Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 213 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by Marchimedes
Yesterday at 02:35 AM
Do we have a moderator?
by Marchimedes
Yesterday at 02:25 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
Marchimedes 2
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#13663 - 01/16/06 12:37 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?"

I believe that everything we do is a result of the most fundamental rules of the universe acting upon the most fundamental particles of matter. Though I use the term fundamental particles of matter I don't believe that such a thing exists, infinity (in my opinion) applies to both big and small, therefore the universe is infinitely big and small at the same time. You could say that looking at planets and galaxies is looking at the (+) side of infinity and observing sub atomic particles is looking at the (-) side of infinity. None has any end. Obviously between + and - there is a neutral value, zero. Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE? No. Zero, is merely the level at which the observer operates. (once again, just me talkin?).

So, do we have free will? No, free will is an illusion. Assume (like I do) that absolutely every single thing (NO EXCEPTIONS) is explainable by maths. that means that everything is pre-determined. So, were I to make a decision now, and we were to 'reverse the formula' and then 're-reverse the formula' I would do the same thing again -the exact same thing because I would be reacting to the exact same things that would be happening. I like to view it as someone getting shot in a film. Just imagine that these people in the movie are real and our rewind, fast-foreword and play buttons are our way of 'inverting' the universes formula. Just for the sake of irony, I like to have the film based on the subject of free will and the characters in the film are constantly arguing about whether free will exists. No matter whether they believe in free will or not, they will do the same thing, and if they are a particular character, they will get shot, they don?t learn what not to do when you rewind the film because their thoughts get un-thought and all the stimuli that produced that thought un-happen.
(Do not take this analogy literally; I do not believe that it is in ANY WAY possible to 'invert' the formula of the universe.)

Top
.
#13664 - 01/16/06 09:49 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dvk wrote:
"DA was being on the light side I guess with:
"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples."

Pi is a ratio that is part of creation, or possibly the Big Bang
===================================================
Preicsely ... and if the invisible purple rhinoceros is intelligent and intelligently designed the universe then the ratio would be an integer. That is the point of intelligence isn't it?

And you are claiming that all males are born with nipples so that they can nurse infants? Whooeee! I'll pay you $1,000 if you can do it, just once, say for one minute. Proof of milk production required. And no hormone injections.

No doubt gorillas, male whales, bull moose, and all other similarly endowed are keeping their feminine side under control too.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13665 - 01/18/06 04:32 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
In other words...no amount of money will buy proof of the existance of God....and shame on you for trying to buy proof when you can easily realise God without proof.

(I think that's what DKV meant)
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13666 - 01/19/06 04:57 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Yes Justine.Thats what I meant.Few things donot carry the price tag.But is definitely more important than the Stock Markets. And yes it does not mean that Stock Markets are not important at all. (This is the way some people like to interpret it)

Top
#13667 - 01/19/06 06:00 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Great real here ... God is for sale. No rich person that contributed large amounts of money to a church ever went to his or her grave unforgiven by god.

Want to find out how much money matters? Try taking away the tax deduction from religious organizations.
You'll find out quickly. Apparently people are not free to worship or pray unless their activity is subsidized by other tax payers.

Cheeky hypocrites.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13668 - 01/19/06 10:23 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob said - "Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE?"

REP: Are you talking about rest mass or momentum.

When you say mass, do you use the above two terms interchangeably?

Aren't Photons & Guage Bosons massless?

Blacknad.

Top
#13669 - 01/19/06 11:37 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Anonymous
Unregistered


Interesting question may I know What is mass?

Top
#13670 - 01/19/06 11:43 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
Rob said - "So, do we have free will? No, free will is an illusion. Assume (like I do) that absolutely every single thing (NO EXCEPTIONS) is explainable by maths. that means that everything is pre-determined."

REP: If we stopped at Newtonian physics then I would agree that you are spot on, but since probablity is now in the frame you won't find many people who think the answer is so clear cut.

It would seem that, even by your definition of the universe (completely materialistic but allowing for probability), maths can explain how the universe is structured, but cannot predict all things.

The problem is the mind. Until a mind appeared, the universe was simply a deterministic system that followed an action-reaction-reaction-reaction? process.

Then minds appreared that are able to exert themselves somehow on the universe at a quantum level. Some scientist and philosophers believe that the interaction between what happens at a mental level and a physical level (ie. A non-physical thought being able to have a causative effect upon the physical body), must happen within the brain at a quantum level. This extends to the fact that when a mind merely observes the universe it still has an impact upon it.

I look around my room and see the decoration and the objects I have brought and colour matched etc. and look at my tropical fish tank, and then see the messy things lying around (my daughter?s toys scattered across the floor), I cannot for one moment accept that this is just a natuaral outworking of the laws of the universe. It is not just the way that the chain of reactions from the big bang have arranged all of those atoms.

