The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 82
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    It seems odd to declare God a "he" when it is females that actually give birth.
    Sure, why not.

    And if there must be a creator for the universe to exist, does that mean there must be a creator of the creator?
    No, (s)he's infinite.

    IMO, some things are simply beyond human comprehension.
    Agreed.

    If believing in fables answers the unanswerable for you, great.
    More straw men.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ Because God isn't supposed to be magic, He's supposed to be a part of the natural world. If He made the world and all its physical laws, why would he go be in nonsense land? The supernatural idea is a notion made up by atheists to support their view.
    I don't think Carlos is an atheist.


  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    Why does creation requires a creator? Think about the gradual creation of a new species -- there is no creator beyond evolution and natural selection, or do you call that concept, "the creator"? In that case, physics created the universe.
    you are completly right about species and in general about evolution. What I meant the Universe (the matter) itself. Our Universe has a lifecycle, it was born and it will die, all scientist agree. So we either suppose that a) there was nothing before and will be nothin after, either suppose b) its timeline is only a part of something bigger, ethernal.

    case a) is very depressing (there will be nothing) and also raises the quesstion, how on earth can happen if there was nothing, then suddenly here is the Universe.

    case b) is much more simpler. There always were something (so we do not have the problem of how and most importantly *why* it started) which is bigger than our universe, and unobservable from our universe, and unimaginable for us. As a part of its existence in some point our universe was created. The process or the entity who created it (our Universe), is our Creator by definition.

    This sounds as a philisophycal thought (and indeed partly it is) but it is also physics, cosmology, again, refer to Stephen Hawking one of the most brilliant physicist of our age.

    Hawking goes further exposing the most important question, is it possible to transfer information from a (dying) universe to a new universe about to be born? If it is possible, then we (the humanity, with very advanced knowledge and state, what is unimaginable for as currently) will be the creator of a new Universe, and there will we survive... exactly as our previous universe intelligence transferred its information to our...

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    I really like this video if you have a spare 30 minutes for an existential crisis. It starts out hype and pop sci but then calms down after 3 minutes.


  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I really like this video if you have a spare 30 minutes for an existential crisis. It starts out hype and pop sci but then calms down after 3 minutes.

    Good ole melodysheep

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    you are completly right about species and in general about evolution. What I meant the Universe (the matter) itself. Our Universe has a lifecycle, it was born and it will die, all scientist agree. So we either suppose that a) there was nothing before and will be nothin after, either suppose b) its timeline is only a part of something bigger, ethernal.

    case a) is very depressing (there will be nothing) and also raises the quesstion, how on earth can happen if there was nothing, then suddenly here is the Universe.

    case b) is much more simpler. There always were something (so we do not have the problem of how and most importantly *why* it started) which is bigger than our universe, and unobservable from our universe, and unimaginable for us. As a part of its existence in some point our universe was created. The process or the entity who created it (our Universe), is our Creator by definition.

    This sounds as a philisophycal thought (and indeed partly it is) but it is also physics, cosmology, again, refer to Stephen Hawking one of the most brilliant physicist of our age.

    Hawking goes further exposing the most important question, is it possible to transfer information from a (dying) universe to a new universe about to be born? If it is possible, then we (the humanity, with very advanced knowledge and state, what is unimaginable for as currently) will be the creator of a new Universe, and there will we survive... exactly as our previous universe intelligence transferred its information to our...
    Dunno. Science fiction, mate. One problem that leaps to mind is that we don’t currently think (from data) that the universe will have a finite existence. But beyond a certain point it all becomes very odd and we enter the realm of Boltzmann brains (and universes).

    I’ve been following Penrose’s ideas on this. Very elegant and beautiful (as with all things Penrose); a different way of the universe giving birth to a new one that is consistent with current observations though it’s probably wrong.

    TBH I find that Hawking tended to dodge the basic existential question like most cosmologists; I doubt Penrose would deny this himself. The fundamental question remains in the realm of philosophy, and it’s my feeling that it will remain so by its very nature. A disproof of God via cosmology is not really compelling on that level.

    As a side bar I would say that it’s extremely important not to take cosmology too seriously especially one person’s theory - however eminent or brilliant. (I enjoy Penrose’s humble wryness on the subject.)

    Modern Lambda-CDM cosmology represents our best guess at addressing the data we have. (It is not completely successful- a persistent issue is the fact that there are two irreconcilable values for the Hubble constant.)

