast is fast and less stable, it evolves rapidly (thanks to the source of variations which is the interaction with the world). We all start as "animals", where every mind aspect is guided by instincts (a system of values wired in by genetics to direct the evolution of the mind towards goals good for the being/specie). The nucleus of instincts (self preservation, sex, etc...) plus the early-learned notion of "power" (the relation of your strength with the one of other similar beings) lead to what i recognize as the "innate idea of god". Namely the feeling or idea emerging from the constant sampling of your mind of a world where causality is a necessary concept to survive, and the sampling of inter-human relations where respect and obeying to the power is also necessary. Add the ability of the mind to create hierarchical classifications, to cluster things by similarity...and the idea of a god is there (being it a father/mather or a spirit whenever the causality or power/sex aspects gets stronger).

 

As for evolution, new things are often added at the top of old ones...and that makes the today mind a stratification of "historical minds", each layer added both by experience, education and meditation (i suggest you the works of Carl Gustav Jung, they are an awesome reading about the subject). And we will pass it to the next generations, with infinite moral implications...ok, ok, little too much OT now :pickaxe:

 

 

 

P.S.

yes, foolish is way better than silly :pickaxe:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, let me add my compliments for all your arguments (and for your mystical attitude which i share with you).

 

Thank you. It's been a very enjoyable series of discourses, and I heartily enjoy your side of the debate as well :)

 

Brain vs Mind is another epic struggle. My spirit suggests my consciousness that whenever a struggle arise, it is due to my inadequate knowledge or approach to things. Brain is the organic substrate on which the mind works, mind is what the brain does. A part of the mind is so developed to be able to create a fictional world where a character called "I" exists. There is nothing unexplainable or mysterious about a change of the mind affecting the brain, since due to the structure of the brain, it's inner workings are able to change it's electrical behaviour and viceversa. The brain highly affects the body, and again, nothing strange in a change of the mind changing the body...i have personal experiences about this, i have seen many psichiatric patients at the edge of death for complex and unexplainable diseases, coming back to life in a week with a couple of drugs AND the help of analysis (unseparable imo). Your case is in the same line, an imbalance being caused by a neurotrasmitter alteration or by some "unhealthy" relation of the mind/brain with the world (a.k.a. your life) has been corrected by meditation or, in other words, a forcing of the mind/brain on a certain path of behaviours.

 

Interesting notion, Fedora. While I well understand that the mind is able to influence the body, having utilized that ability to a fairly significant extent in my own life, I confess I operate on a different understanding of the mind-brain relationship.

 

It seems to me that if the "Mind" was simply "That which the brain does", ie, solely a process of its function, that it would be far more subservient to the biological processes. In other words, it seems very unlikely that a process of pure cognition would alter the demands emplaced by the chemical processes of neurochemistry. If we're dealing with the results of a pure electrochemical process, the mind should be simply the "effect"... or "that which the brain does".. the idea of an effect altering its own causal factor seems a bit off, in terms of conventional understanding. My own experiences, especially within the realm of that "mystic" perspective, suggest that it may be more of a tight symbiotic relationship between two self-existent bodies. The Mind requires the Brain to function within the body, and the Brain likewise requires the Mind. But I've also seen people who have effectively "turned their Minds off" via severely misapplied mystical sorts of endeavor, even when the physiology of their Brains, according to the best we can observe, is perfectly "normal". There's just nobody home.

 

Granted, some of my experience in that department is unusual.. and I doubt that there's been any really *serious* inquiry done in terms of scientific evaluation of the subject.. It just seems to me that there's a substantive aspect to the "mind" that exists, in some fashion, apart from being simply the result of biological function.

 

For EEG and delta wave...eeg is a very primitive instrument, very inaccurate apart to detect macroscopic phenomena (epilepsy). EEG should be intracranial to be at least usable in such researches, and still is very inaccurate. This said, is completely possible, by the definition of mind, that healers, mediums and the like can enter a not-yet-studied electrical state of the brain...maybe a state where most of the "normal" activities are shut down so some other of them can perform a better attuning to the world and an awesome prediction/empathy capabilities. (As for healers...often is a matter of how you approach the patient, just that...).

