|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > Supported Forums > Brian's Science & Nature Shack > Evolution (used to be "Reasons the Jews do not accept the Messiah") |
| Moderated by: Brian | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ...   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian "Actually, my understanding is that they have the math to back it up, so I'm okay with string theory (which is now apparently 11-dimensional M-theory)." It talking to a math professor friend of mine he tells me they might have the math to support it but there are probably only a handful of matheticians that really understand it and no real mechanism to test it. But some of the weird stuff proposed by these theories might explain what we think of as the supernatural. "It seems perfectly logical to me that there would be a First Cause. I just don't think it's necessary to anthropomorphosize that First Cause into an entity that cares about humans. (But who knows? I could be wrong." There is some interesting discussion on the issue of whether the existence of conscienousness and self-awareness arguement for anthropomorphizing the "First Cause".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member  Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, my understanding is that they have the math to back it up, so I'm okay with string theory (which is now apparently 11-dimensional M-theory). At this point that is jumping the gun. While string theory currently shows some promise, they do not have all the math in place to back it up, it is still very much in the concept phase. This topic may be worthy of a stand-alone thread of some kind, thought not devoted only to string theory. Last edited on 02:08 am by Aethelred |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian Hi, pmh1nic. Yes, it's my understanding that there's maybe a half a dozen people on the planet that have done the math involved. Verification experimentally (I suppose through computer modelling) is still some ways away. Here's the Wikipedia site on M-Theory. It may or may not be the answer to what created the Big Bang, but it does at least hint that the Big Bang could have a physical cause. I think humans anthropomorphize the First Cause because we're adept at seeing patterns. Most of the time, the patterns we see are correct, and indicate organization. However, sometimes the patterns we see are in fact random, signifying nothing (e.g., a cloud with a particular familiar shape, or a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like the Virgin Mary's image is burned into it). So, we look at certain things in the obserable universe and think to ourselves, "Hey, this is so organized and perfect for what it's doing, it must have been designed." And anything designed must have a designer. Humans are the only designers of complex objects that we know. Hence, the designer must be human-like. Anyway, that's why I think we do it. We want to see patterns. Randomness freaks us out.
 "It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From Wikipedia: "Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions. Some proponents of the theory now believe that a collision of two branes may have been responsible for the Big Bang (see Ekpyrotic)." To my mind it takes less faith to believe that a Creator made the Universe out of nothing than it does to believe that there are zillion mile long branes that are invisible, have always existed and go around bumping into each other and creating universes.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aethelred wrote: From Wikipedia: "Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions. Some proponents of the theory now believe that a collision of two branes may have been responsible for the Big Bang (see Ekpyrotic)." The problem is that M theory at least has some testable physics behind it. (That's not to say the theory has been proven, but at least it doesn't seem to contradict any physical laws so far.) The Creator God theory, on the other hand, being supernatural, has nothing to back it up, and nothing that ever can back it up, because supernatural events aren't subject to natural testing.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aethelred Pioneer100© Member Ye Olde Dead King
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian wrote: Aethelred wrote:From Wikipedia: "Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions. Some proponents of the theory now believe that a collision of two branes may have been responsible for the Big Bang (see Ekpyrotic)." True enough, I'll grant that God does not seem to be a testable theory at this time, at least not testable by science. However, these uncreated strings of energy would need to be god-like in their scope to have created the vast number of fine-tuned systems that we see in palce.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The Creator God theory, on the other hand, being supernatural, has nothing to back it up, and nothing that ever can back it up, because supernatural events aren't subject to natural testing." I won't say nothing backing it up. Interpreting the existence of a precisely balanced functioning systems as being the product of intelligence is based in the fact that our experience as intelligent agents in dealing with other precisely balanced functioning systems (experiential/experimental science) always points to them being the product of an intelligent designer. To claim that orderly functioning systems are NOT the product of intelligence defies what we know via scientific observation. As mentioned earlier the fact that such a thing as consciousness, self-awareness and what seems to be a universal sense of morality (with some variation) support the idea of a greater consciousness. If not from a Creator who imparts these characteristics then you in essence "believe" that they came into existence from nothing which in my opinion is a greater exercise of faith.