There is nothing semantic with pre Big Bang.
Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life?
- Thread starter Minkey
- Start date
There is nothing semantic with pre Big Bang.
Yawn. You have subjectively and semantically defined pre Big Bang as "beyond the natural". Little wonder Special Relativity is beyond you.
As I have posted a couple of times on this thread I have medical specialists clients that are "born agains". As far as I can tell they "see" something and I have some empathy with that because of my views on telepathy. The other thing is "they are on board" so no longer query it. Probably similar to us with Access, we simply accept it and move along. I think some people like medical specialists also have their faith charged along the way by what they see.
And that is simply because I don't know and do swing around. I have had periods where i was a full atheist but that was in my 20s and I am now 62. But I am now far more deist than I was perhaps 10 years ago and more.
It is not a defence of religion or Christianity but the people who do believe. The atheist assessment that "borns agains" are all stupid and uneducated is way off the mark.
I did say earlier that different people will experience it at different levels amnd i would assume some people never experience it.
I think the "potential" truth in the Bible is something or some things happened ages ago and that triggered the Bible writings. As I have said before we can be pretty sure that a 100 million years ago animas with a much larger average size than today that had a reptile appearance were getting about the place. Those first fossils of big reptile animals kicked things off. But today there are all sorts of changing opinions and many will be driven by funding.
The god of the Bible seems to be limited. Why is temptation required for a test. Why Noah's Ark when a click of the fingers would do the job. Born Agains will say he had to communicate a message. But an all powerful god can communicate without the Ark.
But I also think the development of Abrahamic religions, which we call a markting exercise, needed the basic product there and where there was a common thread. Edit: in other words something happened all those years ago.
You are getting agitated again.
And you have the "natural laws" to cover pre Big Bang?
Like I said earlier, personality cults. The social status of the claimant is meaningless in science. "Wise men" is a deeply rooted religious concept without analog in science.
You swing around because you rely on what you assume is your intuition. Those who do not have the inclination or intellect to accomodate the science have little choice but to substitute faith. This is not a personal failing but a fall back position adopted by humans when confronted by unasailable challenges. Fortunatley we have some remarkable individuals who were up to it.
Unfortunately you have chosen the simplistic faith, characteristic of stone age goat-herders rather than trust in those remarkable individuals from science that brought us the incredible technologies that allow us to even have this conversation. Perhaps you revert to the indoctrination of your childhood. Perhaps you prefer the overt simplicity of a solution with a single easily comprehendible all-encompasing supernatural influence. But it is not a rational decision.
Why do you apply this solely to Abrahamic traditions? Scientology or Mormonism follow the same concept though are even more outlandish in their claims. People believe them too, even modern educated ones.
Does this not indicate to you that popularity is no judge of veracity?
No. In science we don't just make up something so we can pretend we know.
However I am one of many who have devoted enormous intellectual resources to assembling a coherent model that would lead to that "first pixel" in our Universe being embodied with the energy that led to everything we see.
Like others working in the field I sift through my ever-evolving model hoping to find a hint of an implication that would suggest a previously unobserved measurement that would confirm my vision of reality.
It is a tough field in a world with so much observation. Indeed some theorists have requested that part of the plethora of data now being generated be withheld for fear that observations will have so far outpaced the theory that such tests would become impossible.
Einstein predicted that light would bend around massive objects and an observation duing an eclipse in 1919 ultimately elevated his hypothesis to Theory. Without new observation we may find that there is nothing left to test the models of the Omniverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike375 http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1027995#post1027995
And you have the "natural laws" to cover pre Big Bang?
In other words you don't know.
And where will this energy have come from. Was there a "pre energy"
Originally Posted by Mike375 http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1027995#post1027995
And you have the "natural laws" to cover pre Big Bang?
In other words you don't know.
And where will this energy have come from. Was there a "pre energy"
Exactly. Any model of the Ominiverse must ultimately reduce the problem to geometry. Einstein redescribed Gravitation as a geometry rather than in terms of a force as it was presented by Newton.
A supernatural deity doesn't even come close to a sensible solution.
At the moment it is the only viable solution.
