ChatterBank2 mins ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
14:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
I suppose you could claim that time runs in a loop so future events cause past events and the universe starts up by pulling on it's own bootlaces.
There is some evidence that present decisions appear to affect past events. But that might be because everything is connected somehow, everything being entangled with everything else. We are one !
There is some evidence that present decisions appear to affect past events. But that might be because everything is connected somehow, everything being entangled with everything else. We are one !
Theland //But nothing causes nothing.
A first cause is needed.//
You are obviously not listening.
Meanwhile you are perfectly happy with the idea that your god has no cause. Your entire argument is based on God special privilege of having always existed despite being the most complex thing that can ever exist and having nowhere to exist.
A first cause is needed.//
You are obviously not listening.
Meanwhile you are perfectly happy with the idea that your god has no cause. Your entire argument is based on God special privilege of having always existed despite being the most complex thing that can ever exist and having nowhere to exist.
Indeed. If the time flow flux exceeds the known peramebowl, then,WHOOSH, all the atomic and spatial meandering is lost. Dangerously the tick tock should tread! For ever is the causal effect dilutemold ten times past the perihelion of control .
And there we have it ladles and jellymououlds. Perfect explanatiblend of idelogistics
And there we have it ladles and jellymououlds. Perfect explanatiblend of idelogistics
I don't think Science can ever truly answer the question "what caused the Universe?", so in that sense I can kind of see the point. I also get why it is difficult to accept an answer along the lines of what beso and I have been saying, which in essence amounts to "the question makes no sense because the Universe itself defines its own beginning", or some such.
But part of the reason they are unsatisfying, I think, is that trying to express in language concepts that defy any logic is always going to be tricky. Try and picture nothing, as in a literal absence of anything. You've failed. In order to see "nothing" you need "somewhere" to stand, and by definition there wasn't even a place in order to observe the total and complete absence of anything until our Universe came along -- at least, that is, if you reject the existence of a "Multiverse".
One resolution to this is to try and take the question away from language and towards Mathematics. The maths for describing the Universe as it exists, especially in the context of General Relativity -- which is what's relevant here -- is Differential Geometry. This helps to remove the imprecision. Space and time can be described in terms of some complicated four-dimensional shape, a "manifold", which exists in and of itself, defines its own limits, and needs nothing else in order to justify its own existence.
Of course, this may not be the final resolution of the problem either -- but it is at least likely to be a better way of trying to formulate the question than anything else attempted so far in this thread.
But part of the reason they are unsatisfying, I think, is that trying to express in language concepts that defy any logic is always going to be tricky. Try and picture nothing, as in a literal absence of anything. You've failed. In order to see "nothing" you need "somewhere" to stand, and by definition there wasn't even a place in order to observe the total and complete absence of anything until our Universe came along -- at least, that is, if you reject the existence of a "Multiverse".
One resolution to this is to try and take the question away from language and towards Mathematics. The maths for describing the Universe as it exists, especially in the context of General Relativity -- which is what's relevant here -- is Differential Geometry. This helps to remove the imprecision. Space and time can be described in terms of some complicated four-dimensional shape, a "manifold", which exists in and of itself, defines its own limits, and needs nothing else in order to justify its own existence.
Of course, this may not be the final resolution of the problem either -- but it is at least likely to be a better way of trying to formulate the question than anything else attempted so far in this thread.
Physical laws don't need to be written on a piece of paper, so I can't say I see the issue. Although maybe it's a difference in philosophy.
Still, what I'm saying is that the philosophy can at least be easier to express if you have the right tools to express it, and mathematics is one of those tools.
Still, what I'm saying is that the philosophy can at least be easier to express if you have the right tools to express it, and mathematics is one of those tools.