I see a room that my mind has imposed order (or disorder) upon. I can only accept that I am an autonomous mechanism with an ability to break out from a deterministic framework and impose my own will on my surroundings.
Now how the universe was set up to allow the appearance of autonomous minds that are able to freely exert their will upon material nature, by interactions at a probabalistic quantum level is another question, and is actually one of the things I would say supports the idea of a creator. But that is just my conclusion and is not science and does not an any case lead us to a monotheistic universe.

From Wikipedia on determinism ? I have taken the liberty of replacing the word ?souls? with mind, to avoid its hermetic connotations.

'One approach to determinism is to argue that materialism does not present a correct understanding of the universe, not because it is wrong in its general picture of the determinate interactions that occur among material things, but because it ignores the minds of human beings. The mind is understood to be an autonomous agent of choice that has the power to control the body but not to be controlled by the body. Therefore it stands to the activities of the individual human body as does the creator of the universe to the universe. The creator of the universe put in motion a deterministic system of material entities that would, if left to themselves, carry out the chain of events determined by ordinary causation. But the creator also provided for minds that could exert a causal force analogous to the primordial causal force and alter outcomes in the physical universe via the acts of their bodies. No events in the physical universe are uncaused. Some are caused entirely by the original creative act and the way it plays itself out through time, and some are caused by the acts of created minds. But those created minds were not created by means of physical processes involving ordinary causation. They are another order of being entirely, gifted with the power to modify the original creation.'

I would be interested to hear your (or anyone else?s) thoughts on this.

Blacknad.

Top
#13671 - 01/19/06 11:54 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
DKV,

The dictionary definition will suit us well enough - I think:

'A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.'

Blacknad.

Top
#13672 - 01/19/06 01:02 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
"Rob said - "Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE?"

REP: Are you talking about rest mass or momentum.

When you say mass, do you use the above two terms interchangeably?

Aren't Photons & Guage Bosons massless?"

Sorry, I momentarily forgot what DA had told me about mass. What I meant when I said it was that nothing can be said to exist unless it has a weight. I do not mean the force weight, I mean weight as in grams etc. Sorry for not knowing all the technical terms for stuff.

Top
#13673 - 01/19/06 06:25 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Blacknad Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/05/05
Posts: 901
Loc: Coventry, England
DKV said:

"Am I clear?"

- not quite.

"Hope it clears your cloud.

- not quite.

Sorry DKV, it perplexes me that Justine seems to grasp what you say but often I can't.

I cannot work out whether you are talking nonsense or whether it is just my inability to connect your words to their correct meaning.

I know that DA thinks you are insane, but I don't think you are really making claims to be a creator in the sense of Yahweh. It is just the inability of Western Science to dialogue with Eastern Mysticism. No common definition of terms.

Maybe Justine can act as your permanent translator.

I also don't think that poetry is the correct way to communicate in this forum, as in:

"Photons are in sycn with the desire of Universe so the mass vanishes."

Regards,

Blacknad.

Top
#13674 - 01/19/06 07:48 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You are correct Blacknad. I think he is a very troubled person in need of clinical intervention.

We had one here a few years ago who thought we were spying on him with helicopters. My original opinion of him was that he was just a harmless person of limited intellectual abilities. He has, with his postings, changed that opinion to one of genuine concern that he needs medical help.

I doubt Justine actually understands him. It appears that she comes from a religious background and recognizes some of the verbiage. I'm not keying in on the verbiage ... I'm keying in on the lack of ability to articulate a coherent thought.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13675 - 01/19/06 10:12 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
RM Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/07/05
Posts: 560
Loc: London
Tell me more about this person who thought you were spying on him please. smile

Top
#13676 - 01/20/06 06:28 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
Justine Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 12/07/05
Posts: 191
DKV Just agreed with Rob by emphasising that photons follow Universal Laws.
And he's excited about it.

I'm a sign language interpreter. I'm always searching for the meaning behind the words. I use closure skills to make up for what's lost or inappropriately added during translation.

Plus, I've read the majority of the new age section in the bookstore wink
_________________________
~Justine~

Top
#13677 - 01/20/06 07:38 PM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
Rob: Perhaps Rose or Kate can dredge up that history for you ... but he was absolutely convinced we had sent helicopters to spy on him. Finally went away for whatever reason. But I similarly spent a lot of time urging him to seek professional help.

There are a lot of very lonely, very sick people who spend their days trolling the internet. This forum gets its share.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#13678 - 01/21/06 01:11 AM Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?
jjw Offline
Superstar

Registered: 09/07/05
Posts: 636
Loc: USA
That comment requires supreme will power.
jjw

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.