 

Yes, EEG is indeed primitive.. one of the big problems we face in terms of coming to a real understanding of the brain/mind nature and relationship is that it's often terribly hard to get serious research done into the "strange exceptions" areas. A great many academics and scientific professionals tend to shun anything that might "look weird" to their peers for fear of having their reputations and/or careers ruined, and it's terribly hard to get money for high-end equipment when you say you're wanting to "study psychics".. lol

 

When you add to that the understanding that less than 5% of the human population exhibits signs of any form of "active" abilities in terms of the parapsychological or metaphysical, (although the notion of latent potential is represented in a *vastly* larger population subset), the number of individuals available who might be willing to partake in such a study *and* have the requisite levels of ability is darn slim..

 

When I work with teaching metaphysical techniques to others, the alteration of the brainwave states is one of the first subjects I cover. Almost *any* sort of metaphysical, psychic, or even "deeply religious" activity very often involves a profound shift in brainwave patterns. There is almost always a shift from standard beta-wave into alpha-wave states, and the more involved and/or practiced the individual, the deeper those waveforms go.. into the alpha-theta and delta wave states. So I'm certain there's an "unexplored" physiology involved somewhere.. it's just that nobody's seriously looking for it.

 

For the "Tummo", i wont say much since i dont know about it (look, i said i dont know ;)). Still, mind/brain controls Simpatic System, which in turn is able to act on the body brown fat to generate heat...i wouldnt be so baffled.

 

Well, to be honest, I don't know much about Tummo either.. Just that it's a form of meditative practice that's supposed to generate heat.. and there are stories of monks practicing it in Tibet, sitting nearly naked in the middle of blizzards, in freezing temperatures, covered with a wet blanket, and the blanket is reputed to dry and the snow around them melt, just from the practice. *shrugs*. The only "modern, western practitioner" that I know of is Wim, and the dude was submerged in an ice bath up to his neck for 1 hour, 13 minutes, 48 seconds.. and when he came out, his skin was still pink... tis some truly exceptional stuff there..

 

Last, the "incomprehensible commonality" of religions and more generally of human behaviours are the result of our structure as beings and as a specie (imo). Life is evolution, and the brain/mind is based on the same process (selection of behaviours by sinaptic changes). Evolution is also slow and boring, it repeats the same scheme for ages until an useful variation occurs. Mind in contrast is fast and less stable, it evolves rapidly (thanks to the source of variations which is the interaction with the world). We all start as "animals", where every mind aspect is guided by instincts (a system of values wired in by genetics to direct the evolution of the mind towards goals good for the being/specie). The nucleus of instincts (self preservation, sex, etc...) plus the early-learned notion of "power" (the relation of your strength with the one of other similar beings) lead to what i recognize as the "innate idea of god". Namely the feeling or idea emerging from the constant sampling of your mind of a world where causality is a necessary concept to survive, and the sampling of inter-human relations where respect and obeying to the power is also necessary. Add the ability of the mind to create hierarchical classifications, to cluster things by similarity...and the idea of a god is there (being it a father/mather or a spirit whenever the causality or power/sex aspects gets stronger).

 

Well, I can't fault your reasoning, Fedora, in terms of the notions of compounding experience and resampling and the like.. I'm just not sure I agree with the conclusions. :D As a mystic, the "fictional I" interacts at great length with "fictional god(s)" in the "fictional world" within the mind.. and it often proves quite useful, even in application to a "nonfictional real-world". Indeed, some of these perceived "entities" that I have encountered in this "mindscape" are such that I was finally able to identify them later by reading accounts describing them in old legends.. Now, I'm not going to stand up and declare absolutely that they are "real".. or something other than a construct in my mind.. but it strikes me as suggestive that the same experiences have cropped up over thousands of years, between peoples whose lives and experiences are as disparate as can possibly be, and still maintain distinct, identifiable traits and commonalities of interaction. It's almost less of a stretch for me to believe in "Gods" than in improbabilities of that scale.. lol But at any rate.. one way or another, the experiences I've had are quite "real" to me, and have influenced me as profoundly, if not more profoundly, in some cases, as any "real world" experiences I've had. Because of that, the supposed differences between "fantasy" and "reality" (to use the common parlance for them) become rather a moot point.

