Og

Sorry you're so hung up on this, mate. It ain't all about you and me. I was trying to be transparent to facts. It seemed you were making some assumptions and statements that where not in contact with the reality that I have been exposed to.

I use the word "fact" and it has nothing to do with me as end all, be all. If you require references, ask, and I will provide peer reviewed books and papers on the topics which you can reference and reproduce. It has nothing to do with ME as anything, least of all, an end all be all.

I don't really care that you don't like me. I'm sorry it gets in the way of our communication. Sounds like your problem. Good luck.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Well, your false stance assumes we know what time is. If you do then you’re the first. Time as we measure it is a function of time and space. Your assumption that with no universe there can be no time is not a factual piece; it is an assumption in/from the math.

Illustrating a provincial understanding here is part of the question. I see the Universe and state “It did not come from nothing”. Nothing from nothing is still not anything. I assume the same with “conciseness”. Brains, as you know, resolved the issue of time (before) for some. The brain, quantum foam, and other theories are not facts. Yes, it annoys me when people start calling things “Facts” that are not facts.

Yes, I have a lack of understanding. Teach me do not tell me.



This is true. I must rethink think this statement.

Mathematics is only a language. I love it, and think it is the closest thing we have to the logical voice of GOD. However, to assume when we describe something mathematically that removes a “GOD” is wrong. 2+2=4, is only math and does not account for the “Human element”. Mathematics also makes assumptions and influenced by the authors views. What is nice about it though is that rational people across the globe must check it, understand it, and predict with it, a trait I try to apply to my beliefs and wish religions would try and use.






[/quote]

In Fact, DNA seems be the source of all the information. DNA coded for down feathers as an under layer and a water repellent layer coding of feathers for a duck. DNA codes most of the information a baby birds need to live. What foods are needed and how to build a nest as examples.

The example you showed is an adaptation. This is like a subroutine in a program. However, I was speaking of the DNA. I am aware of the relationship between environment and manufacture of proteins. I also ask “When does the DNA “know” to code for it?”. I also understand how the stressors influence these chemical reactions. It will be a grand day we fully understand these chemical equations. The logical question then becomes “How many adaptations before it is coded and or a new species if formed?”


Stating DNA wasn’t solving is like, well how did you put it: “illustrates a provincial understanding of the topic”. DNA’s mutations into nonsense is an interesting point that I discuss with my fellow believers a lot. I state that most of these mutations kill the life form. I then try and step back and look at the bigger picture. I see how the Earth was “Terra Formed”. Yes, I understand “feed Back” systems. I was just giving my view on how I look at the facts. We needed oil for the industrial age, God made oil part of the “plan” for me.


I clearly stated at the start of the post that I do not know.

I did not want to answer this tread for this very reason. People start stating non-factual items as facts with out any clarification. This leads into an useless pissing match.

Yes, I am part of the problem between you and I. I am ½ of it.
I see and understand that. Do you?

I will work on my “sensitivity” issues. I will go read that book.

Skepticologist

That kind of poppycock doesn't even deserve a response.

__________________
"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of."

Clarence Darrow

AB517

Og

OK.. First off, Time as a function of time (read your post) is a circular reference and says nothing. Time as a property of matter is a well characterized phenomena (see special and general theories of relativity). We understand it as we watch reflected laser beams off the moon with extreme accuracy, calculate gravitational lensing to clarify our picture of the universe and map dark matter, and use a time correction factor when calculating position from the GPS satellites (to mention a few). This is not an assumption, this is an observed property of the universe. Fact is an observation about the universe. It is part of what informs a theory (i.e. the Big Bang theory). Fact is the first step.

You make the PROVINCIAL (i.e. earth bound perspective) claim that there was nothing BEFORE the big bang. I was simply stating that the FACTS associated with what we understand about the universe make this a conclusion that doesn't make sense. Whatever is going on at the big bang event, it doesn't appear that time is progressing or that there was a "before".

Pick up Stephen Hawking's Illustrated Brief History of Time for a taste of this one. This gives a very nice outline of the current understanding of this time/space singularity stuff.

You say "nothing from nothing makes nothing" and I agree. What is a wrong assumption for you to make is that the word FROM applies to anything at the moment of the big bang. That's what makes your argument provincial. It's based on a relatively low energy inertial reference frame (i.e. earth) where there is no way for your mind to perceive the nature of time in the universe. Pick up some books or visit a particle accelerator or look through a telescope. And drop your assumptions. There are facts out there.

Don't let your earth-bound prejudices bias your view about the nature of the universe. Be transparent to the facts. Then, you'll find, like I do, that whether or not someone else likes you is irrelevant other than to speak to the nature of THEIR prejudices. And whatever the rest of your post contained, I suggest you start with the above observations about "The Beginning." It's a very good place to start.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

[quote=Og;20145] I am ok with this.

I actually read Hawkins books.

I love particle physics.
I personally think, without a shread of proof mind you, that we will crack the mass issue for traveling the speed of light and faster once they figure out what mass is, maybe understanding the Higgs (if found) will do it.

It has been some time but like you I had to do the E=MC^2 routine.
I love astronomy and theoretical physics. I am fuzzy on the math these days though.

I think I will check out the low energy state topic you point to.
Any suggestions on where to start?

Not my earth-bound prejudices bias its my single celled brain that is at the route of the problem.

Og

It's got nothing to do with your brain. Earth bound prejudice is derived from your exposure to a continuum of time in an inertial reference frame (i.e. no instances of time moving at noticeably different rates). Everything you know has a time before and a time after, so it is natural to extrapolate this to the big bang theory (if you have an outside perspective on it).

What exactly are you referring to when you reference "low energy state topic"?

My main point is that at situations such as those at the big bang, time has a completely different behavior. It appears to slow down towards 0 until you arrive at a certain limitation of quantum mechanics where all our physics fails.

My point is that the statement of "before the big bang" illustrates a lack of understanding of the nature of time that is derived from an earth-bound perspective.

Could you clarify.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Ok I see.

I see now where we are stuck.
It is with time.

You think that no-time (or zero) in our equations mean no time possible.
Is this correct?

Og

What do you mean by "no-time means no-time possible"? I don't really understand this.

What I'm saying is that the notion of "Before the Big Bang" is a gibberish statement. Time words don't apply. It's something that's virtually impossible to map our temporal brains around. We're not exactly sure what is going on at the big bang as we look at it. What we do know is that it seems that causality is not applying.

So postulating the necessity of a cause and stating that "it came FROM something" is not really in line with what we know about the Big Bang event. Those kind of statements are the product of a layperson interpreting modern Cosmology in terms of their earth based perspective.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

AB517

Nothing is in line with the start. They are just making better and better approximations.

These are, to an extent, earth bound observations, right?
Sort of like passive SONAR.

Actually it is change in time which makes a huge difference in the interpretations in the equations. The change is forced to zero, not by laws of physics but by the way we use them.

I have a couple questions for just so we can center a bit. These are for me more than you I guess.

1) Will/can you bear with me? ½ laymen

2) Can you except that our laws breaking down introduce an element of uncertainly in the level or dept of our understanding? This forces people like me to ask “What if?”

3) Do you believe these equations are the end all? I.e.: no equation yet = not real?

4) Do you know why they came up with Brains in "M" theory?

I have to look up the guys that are working on the idea of time not needed in physics. They see time as a function of us, our brains. Maybe you know them.