    It’s also quite a new model. I studied a little undergrad cosmology during the CDM (Cold Dark Matter) era - the assumption was the universe would eventually grind to a halt due to gravity. Just as I was graduating, new distant supernova data suggested accelerating cosmic expansion and necessitated the introduction of the Lambda to the model - the cosmological constant that is the ‘back box’ that contains cosmic acceleration in the Einstein field equation. Absolutely no one expected this even theoretically, and my textbooks are now obsolete.

    so, Cosmological models were subject to huge revision in my own lifetime. So skepticism seems reasonable.

    We’ve now had 20 years to think about it and still no one has an experimentally verifiable way of explaining accelerating cosmic expansion (Lambda); we have theories(Dark Energy, Quintessence etc) but the conclusion that it is happening at all based on the possibly quite shaky cosmological distance ladder and the simplifying assumptions of cosmology which assume beyond a certain scale the universe is effectively flat and homogenous. We can tell from recent observations of the large scale structure of the universe that this does not in fact seem the case.

    Tbf to Lambda-CDM it does a good job of explaining many features of our universe. As I say even though its a guess, it’s still our best guess and a remarkably educated one compared to where we were even a century ago…. and certainly none of the competing theories do a better job - yet.

    This is where JWST comes in I expect. The more data we get the more questions we’ll have. It’s always the way.

    This is going to be fun!

    Ultimately cosmology is a narrative based upon science, not a science in the strict sense.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 08-19-2022 at 05:33 AM.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Dunno. Science fiction, mate.

    See Penrose’s ideas on this. Very elegant and beautiful; a different way of the universe giving birth to a new one that is consistent with current observations though it’s probably wrong.

    TBH I find that Hawking tended to dodge the question like most cosmologists; I doubt Penrose would deny this himself. The fundamental question remains in the realm of philosophy, and it’s my feeling that it will remain so.

    It’s extremely important not to take cosmology too seriously especially one person’s theory - however eminent or brilliant. (I enjoy Penrose’s humble wryness on the subject.)

    Modern Lambda-CDM cosmology represents our best guess at addressing apparently contradictory data, but is not completely successful- a persistent issue is the fact that their are two irreconcilable values for the Hubble constant.

    otoh the late 90s supernova data necessitated the introduction of Lambda - the cosmological constant that is the ‘back box’ that contains cosmic acceleration in the Einstein field equation. Bear in mind when I was at uni, this was all completely new; my textbooks are now obsolete. Cosmological models were subject to huge revision in my own lifetime. So skepticism seems reasonable.

    We’ve now had 20 years to think about it and still no one has an experimentally verifiable way of explaining accelerating cosmic expansion (Lambda); we have theories(Dark Energy, Quintessence etc) but the conclusion that it is happening at all based on the possibly quite shaky cosmological distance ladder and the simplifying assumptions of cosmology which assume beyond a certain scale the universe is effectively flat and homogenous. We can tell from recent observations of the large scale structure of the universe that this does not in fact seem the case.

    Tbf to Lambda-CDM it does a good job of explaining many features of our universe. As I say even though its a guess, it’s still our best guess and none of the other theories are better.

    This is where JWST comes in I expect. The more data we get the more questions we’ll have. It’s always the way.

    This is going to be fun!

    Ultimately cosmology is a narrative based upon science, not a science in the strict sense.
    ...tend to agree, especially with the parts of "science fiction" and "this is going to be fun". Indeed, this is fun. Thinking and trying to explore what the heck is this around us, (including us), is the ultimate goal an fun.

    ...regarding science fiction, (Battlestar Galactica) the most inspiring thought for me, that what we thought as humanity during seasons 01-final is not we (because Kara leads the crew to the Neanderthal(?) Earth) so the crew are not *we*, anyway, those humans are the Creator for the cylons. (Also the most exciting ethical question rises, do the Cylons have soul, or they just toasters?) There is a Creator for the Cylons, also for C-3PO's Anakin and Hawking information passing from the dying universe to universe is about to be born: there is a Creator for everyone, for us.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    ...tend to agree, especially with the parts of "science fiction" and "this is going to be fun". Indeed, this is fun. Thinking and trying to explore what the heck is this around us, (including us), is the ultimate goal an fun.

