The Narnia Code

[Rabbie]

He has always been there and will always be there. Time or any other measure that we apply is simply not applicable. Like trying to apply the rules of chemistry to a nuclear reaction.

And perhaps the universe has always been there but not in the form we know. For example, all of the materials required to make a car have always been on earth. It then takes man's technology to make a car from them. Big Bang??

So you are saying that something as complex as the universe must have been created by someone but he just always was. To create a universe you must be at least as complex as the universe so if the creator could always exist why not the universe. Why then do we need a creator? It seems an unnecessary complication with no evidence that it is true.

 

[Mike375]

So you are saying that something as complex as the universe must have been created by someone but he just always was. To create a universe you must be at least as complex as the universe so if the creator could always exist why not the universe. Why then do we need a creator? It seems an unnecessary complication with no evidence that it is true.

Read what I said about the car analogy and Big Bang. Again, the earth has always contained the materials to make a car but it took man to make a car from the materials. However, in that case man needs the earth. But God does not need the universe.

On the other thread where you have posted to Mike Gurman about not looking for the tooth fairy......the person who believes in a supernatural has not spent years looking for one. It is a natural outcome.

That "outcome" is a product of experiencing things on earth that are not covered by 2 + 2 = 4, the virtually infinite number of chances required to get earth going etc and the ongoing lack of sceintific explanation.

As you said a couple of pages ago on this thread, no one is chaging their mind, at least the people who are posting. Perhaps some people who observe but don't post might change their minds.

It is really very simple. As impossible as it is for you to believe a supernatural could be involved it is equally impossible for me to believe all this is a chance thing. I think what makes someone fall to their side of the fence is a result of our experiences on a day to day and year to year to basis. As we have discussed before all your experiences here are covered by a 2 + 2 always = 4 whereas as that has not been the case for the people like me.

 

[Rabbie]

It is really very simple. As impossible as it is for you to believe a supernatural could be involved it is equally impossible for me to believe all this is a chance thing. I think what makes someone fall to their side of the fence is a result of our experiences on a day to day and year to year to basis. As we have discussed before all your experiences here are covered by a 2 + 2 always = 4 whereas as that has not been the case for the people like me.

I agree it is simple so why do you insist on adding another layer of complexity by introducing a god without explaining how he came from. It is no answer at all to say he has always been. In that case one might as well say the stuff for the universe has always been and remove the need for a god in the first place.

 

[Mike375]

I agree it is simple so why do you insist on adding another layer of complexity by introducing a god without explaining how he came from.

How could I (or anyone) even hope to explain a supernatural that could organise the universe? It is He is in another dimension and we don't have the senses to see or recognise that dimension.

As a side note, what physics would explain a universe that has always been there. Of course if it has always been there that would be infinity.

It is no answer at all to say he has always been. In that case one might as well say the stuff for the universe has always been and remove the need for a god in the first place.

But it needed God to organise it into what we know as the universe.

Either the universe (or the components) have always been there or it had a start, created.

Can you visualise or apply any physics to a universe that has always been there, even if only the components. Perhaps the universe is simply an extension of God??

 

[Rabbie]

How could I (or anyone) even hope to explain a supernatural that could organise the universe? It is He is in another dimension and we don't have the senses to see or recognise that dimension.

As a side note, what physics would explain a universe that has always been there. Of course if it has always been there that would be infinity.

in the sixties reputable scientists including Sir Fred Hoyle put forward a theory of the Steady State universe so the physics is not impossible even if that particular theory has been superceded. It has also been suggested that the Big Bang could have been caused by a previous universe collapsing in on itself and then expanding rapidly in the Big Bang

But it needed God to organise it into what we know as the universe.

An excellent example of begging the question.

Either the universe (or the components) have always been there or it had a start, created.

Can you visualise or apply any physics to a universe that has always been there, even if only the components. Perhaps the universe is simply an extension of God??

According to a previous thread you classified yourself as an agnostic. Now you seem firmly in the god camp. Are you going to post details of your conversion moment?

 

[Alc]

Given the Atheist movement likes to ignore science.......you have to go with supernatural.

But I still don't know why the atheist movement ignores science. Why, on this forum do atheists Alisa and Alc say "science is of no interest". This is not unique to them, the atheist forums are full of the same thing.