 

 

As for evolution, new things are often added at the top of old ones...and that makes the today mind a stratification of "historical minds", each layer added both by experience, education and meditation (i suggest you the works of Carl Gustav Jung, they are an awesome reading about the subject). And we will pass it to the next generations, with infinite moral implications...ok, ok, little too much OT now :D

 

P.S.

yes, foolish is way better than silly :)

 

I'm familiar with Jung.. specifically his notion of the "Archetypes".. I'm not perhaps as "brushed up" on the subject as I ought to be for this discussion, but I do rather like his general approach to psychology.

 

As for Foolish vs Silly.. Ok.. foolish it is then.. lol I was using silly in the "Monty Python-esque derisive sense", as in "On second thought, let's not go to Camelot.. It is a silly place." :devlish:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip...the idea of an effect altering its own causal factor seems a bit off, in terms of conventional understanding...snip

 

i dont feel like matching you and fedora's long posts right now but i'll pick out this point in particular to counter.

 

there are a myriad of situations i can think of where an effect can have an affect on its own cause, for a start you could shoot your parents, they caused you and now you are very definitley 'altering' them. you could also look at humans on the earth, the pinnacle of the beings the earth has created is almost defined by its ability to change the earth.

 

as for the 'miracle' cures from cancer people have obtained simply through manipulation of the brain, i think the concious and sub-concious parts of the brain are very closely linked. now correct me on this if im wrong but afaik cancerous cells are not attacked by the body's immune system since they basically carry the same DNA as the rest of the cells, just modified very slightly. now the brain must have some control over the immune system, though it is largely self sufficient, i would find it far more believable that the concious can 'convince' the sub-concious to attack and kill cancer cells than to believe that there is a 'mind' by your definition, where it has some power above that of the body it controls.

 

now im off to bed i have a physics exam at 9.30 in the morning, fun fun fun :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snip...the idea of an effect altering its own causal factor seems a bit off, in terms of conventional understanding...snip

 

i dont feel like matching you and fedora's long posts right now but i'll pick out this point in particular to counter.

 

there are a myriad of situations i can think of where an effect can have an affect on its own cause, for a start you could shoot your parents, they caused you and now you are very definitley 'altering' them. you could also look at humans on the earth, the pinnacle of the beings the earth has created is almost defined by its ability to change the earth.

 

as for the 'miracle' cures from cancer people have obtained simply through manipulation of the brain, i think the concious and sub-concious parts of the brain are very closely linked. now correct me on this if im wrong but afaik cancerous cells are not attacked by the body's immune system since they basically carry the same DNA as the rest of the cells, just modified very slightly. now the brain must have some control over the immune system, though it is largely self sufficient, i would find it far more believable that the concious can 'convince' the sub-concious to attack and kill cancer cells than to believe that there is a 'mind' by your definition, where it has some power above that of the body it controls.

 

now im off to bed i have a physics exam at 9.30 in the morning, fun fun fun :whistle:

 

Good luck on your physics exam, Anima!

 

As far as your counter goes.. That's actually kind of the point I was going for.. If the "Mind" is just an "effect", it shouldn't be able to act upon its own cause.. A child, however, is its own "being".. not just an effect.. and it can act in a causal manner upon any other agent it contacts, including, in your example, its parents.

 

To put it in more physics terms, my brain notion would be a lot like a permanent magnet being altered by its own magnetic field... If the Mind is just an effect of the brain, like a field, I shouldn't think it would be capable of being "causal" to the Brain. However, if the Mind has an existant "being" of its own, or an identity or nature somehow beyond that of the status of an "effect", it *would* be able to act as an independent agent, or causal factor, upon the Brain. Hence my description of them as symbiotes, after a fashion. It's just a thought.