    ...regarding science fiction, (Battlestar Galactica) the most inspiring thought for me, that what we thought as humanity during seasons 01-final is not we (because Kara leads the crew to the Neanderthal(?) Earth) so the crew are not *we*, anyway, those humans are the Creator for the cylons. (Also the most exciting ethical question rises, do the Cylons have soul, or they just toasters?) There is a Creator for the Cylons, also for C-3PO's Anakin and Hawking information passing from the dying universe to universe is about to be born: there is a Creator for everyone, for us.
    I loved Battlestar and its murky and unresolved musings on religion. I like the fact that a lot it was just left unanswered. It reminded me a lot of Philip K Dick.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabor
    you are completly right about species and in general about evolution. What I meant the Universe (the matter) itself. Our Universe has a lifecycle, it was born and it will die, all scientist agree. So we either suppose that a) there was nothing before and will be nothin after, either suppose b) its timeline is only a part of something bigger, ethernal.

    case a) is very depressing (there will be nothing) and also raises the quesstion, how on earth can happen if there was nothing, then suddenly here is the Universe.

    case b) is much more simpler. There always were something (so we do not have the problem of how and most importantly *why* it started) which is bigger than our universe, and unobservable from our universe, and unimaginable for us. As a part of its existence in some point our universe was created. The process or the entity who created it (our Universe), is our Creator by definition.

    This sounds as a philisophycal thought (and indeed partly it is) but it is also physics, cosmology, again, refer to Stephen Hawking one of the most brilliant physicist of our age.

    Hawking goes further exposing the most important question, is it possible to transfer information from a (dying) universe to a new universe about to be born? If it is possible, then we (the humanity, with very advanced knowledge and state, what is unimaginable for as currently) will be the creator of a new Universe, and there will we survive... exactly as our previous universe intelligence transferred its information to our...
    Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

    "We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    I am not buying the "there MUST have been a creator" argument. The idea of "creation" is a human construct and requires humanity's bias for understanding time only as linear change—we simply don't have the ability to understand non-linear "time" or any number of possibilities that preclude this idea that there was "nothing" and then some "other thing or process" besides "nothing" came along and created "everything." Not only do we not have the words to describe such an existence, I think it's probable that even the most intelligent, gifted, insightful human being who's ever lived could never "understand" the implications of any of the above.

    Consider the structure of a tree, the sum of just the physical details that we can see, disregarding the underlying processes for how it functions, and the chain of events that had to occur in order for one tree to exist blows my mind—I think the two possibilities that my human mind is limited to—there is a creator or there is not a creator—are equally mind-blowing. Some physicists explore the idea that we exist in a "simulation"—I believe there was a paper that claimed it was more likely we are living in a simulation than not. What, then, is the simulation simulating? There's just no way for our ape brains to really "get" any of this, in my opinion. Some things are beyond comprehension, and that's okay—how much high-falutin' angst do non-primates suffer because they don't have to think about "meaning" or "creators"?

    Edit: Here's a link to an article on the simulation hypothesis:

    Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50 - Scientific American
    Last edited by wzpgsr; 08-19-2022 at 02:13 PM.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Right, time to wheel out my favourite Popperite

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I've read this whole, damned thing and come to the conclusion that I have no soul. These "big questions" are just not that important too me ..
    Q: is this all there is ..etc ? A: isn't this enough ? will answering this really change the way you treat others ?
    Q: how did humans get here, surely not just an accident of nature ? A: will answering this change your sense of honor / propriety ?
    ...apparently the answer is yes, in both cases. It'll cause at least one guy to stab another in the neck for casting aspersions on his favorite beliefs...
    ..and now, a simulation hypothesis ? This is what happens when people have too much time on their hands ... can someone find those guys a girlfriend ??

    ..and he spake unto me, said he him the holy word. He says ta me "Ook". ... He says "Ook-Ook". ... well I knew right then and there that my mission in life was to fling the holy excrement of salvation at everyone I saw .... a practice I intend to continue, just as soon as my parole is up ......
    BTW, I loved the universe video above. I think that stuff is fascinating.