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aethelred wrote: Brian wrote:Aethelred wrote:From Wikipedia: "Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime. Although branes similar to that representing our universe can co-exist in the theory, their physical laws could differ from our own, as could their number of dimensions. Some proponents of the theory now believe that a collision of two branes may have been responsible for the Big Bang (see Ekpyrotic)." In a certain sense, whatever it was that created Everything is God. That force/agent would be Deistic rather than Judeo-Christian in nature, though. M-theory only takes you so far. What created the branes that the theory depends upon? All the theory can tell you (if it turns out to be true) is that the collision of the branes led to the Big Bang. The theory has no opinion on what caused the branes in the first place.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "The Creator God theory, on the other hand, being supernatural, has nothing to back it up, and nothing that ever can back it up, because supernatural events aren't subject to natural testing." Hi, pmh1nic. Outside of nature, the only complex systems we're familiar with were created by us. But it doesn't follow that any complex system must have been created intentionally by a higher power. We have lots of evidence of how the solar system and our galaxy came about, and the cause of this very complex system was naturalistic. In fact, the only complex systems we've observed which we couldn't find a naturalistic explanation for are those systems we created ourselves. Consciousness is a tricky subject. Suffice it to say that our brains are electro-chemical engines of thought, so while we may not understand the precise nature of consciousness, we know that it arose naturalistically. And I would argue that to the extent that we have universal morals (an idea which I think some people would take issue with) these beliefs/behaviors arose because society needed them to survive. (If your society doesn't recognize some form of "Thou shalt not commit murder", things tend to go to hell (no pun intended) fairly quickly.)
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"That force/agent would be Deistic rather than Judeo-Christian in nature, though." Not necessarily. There is no way to determine one way or the other via the scientific method so taken the deistic view is just as much a matter of faith as believing in an Intelligent Designer and more so when other legal/historical and philosophical issues are considered.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "That force/agent would be Deistic rather than Judeo-Christian in nature, though." I should've been more clear: If there was an intelligent force/agent which created Everything, that would be the only part of the naturalistic world which had a supernatural cause or involvement. That would give the force/agent one job in the material universe: starting things off. (He/She/It may have the run of the place in the afterlife, but we have no observations to base that on, outside religious texts. Show me a person who's been dead a good solid week (to make sure every cell in his/her body was dead) and then comes back to talk about it. I'd consider his/her testimony adequate evidence of an afterlife.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Outside of nature, the only complex systems we're familiar with were created by us." Outside of nature is a misnomer. Man is a part of nature. "But it doesn't follow that any complex system must have been created intentionally by a higher power. We have lots of evidence of how the solar system and our galaxy came about, and the cause of this very complex system was naturalistic." Everything in nature acts/reacts based on laws/principles that cause the materials that make-up the universe to act/react in the way they do. It happens that those laws/principles are exceedingly precise in their operation so that the universe operates in the way that we see it operate. It's my understanding that those laws and principles in some form were in operation at the very beginning of the universe. Why? Some would argue it is presumptious to assume a God just to fill that gap. I'd argue that there are those the legal/historial and philosophical arguements make the concept of an Intelligent Designer more then just an assumption. "In fact, the only complex systems we've observed which we couldn't find a naturalistic explanation for are those systems we created ourselves." There is no naturalistic explanation for why the universe exist and operates according to the laws of physics as we understand them today. Our experiences as intelligent designers that created complex functioning systems would support not contradict the concept of a universe as the product of intelligent design. "Consciousness is a tricky subject. Suffice it to say that our brains are electro-chemical engines of thought, so while we may not understand the precise nature of consciousness, we know that it arose naturalistically." We do not "know" that it arose naturalistically. We guess at that based on assumptions that exclude the supernatural, the supernatural being things we can't explain. I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject but it's my understanding that the science of studying consciousness has developed some evidence that it is something more then just an electro-chemical process.