 

Of course, I suppose that it's quite possible that the structure of the brain has both active and passive points, whereby the brain generates the mind, but other bits of the brain are receptive to its influences, but which, in turn, are capable of influencing the "generative" bits... I don't really know on that one. It's an intriguing idea. In terms of affecting healing... The Mind, or some perception of it, at least, has been pretty well shown to be able to affect its own body.. The part where it gets bizarre is a mind affecting someone *else's* body.. Which, you may or may not accept as having occurred, but in my circles, it's a fairly common experience.

 

Like I've said though.. I can't swear an absolute knowledge of these things.. I just have my theories, based upon how things seem to me. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Drue

 

Many people believe that Science and Religion can coexist, since the answers they seek are different, and their methods are different.

I also believe that Science can coexist with Religion, but ONLY so long as the scientists are real scientists.

A real scientist never says: "This is bullshit". A real scientist is open to any possibility, because the role of science is not to disprove things, but observe things and try to draw some conclusions.

 

I strongly believe that God (and by God I don't mean the Christiano-Judaic God) created this world, and everything there is in it. I believe that the world has been coreated according to a very precise plan, and nothing is random. Consequently, I do not believe in free will, nor do I believe in morality, or absolute good or evil.

I believe that everything that happens happens for a reason (which most of the time eludes us).

 

The science is here so that we can try to understand God's creation. It's sort of an attempt to reverse engineer God's creation, so that we can understand and benefit from it.

 

The Big Bang theory is, I believe, total bullshit.

There are a few reasons why I believe that:

1. No experiments can be done to prove it.

2. There is no direct observation of it.

3. It is something without a cause (since there was no time or space before it, nothing in this Universe could have caused it).

4. The scientists understand that they will never be able to know how or why it started (Plank's limit).

 

So given 3 & 4, the most logical and obvious conclusion is that the Big Bang, if it indeed existed, was caused by something outside of this universe. And given the fact that the result of the Big Bang (us, typing those words on our keyboards), then the inescapable conclusion is that whoever is behind the Big Bang is an intelligent being. Those who claim otherwise are not scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Drue

 

Many people believe that Science and Religion can coexist, since the answers they seek are different, and their methods are different.

I also believe that Science can coexist with Religion, but ONLY so long as the scientists are real scientists.

A real scientist never says: "This is bullshit". A real scientist is open to any possibility, because the role of science is not to disprove things, but observe things and try to draw some conclusions.

 

I strongly believe that God (and by God I don't mean the Christiano-Judaic God) created this world, and everything there is in it. I believe that the world has been coreated according to a very precise plan, and nothing is random. Consequently, I do not believe in free will, nor do I believe in morality, or absolute good or evil.

I believe that everything that happens happens for a reason (which most of the time eludes us).

 

The science is here so that we can try to understand God's creation. It's sort of an attempt to reverse engineer God's creation, so that we can understand and benefit from it.

 

The Big Bang theory is, I believe, total bullshit.

There are a few reasons why I believe that:

1. No experiments can be done to prove it.

2. There is no direct observation of it.

3. It is something without a cause (since there was no time or space before it, nothing in this Universe could have caused it).

4. The scientists understand that they will never be able to know how or why it started (Plank's limit).

 

So given 3 & 4, the most logical and obvious conclusion is that the Big Bang, if it indeed existed, was caused by something outside of this universe. And given the fact that the result of the Big Bang (us, typing those words on our keyboards), then the inescapable conclusion is that whoever is behind the Big Bang is an intelligent being. Those who claim otherwise are not scientists.

 

So if I, as a scientist, adopt the stance that the big bang must have been caused by an intelligent being (your "inescapable conclusion") am I not declaring that any other conclusion is "bullshit", and hence not being a real scientist?

 

Things can be beyond current science's ability to predict and measure, and still not be due to the divine hand.

 

S. (bullshit artist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Big Bang theory is, I believe, total bullshit.

There are a few reasons why I believe that:

1. No experiments can be done to prove it.

2. There is no direct observation of it.

3. It is something without a cause (since there was no time or space before it, nothing in this Universe could have caused it).