When did I say science was of no interest to me?
I do remember some ardent creationist (not you, for a change) refusing to accept 'I don't know' as an answer, so forcing me to answer something I said at the time was nonsense. At no point have I said that science as a whole isn't important.

I also find it strange that someone who has said that if something is an extremely long shot then it's impossible, so something with no evidence must be the truth feels qualified to criticise anyone else's grasp on scientific processes.

 

[dan-cat]

If the 'rules' reside in the objects, as descriptive properties, why would they need to spring anywhere. When a sphere is created, there isn't automatically an accompany document describing it.

But if this is the case, then doesn't the definition of a sphere originate from the perceiver of the object rather than within the object itself?

I might be completely wrong about all this, of course - it's just that if natural laws aren't a description of things that are (as opposed to a prescriptive recipe for them), then how do we get off the merry-go-round? - if the universe contains a recipe for spheres, where did that recipe come from? And where did the recipe for whatever made that recipe, come from, and so on.

Even if someone says God made the rules for the universe, the question doesn't go away, because that's God exhibiting behaviours - so what rules govern those behaviours, and where did they come from? - etc.

Yes absolutely. It intrigues me that you used the 'gazillion method', for want of a better term, to propose the origin of the universe. This is because the concept of arithmetic had to exist both outside of the universe as a concept to allow this process to take place as well as it existing inside for you to be able to describe it. This is what attracts me to 'external laws'. They seem to pervade through everything.

 

[Mike375]

According to a previous thread you classified yourself as an agnostic. Now you seem firmly in the god camp. Are you going to post details of your conversion moment?

Still agnostic and as I have said before I sway from one side to the other. I range from agnostic/supernatural through to agnostic/God but most often are around the agnostic/supernatural position and at times agnostic/god. At the moment I am agnostic/God.

For my purposes....

supernatural = is anyone or anything, in other words it could be an "it", that can bend or break the natural laws.

god = a supernatural that would be more like a person and never an "it"

God = the Christian, Islam and Judaism god.

 

[Mike375]

When did I say science was of no interest to me?

It was on Big Bang issue. Of course I realise that in respect of this general topic that the Big Bang issue is hardly relevant

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

But if this is the case, then doesn't the definition of a sphere originate from the perceiver of the object rather than within the object itself?

Insofar as that description is in human terms or language, how could it be otherwise? If the definition of a sphere is predefined, where does it reside? Where can it be examined?

Yes absolutely. It intrigues me that you used the 'gazillion method', for want of a better term, to propose the origin of the universe. This is because the concept of arithmetic had to exist both outside of the universe as a concept to allow this process to take place as well as it existing inside for you to be able to describe it. This is what attracts me to 'external laws'. They seem to pervade through everything.

There's too much skipping about between topics in this thread. We've talked about biogenesis, cosmology and topology - and without looking back through all the previous pages, I'm pretty sure my statements on any one of those topics keep getting misconstrued as being about one of the others.

 

[Mike375]

There's too much skipping about between topics in this thread. We've talked about biogenesis, cosmology and topology - and without looking back through all the previous pages, I'm pretty sure my statements on any one of those topics keep getting misconstrued as being about one of the others.

Welcome to the Forum

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Many years ago the shape of a horse saddle was used.

But irrespective of the shape where does it "sit" or what surrounds it.

Dunno - maybe some kind of multidimensional hyperspace (in which case we would have to ask what shape that is, and what does it sit in), or maybe literally nothing at all - not even empty volume/space.

Maybe the finite, boundless, warped universe is all there is - and the 'outside' doesn't exist at all, like the 'other side' of a moebius strip:

(there is no 'other side - despite being made of two-sided paper, the finished object only has one side)

 

[Mike375]

I often wonder if some of the stuff put about by the Einsteins and Hawkings a simply a way of explaining their maths results in laymans terms.

I will tell you one that really has me baffled. I leave earth in the spaceship at a speed approaching the speed of light. I return and 10 minutes of my time has passed and 50 years has passed on earth. However, isn't velocity relative and hence the earth is moving away from the spaceship. Why hasn't only 10 minutes passed on earth and 50 years passed on the spaceship.

Another one is the speed of light. Lets say we are 372000 liles apart. It will take two seconds for light to travel that distance. Now let's say we have spaceships that can do 99% the speed of light and you have a gift for me OK, if I go to collect it then 2 seconds to get to you. Same deal if you deliver it. But what if we both leave together. After 1 second we are both 186000 miles from home and have met in the middle and thus can exchange the gift after 1 second.