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "Outside of nature, the only complex systems we're familiar with were created by us." True enough. What I should've said was, outside of naturally-occuring complex systems, the only systesm we know about were created by us artificially. "But it doesn't follow that any complex system must have been created intentionally by a higher power. We have lots of evidence of how the solar system and our galaxy came about, and the cause of this very complex system was naturalistic." I'm not sure "precision" is the right word. Within certain tolerances, the laws/principles we observe have to exist, in order for us to be here observing them. We could (and probably should) assume just as easily that the earth (i.e., natural processes) produced us, rather than the earth being produced with us in mind. style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8" It's my understanding that those laws and principles in some form were in operation at the very beginning of the universe. Why? "Why?", unfortunately, isn't the purview of science. Science is about how things happen, not why. "Why?" is a question for theologians. style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8" Some would argue it is presumptious to assume a God just to fill that gap. I'd argue that there are those the legal/historial and philosophical arguements make the concept of an Intelligent Designer more then just an assumption. I don't think it's presumptuous to assume a God to fill the gap. I think it's a perfectly valid hypothesis. (After all, as we've said before, at some point you get to an infinite regress, where you're down to a point where we don't have any good information.) The only thing stopping me from adopting such a view myself is that it seems unreasonable to me that everything else in the universe would have a naturalistic explanation and be bound by physical laws,except for this one thing. style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8" "In fact, the only complex systems we've observed which we couldn't find a naturalistic explanation for are those systems we created ourselves." As I said, science isn't in the business of "Why?". We don't need to know why the universe has certain laws. We just need to acknowledge that it has them, and then research the properties of energy and matter in the universe that create those rules. "Consciousness is a tricky subject. Suffice it to say that our brains are electro-chemical engines of thought, so while we may not understand the precise nature of consciousness, we know that it arose naturalistically." Except that the physical nature of consciousness isn't a mystery. Can a person blast a hole in their head and remain conscious? Consciousness is a product of the brain -- nothing more. It's an enormously complex product, but a product nonetheless. style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #f8f8f8" I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject but it's my understanding that the science of studying consciousness has developed some evidence that it is something more then just an electro-chemical process. Strictly speaking, there may be more going on than neurons firing and chemicals getting delivered. But whatever it is, it's going on in the brain, completely dependent on the resources the brain can take in.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"What I should've said was, outside of naturally-occuring complex systems, the only systesm we know about were created by us artificially." If we are a product of nature then what we create is something created artificially but as as product of nature. "I'm not sure "precision" is the right word. Within certain tolerances, the laws/principles we observe have to exist, in order for us to be here observing them. We could (and probably should) assume just as easily that the earth (i.e., natural processes) produced us, rather than the earth being produced with us in mind." Precision or "certain tolerance" is a matter of semantics. My understanding is that based on the total size of the universe by any measure of human standards those tolerance would be considered extremely precise. "Why?", unfortunately, isn't the purview of science. Science is about how things happen, not why. "Why?" is a question for theologians." Why is a purview of science. Science is always attempting to answer the question why. Why does water become a solid at 32°F? Why does the sky appear blue? "Except that the physical nature of consciousness isn't a mystery. Can a person blast a hole in their head and remain conscious? Consciousness is a product of the brain -- nothing more. It's an enormously complex product, but a product nonetheless....Strictly speaking, there may be more going on than neurons firing and chemicals getting delivered. But whatever it is, it's going on in the brain, completely dependent on the resources the brain can take in." Some aspects of consciousness are understood but there are aspects of consciousness that are not and based on what I've read on the subject (limited in scope) there are aspects of consciousness that defy naturalistic explanations.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