4. The scientists understand that they will never be able to know how or why it started (Plank's limit).

 

So given 3 & 4, the most logical and obvious conclusion is that the Big Bang, if it indeed existed, was caused by something outside of this universe. And given the fact that the result of the Big Bang (us, typing those words on our keyboards), then the inescapable conclusion is that whoever is behind the Big Bang is an intelligent being. Those who claim otherwise are not scientists.

 

I don't agree with you. I don't find your conclusion logical.

 

Eihther way, I decided to quote a romancatholic priest, professor of cosmology.

If there is a hole in our knowledge we say "God did it". It is a very bad tactic, because then there comes an improvement and the science fills the hole and God becomes redundant.

 

<edit>

Michal Heller

Edited by Vanyel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't like my solution? Great! Come with an alternative then.

 

So if I, as a scientist, adopt the stance that the big bang must have been caused by an intelligent being (your "inescapable conclusion") am I not declaring that any other conclusion is "bullshit", and hence not being a real scientist?

Well, if you can come with some other, logical/valid solution, then do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you either believe in science or religion.

 

Big Bang caused the world or did god make it?

 

whats in black holes? there are all the mysteries that no one knows. are you a scientist? post what you think about the universe

 

Neither

I think the universe was created from a previous universe. Interesting theory? I read the new theory linked on slashdot.org a few week ago and it made more scene to me. Before the Big Bang

 

Many theories but... some questions may best be left unanswered. :evilgrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...snip

 

To put it in more physics terms, my brain notion would be a lot like a permanent magnet being altered by its own magnetic field... If the Mind is just an effect of the brain, like a field, I shouldn't think it would be capable of being "causal" to the Brain. However, if the Mind has an existant "being" of its own, or an identity or nature somehow beyond that of the status of an "effect", it *would* be able to act as an independent agent, or causal factor, upon the Brain. Hence my description of them as symbiotes, after a fashion. It's just a thought.

 

...snip

 

you have made me think of a better example now, if you place a wire and a magnet near each other and slowly rotate the magnet the rotation will be opposed since the magnet creates an electrical field in the wire which in turn creates an opposing magnetic field. since if you do this with a non magnet this effect will not occur it has to be said the magnetic field is affecting the magnet.

 

@Drue

 

Many people believe that Science and Religion can coexist, since the answers they seek are different, and their methods are different.

I also believe that Science can coexist with Religion, but ONLY so long as the scientists are real scientists.

A real scientist never says: "This is bullshit". A real scientist is open to any possibility, because the role of science is not to disprove things, but observe things and try to draw some conclusions.

 

I strongly believe that God (and by God I don't mean the Christiano-Judaic God) created this world, and everything there is in it. I believe that the world has been coreated according to a very precise plan, and nothing is random. Consequently, I do not believe in free will, nor do I believe in morality, or absolute good or evil.

I believe that everything that happens happens for a reason (which most of the time eludes us).

 

The science is here so that we can try to understand God's creation. It's sort of an attempt to reverse engineer God's creation, so that we can understand and benefit from it.

 

...snip

 

one of the major roles of a scientist IS to disprove things as ive already mentioned in this thread, falsifiability is a pillar of science, some scientists have worked their whole lives to disprove things so they can replace it with their own theories, einstein himself worked for years, a long with some of the other all time greats, to disprove quantum theory, this was their own theroy, it is a great testament to that theory that some of the greatest minds of all time could not disprove it. observation is a very small part of science, people draw conclusions very quickly and the rest of the time try to disprove them.

 

and scientist have come up with several theories about the cause of the big bang, which i prefer, that have more scientific basis than your's, but if you dont beleive in this scientific basis, i can't see how you would prefer them.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to explain your faith is like trying to explain color to any other species that only see black and white. You just see things that they cant. On another note we humans only see 3 different color pigments. Other species that see more, some up to 16 pigments can try to show, explain all the other colors in the world that exist and we will never even be able to imagine what they look like and maybe even doubt that those colors even exist. But there is enough evidence to have faith that they do exist. We may be the dominate species but not an authority on life by no means.