Have you ever considered the possibility that there is or was another "physics" that is beyond your wildest imagination.
You have locked yourself into a "man in the white beard" mentality.
The supernatural does not have to be in the image of a god. It is above and beyond all physics you have available.
That is the ultimate question in cosmology. What was this thing we cannot hope to ever directly observe that manifested not only the entire contents of the Universe but the essence of SpaceTime itself in that first pixel?
If I could answer that I would not be doing things like designing databases to pay my bills.
Well there you go, I got the ultimate question right
I am heading to bed soon. Will pick it up again maybe tomorrow during the day or after New Year's Eve. Long day and night tomorrow
Have a happy and prosperous New Year for yourself and loved ones
Mike McGuire
What is the only viable solution? Some indescribable supernatural "thingy"?
Perhaps I am an optimist but your "thingy" is not good enough for me. If I have a faith, it is a faith in the human capacity to think abstractly. I can see you are already well out of your depth but I still have plenty of capacity for more and I have no doubt some kid out there questioning their science teacher will ultimately be more capable than me, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking.
The white beard is your concoction and quite irrelevant. The Hindus let everyone have their own manifestation so some had elephant heads and more than a sensible number of arms. In the end your model attributes the origins of reality to a supreme consciousness.
This is a useless hypothesis that I reject because the only evidence supporting it is "you don't know". Making up something vague and claiming it is obviously the only solution because we don't have an alternative is profoundly irrational.
You even said you had come to accept a deity. You define your "thingy" as you wish but stop pretending that "something out there" is a viable solution.
ChipperT
Banned in 13 Countries
- Local time
- Today, 04:14
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 347
Pre-Big-Bang was the "monopole", whatever that was and however it got there. There is no "viable solution" to that question that we can describe at this point. So I guess a "supreme being" is as good a guess as any. But then, so would a "Gumby Racehorse" be as good a guess as any. In other words, where there is absolutely no information available that fits the scenario then any speculation is as good as any other, and is meaningless.
I disagree.
Complexity is implicit in any concept of a supreme being, consciousness or Gumby Racehorse, returning us to the task of determining the fundamental elements that manifested that complexity.
Speculation that involves a simple geometric relationship to define a universal (or more precisely, Omniversal) concept of energy would be a far better guess.
I do acknowledge that the underlying assumption of science is that all phenomena can ultimately be explained by a very small number of very simple relationships, ideally just one. However our experience in arriving at Quantum Mechanics and Relativity does suggest this as a reasonable supposition.
It has certainly been an incredibly successful strategy. Compare the achievements of Science with the atttempts over several milennia to develop the supreme being hypothesis where the pinnacle of insight was "God works in mysterious ways".
Lightwave
Ad astra
- Local time
- Today, 12:14
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 1,536
Well put
Here's another conclusion.
Faced with trying to explain the logic of real argument to the illogical isn't the only real conclusion that sometimes its just impossible.
Ater all Illogical argument by definition is beyond reasoning.
This mantra helps me on a daily basis dealing with some of the poor deluded souls(often management) I have to work with.
Happy New Year everyone
Last edited:
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 12:14
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
Quite easily. All good propaganda contains truth. Look at what Goebbels produced for Hitler
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Today, 07:14
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
Its funny you should mention that. I just finished rereading Brave New World. This edition of the book has an essay/diatribe written by Huxley at the end where he talks about dictators. He spends a lot of his time focusing on Hitler, propaganda, and mind control.
What I was trying to get from Mike375, however, was what parts, or "truths" did he think were contained in the bible. The major contention is the magical parts. Things that we know could have never happened (Noah's Ark is a good example).
Either way, I think that is progress. 100 years ago questioning the bible or saying it contained "some truths" would likely have gotten you strung up in many places.
ChipperT
Banned in 13 Countries
- Local time
- Today, 04:14
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 347
"The most convincing and most dangerous lies are those that are 99% true" - Dale Carnegie
Adam,
What I said was I think the Bible came about because of an event or events that did occur. I have also used the analogy with dinosaurs. As soon as you get past the fact that there were big reptile like animals getting about the place 65 million and more years ago then you are into stuff that is continually changing.