    -best,
    Mike
    ( soul-less bastard )

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Right, time to wheel out my favourite Popperite
    This should be cross-posted to the 'How do you feel about modelers' thread.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Does pain hurt? Does love transcend? Nothing else really matters.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    Stephen Hawking's Final Book Says There's 'No Possibility' of God in Our Universe

    "We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."
    yes, this is the most exciting part. As the "thing" was *always* existed, and our Universe is only a small part of this timeline (from Big Bang to sure death) "there was no time for the cause exist in", because such as "time before the "thing"" makes no sense if the "thing" was always existed,

    ...however, this does not mean, that our Universe (again, which is only a part of the eternal timeline in where the "thing" is always existed and will exist) has no Creator. Creator is a relative entity, relative to its creation. For 3-CPO the creator is Anakin. For our Universe a Creator could be the entity who transferred his information (low enthropy) to our Universe at the time our Universe birth.

    so although the ethernal "thing" has no creator, but this does not mean our Universe has no Creator.

    (I used word "thing" for the super ethernal universe what were always existed, because the word "Universe" is already used to our observable Universe from its Big Bang to its death)

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    There being no existence or time for the universe to have been created in isn't proof that there's no creator. The end of the logic is simply that it's outside of our understanding. Which leaves us back at the possibility of a creator or no creator.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Stephen Hawking was saying the physics of the Big Bang doesn't need a creator. Of course, someone can posit a creator who creates in a way that looks like there is no creator!

    People get to believe whatever they want.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
    Of course, someone can posit a creator who creates in a way that looks like there is no creator! People get to believe whatever they want.
    That's you.

    Stephen Hawking was saying the physics of the Big Bang doesn't need a creator.
    There is no physics at the big bang. It's an effect without a cause.

    Rushdie-because-physics-jpg

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Right, time to wheel out my favourite Popperite
    Vernon Reid on Simulation Theory:

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Interesting article about multiverse theory in The Guardian:

    Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton: ‘Our universe is one tiny grain of dust in a beautiful cosmos’ | Astronomy | The Guardian

    As for Battlestar Galactica, I too enjoyed the ambiguity of the religious aspects left at the end of the show.

    I don’t recall ever reading anything about Hawking and transmitting information from one universe to its successor, but this does stir up vague memories of him talking about information crossing the event horizon from inside a black hole, presumably via quantum mechanical tunneling.

    However, if it *were* possible to alter the configuration of one universe from its predecessor, then presumably incredibly minor perturbations could have profound consequences as the new universe evolved, affecting the distribution of stars etc. Perhaps those who could read these stellar ‘constellations’ would gain access to supernatural information passed on by our universal predecessors? Wait a minute, weren’t the constellations significant in BSG!?

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by djg
    so whether dinosaurs existed or not is a 50/50 for you?
    I tend to believe the fossils are real.

    AKA

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AKA
    I tend to believe the fossils are real.

    AKA
    Does oil come from some kind of extinction event? That's pretty wild. My car runs on dino-juice.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Right, time to wheel out my favourite Popperite
    I think we crossed a digital divide at some point. It's tempting to say it was around 1990 but it was more like 1985.

    How many people say they wish they had been teenagers in the 1980's? A lot. I think it's a desire to go back to a more analog world.

    Not to blather on about the same thing over and over but I'll never escape a bizarre series of events that happened in 1985.
    Without the internet it never would have made a bit of sense. It does now but it seems like I'm living in a computer simulation.

    This was genius;



    I wasn't a teenager in the 1980's and have zero desire to have been one. I can still understand it.

    The movie A.I. got into this too.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffR
    Interesting article about multiverse theory in The Guardian:

    Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton: ‘Our universe is one tiny grain of dust in a beautiful cosmos’ | Astronomy | The Guardian

    As for Battlestar Galactica, I too enjoyed the ambiguity of the religious aspects left at the end of the show.

    I don’t recall ever reading anything about Hawking and transmitting information from one universe to its successor, but this does stir up vague memories of him talking about information crossing the event horizon from inside a black hole, presumably via quantum mechanical tunneling.

    However, if it *were* possible to alter the configuration of one universe from its predecessor, then presumably incredibly minor perturbations could have profound consequences as the new universe evolved, affecting the distribution of stars etc. Perhaps those who could read these stellar ‘constellations’ would gain access to supernatural information passed on by our universal predecessors? Wait a minute, weren’t the constellations significant in BSG!?
    Yeah I don't remember Hawking mentioning it, but I didn't read much of his later stuff. Penrose has a beautiful theory which I mentioned above. Here's Sabine back to explain and put me in a cold shower before I get too excited


  26. #75

    User Info Menu