As to the shapes of the universe etc. I don't the answer will come because the answer is outside the physical laws under which we operate. As I have posted before, the man who is restricted to the chemistry set can sit and analyse all day long but no matter what he comes up with he can't cover the nuclear reaction where the mass is less after the reaction.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I often wonder if some of the stuff put about by the Einsteins and Hawkings a simply a way of explaining their maths results in laymans terms.

I will tell you one that really has me baffled. I leave earth in the spaceship at a speed approaching the speed of light. I return and 10 minutes of my time has passed and 50 years has passed on earth. However, isn't velocity relative and hence the earth is moving away from the spaceship. Why hasn't only 10 minutes passed on earth and 50 years passed on the spaceship.

That, or something very much like it, is called the twins paradox, I think.

As to the shapes of the universe etc. I don't the answer will come because the answer is outside the physical laws under which we operate. As I have posted before, the man who is restricted to the chemistry set can sit and analyse all day long but no matter what he comes up with he can't cover the nuclear reaction where the mass is less after the reaction.

Yes - I think I agree - the origin of the universe is likely to be counterintuitive, because it is the origin of the systems we find intuitive (if at all).

 

[Mike375]

That, or something very much like it, is called the twins paradox, I think.

Had not heard that one before, only the grandfather one.

But do you agree or disagree with the idea that all this sort of thing is an attempt to explain the maths results in terms a layman can visualise. My understanding, as limited as it is is that blokes like Hawking and Co don't come up with Big Bangs, Black Holes etc because they are day dreaming of the front veranda on a summer night, rather it is a result of their maths.

One of the things that causes me frustration is I don't have the maths/physics to even begin to look at their stuff but on the other hand I am well beyond the TV shows/books that are generally available.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

But do you agree or disagree with the idea that all this sort of thing is an attempt to explain the maths results in terms a layman can visualise. My understanding, as limited as it is is that blokes like Hawking and Co don't come up with Big Bangs, Black Holes etc because they are day dreaming of the front veranda on a summer night, rather it is a result of their maths.

That's pretty much exactly my understanding - These theories are the possible solutions for some really quite difficult maths - which laymen like you and I can only really get a feel for by simple analogy.

I'm sufficiently convinced by what I do grasp, that they're not just making it up or making enormous conjectural leaps, but their detailed workings will probably remain incomprehensible to me for ever.
And it's not that I place any particular trust in any of them, but I do trust the system - the academic world is sufficiently open and sufficiently competitive that incorrect workings and hasty or forced conclusions should be readily spotted and challenged by someone else who wants their share of the limelight.

 

[dan-cat]

Insofar as that description is in human terms or language, how could it be otherwise? If the definition of a sphere is predefined, where does it reside? Where can it be examined?

Well you said that it's definition resided within the object itself. Now you seem to be saying that it resides in it's perception. You're losing me a little.

There's too much skipping about between topics in this thread. We've talked about biogenesis, cosmology and topology - and without looking back through all the previous pages, I'm pretty sure my statements on any one of those topics keep getting misconstrued as being about one of the others.

Here is your post that I'm referring to. Link. I'll leave it to you to explain how I may or may not have misconstrued your point.

My point is that if n attempts are required to create a universe that we exist within, how is it that the concept of n can operate outside of our universe and yet be perceived from within it? Remember this is your merry-go-round not mine.

 

[Rabbie]

My point is that if n attempts are required to create a universe that we exist within, how is it that the concept of n can operate outside of our universe and yet be perceived from within it? Remember this is your merry-go-round not mine.

Why shouldn't the concept of n operate outside of our universe and still be perceived from within it.

We don't know how many attempts were required to create a universe we can exist in. Perhaps it all worked at the first attempt. The one thing we do know that we do exist within a universe that works.

Applying the principal of Occam's razor the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one so where is the need for a supernatural to design it?

 

[Alc]

Applying the principal of Occam's razor the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one so where is the need for a supernatural to design it?

If you assume, for whatever reason, that the universe was created for a purpose, then the idea of a creator obviously makes sense. Other than that, as you say, it's just an unnecessary added step.

 

[Mike375]

Applying the principal of Occam's razor the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one so where is the need for a supernatural to design it?

Eliminate all the countless attempts that would be needed by chance.