 

Along with vision example we have 4 other senses that we use to make our world. There is sounds we will never hear, smells we will never smell, tastes that we will never experience and matter types we will never feel because we are limited even though these things exist constantly around us. Like the color example, who is to say there isnt other instances all around us that we are just oblivious to because our bodies arnt equiped to detect it. As far as mankind is concerned radio waves didnt exist until we made a tool to make and detect them. i believe there is a better chance giving a monkey a hammer and asking him to build a space shuttle than man will ever come to figuring out the universe and existance. Because i think thats about the knowlege and tools we are equipped with to take on such a task. So all those who want proof of religion, forget about it, there are just some things that exist that will never be prooved but there is enough evidence and clues to have faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi quim, welcome to the discussion

 

your post seems a little hypocritical to me, you are saying religion cannot be proved, which i accept since i believe it to be false, yet you are trying to draw comparisons with things that can be proved, for a start im not sure what you mean by 'humans only see in 3 colour pigments', light colour is not really described this way in science, light is made of photons and the colour of each photon is dependant on its wavelength, humans see in the range we do since its the colour of the sun(green) all life on earth sees roughly in this range, some can see a little into the infra-red or ultra-violet spectrums but will almost certainly only see these as blue or red and not some other colour.

 

saying that as far as man is concerned radiowaves didn't exist til we could make and detect them, this may be true but i can see no link to religion, these things we didn't know about, as soon as we did know about them we could create good evidence for them. we have known about religion for thousands of years but we still have not come up with any good evidence for it.

 

i would also be interested to hear what the 'evidence and clues' you suggest for religion are, i am yet to be shown any evidence.

Edited by anima

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it sounded fancy but unfortunately wrong

http://health.howstuffworks.com/eye3.htm

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/603/

 

anyways i was only making analogies on facts to help draw a mental picture not give a science class.

you just gave a science class and was wrong/incomplete or missing. either way to say you dont know what the hell im talking about then offer your own theory as to how the eyeballs work just told me you debate anything without even having any knowledge on the subject. so with that theres no more to say and good reason for me step out of this discussion as quickly as i jumped in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it sounded fancy but unfortunately wrong

http://health.howstuffworks.com/eye3.htm

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/603/

 

anyways i was only making analogies on facts to help draw a mental picture not give a science class.

you just gave a science class and was wrong/incomplete or missing. either way to say you dont know what the hell im talking about then offer your own theory as to how the eyeballs work just told me you debate anything without even having any knowledge on the subject. so with that theres no more to say and good reason for me step out of this discussion as quickly as i jumped in.

 

 

Offtopic:

I'm getting an impression you slighly misunderstood the main idea of the first (of two aformentioned) papers. From the graphs presented there it is obvious that these 3 types of pigments are nothing more than passband filters. It doesn't mean they react to only one colour though. It means they react the most the the some colour ranges. The same graphs shows clearly that blue pigment is somehow sensitive to green one, so is red.

Considering colours are nothing more than electromagnetic waves of a certain length (frequency) Anima explenation was correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither

I think the universe was created from a previous universe. Interesting theory? I read the new theory linked on slashdot.org a few week ago and it made more scene to me. Before the Big Bang

 

Many theories but... some questions may best be left unanswered. :icon13:

 

Well, you see, most of the scientists have a big problem with the concept that "God is eternal", but they have no issue with "The Universe is eternal".

The pyhisics laws, as we know them now, do not allow for a Big Bang to come from a previous Universe. This Universe is always expanding, so it will never contract back. It has to do with the fact that the expansion force is bigger than the gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it sounded fancy but unfortunately wrong

http://health.howstuffworks.com/eye3.htm

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/con.../interview/603/

 

anyways i was only making analogies on facts to help draw a mental picture not give a science class.

you just gave a science class and was wrong/incomplete or missing. either way to say you dont know what the hell im talking about then offer your own theory as to how the eyeballs work just told me you debate anything without even having any knowledge on the subject. so with that theres no more to say and good reason for me step out of this discussion as quickly as i jumped in.

 

i know a little about these things since i am a physics student, in fact i probably know a little bit more than you, simply because i study things like this 5 days a week. as vanyel pointed out you have slightly misinterpretted the articles you quote above, in reference to the graph featured on the first page, it plots abosbtion against wavelength, as you can, i hope, clearly see humans can see all the colours between about 400nm and 700nm, what we call the visible spectrum. other animals see in this spectrum aswell, it is, as i pointed out, the best range for being able to see things in the light of our sun. they dont see other colours they just resolve colours better, from the graph you can see colours such as red(670nm) and blue(470nm) are not absorbed very well, have you ever noticed that its harder to read red or blue writing in a dark room than say green or yellow in the same light, this is why. but i'm sure we can agree we all know what blue and red look like, and in good light we can clearly see these colours.

 

i hope this clears things up for you, i didn't realise that i came across as playing 'devil's advocate' or for that matter speaking in ignorance in this thread at all, on anything im unsure of i clearly request to be corrected if im wrong. but im fairly sure on this i am correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
one of the major roles of a scientist IS to disprove things as ive already mentioned in this thread, falsifiability is a pillar of science, some scientists have worked their whole lives to disprove things so they can replace it with their own theories, einstein himself worked for years, a long with some of the other all time greats, to disprove quantum theory, this was their own theroy, it is a great testament to that theory that some of the greatest minds of all time could not disprove it. observation is a very small part of science, people draw conclusions very quickly and the rest of the time try to disprove them.

Science can disprove some things (for example, that honey is not made out of diamonds). But science can not disprove things that are outside the scope of science (for example, what is outside the Universe, what was before the Big Bang, etc.)

 

and scientist have come up with several theories about the cause of the big bang, which i prefer, that have more scientific basis than your's, but if you dont beleive in this scientific basis, i can't see how you would prefer them.

Yes, they came with a lot of bullshit, but unfortunately, they will never be able to prove or disprove those theories, because they do not have the tools to see in the past more than the Plank's time limit after the Big Bang. That's a limitation all the scientists are aware of, and any theories of what happened before that is child stories realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the limitation of planck's time, roughly 5.4x10^-44seconds, is an outcome of quantum theory that has been widely accepted by scientists, that however does not mean its completely correct, i am fairly confident in quantum theory myself yet it has some failings, here is a quote from wikipedia

 

"One Planck time should be the smallest measurable unit of time, according to quantum mechanics. But, according to news reports, analyses of Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field images in 2003 brought up a discrepancy. Images should have been blurry at very far distances, but the news articles stated that they weren't, challenging the theory that Planck time is indeed the smallest measurable unit of time in the universe."

 

so i dont think we can know for certain that the plank time is a real limitation, also if it is, we need not really know what happened in the first 'planck time' after the universe began since nothing can happen in less than a planck time, which means if we can understand the universe 1 planck time after creation it will only be the smallest possible step away from the begginng and could concievably understand the start of the universe from this, in fact the causal factor could well be evident in the very early universe.

 

until we have better proof, all of this in conjecture, and i in fact possibly misused the word theories, a theory should make testable predictions and no possible explanation for the universe is yet to make testable predictions, but i certainly dont rule out the possibilty of it happening one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not devils advocate just took something simple , over analyzed it broke it down to beyond the point and tried to ridicule in the process. the fact remains people see only 3 colors of light red blue and green. because we have only those 3 color cones in out eyeballs. how the elecro waves are formed delivered and interpreted had nothing to do with that fact. my point is that species that have less color cones in their eyes see less colors than we do. it doesnt mean they are not recieving the same amount of light they just dont see the color. and species that have more color cones than we do will see more colors than we do. it has nothing to do with the light spectrum itself. but i guess its easy to know that some animals see in black and white, thats easy to understand huh. so why is it hard to understand that species that have more color cones interpret light to many more colors than you can. but it proved my point he would never be able to explain it unless you could see what he can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×