Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2008, 07:48 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,628,603 times
Reputation: 293

Advertisements

In another thread there is an excellent post by GCSTroop describing concepts of "God" and atheism/agnosticism. He could not buy into supernatural causes for reality, and I feel the same way. But what about natural ones?

Einstein delineated E= M x C squared, which proved the equivalence of matter and energy. Thus the universe is energy. About this energy field: Why could it not be that this is the same thing as consciousness? If it all came into existence in a Big Bang (or if it is eternal), I don't see why this consciousness/energy couldn't be the fabric of reality. By physical laws and probability, parts of the universe's energy is bound up in matter, which is no more than a form of energy that we perceive differently that we do light or heat energy. Our complex brains and nervous systems are physical manifestations of this energy. Due to this complexity, our nervous system is capable of realizing complex consciousness (compared, say, to the low level of consciousness of an ameba, or near-zero consciousness of a grain of sand ).

Energy is neither gained nor lost on a universal scale, but through the laws of probability it can be more concentrated in some parts of space-time than others. So there is no reason complexity cannot develop by natural laws. Given eternity or some vast scale, probabilities can reach near-certainty.

I realize this doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing, but I think it allows a nonbeliever like me a way of viewing what is as a natural phenomenon, while lending spiritual sustenance in the notion that we are all part of this one fabric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2008, 08:12 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,439,515 times
Reputation: 4317
I couldn't wait for you to post this, Mozart.

My impression is very much in line with what you are saying. Energy and matter are interchangeable on certain levels and so it seems to be, as Frank Sinatra once quipped "You can't have one without the other."

Yet, what I wanted to encompass in my previous post is the thought of a divine entity. In essence, this nature, this "energy" is nothing more than a product of randomness. To suggest that there is a guide, a fosterer of Creation, or even a "knowledge" within nature that it must do something in particular, I find that to be errant of the truth. Nature most certainly takes on random characteristics and given the vastness that nature can be defined as (literally anything existing) it should give us pause to reflect that within infinite natural bounds, literally anything can happen - up to and including something we lowly creatures might consider a higher form of "life". This is also why I asked what we might consider to be a God or deity.

That is, ultimately, I think the difference between someone who claims Deism and Atheism. A Deist may wholeheartedly recognize that things in this universe (and perhaps others) are products of the randomness of nature but that there is "something" guiding nature itself to appear so random and that thing must reside in a supernatural world? That seems so illogical to me.

So, I must boil my comparison down that if I absolutely had to choose a God, that God would be the natural "world" - or Einstein's God. For all of it's randomness, for all of it's trial and error processes, given an infinite landscape, things will be bound to happen, and they are probably bound to happen more than once. It is always within a statistical realm to calculate the odds of something happening randomly given infinity.

On the quantum level, things appear so random. Time doesn't seem to have a direction, there is no logic, order, or form to the quantum world. And, yet, somewhere between the quantum world and the "macroworld" things become more orderly, defined, and predictable. Yet, because we are all made up of that of the micro I must sit and ask myself where the line is drawn. And, thus, I realize and I hope that String Theory holds the answer to all of this because it is a question I really want an answer to. At what point do we consider ourselves in the world of the macro instead of the micro? My answer is that for as large as we are in comparison to the micro world, we as well as everything are still micro on some level and therefore we are just as random, just as unpredictable, and just as unstable thereby giving nature and everything it consists of, the power to do whatever it "wants" to given infinite time.

Last edited by GCSTroop; 06-15-2008 at 08:25 AM.. Reason: Flow and some add-ins
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 10:27 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,628,603 times
Reputation: 293
Troop, interesting post. I agree, randomness seems to be built into the fabric (Strings? Who knows, but if not string theory, it's gotta be something!) of spacetime. And is there any reason to believe randomness shouldn't be the creative force, so to speak? To play devil's advocate, I could argue with randomness or indeterminacy by using one of those "multiple" universe ideas, or the idea that on the quantum level the particles (or vibrations of strings) take every possible path, so in that case determinism could be posited. Problem is, they don't take every path once we measure them, so there we are on that micro-macro boundary again. (We can take heart that at least it's not the macro-evolution thing! )

If you could step perpendicularly out of our 3D world into the 4D like the square in "Flatland", and see space-time all at once (just like we experience 3D space all at once), what would you see? I mean, if the forward flow of time is just a construct of our 3D brains, then perhaps the universe, encompassing its entire energy field, is totally "there" and thus determined, with the randomness being our own perception!

I'm resigned to the fact that I'm probably (no pun intended) not going to figure out what the quantum physicists have yet to figure out, but it's kind of fun attempting to wrap my brain around it, not unlike trying to wrap a tissue around a soap bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,493 posts, read 7,312,385 times
Reputation: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
I couldn't wait for you to post this, Mozart.

My impression is very much in line with what you are saying. Energy and matter are interchangeable on certain levels and so it seems to be, as Frank Sinatra once quipped "You can't have one without the other."

Yet, what I wanted to encompass in my previous post is the thought of a divine entity. In essence, this nature, this "energy" is nothing more than a product of randomness. To suggest that there is a guide, a fosterer of Creation, or even a "knowledge" within nature that it must do something in particular, I find that to be errant of the truth. Nature most certainly takes on random characteristics and given the vastness that nature can be defined as (literally anything existing) it should give us pause to reflect that within infinite natural bounds, literally anything can happen - up to and including something we lowly creatures might consider a higher form of "life". This is also why I asked what we might consider to be a God or deity.

That is, ultimately, I think the difference between someone who claims Deism and Atheism. A Deist may wholeheartedly recognize that things in this universe (and perhaps others) are products of the randomness of nature but that there is "something" guiding nature itself to appear so random and that thing must reside in a supernatural world? That seems so illogical to me.

So, I must boil my comparison down that if I absolutely had to choose a God, that God would be the natural "world" - or Einstein's God. For all of it's randomness, for all of it's trial and error processes, given an infinite landscape, things will be bound to happen, and they are probably bound to happen more than once. It is always within a statistical realm to calculate the odds of something happening randomly given infinity.

On the quantum level, things appear so random. Time doesn't seem to have a direction, there is no logic, order, or form to the quantum world. And, yet, somewhere between the quantum world and the "macroworld" things become more orderly, defined, and predictable. Yet, because we are all made up of that of the micro I must sit and ask myself where the line is drawn. And, thus, I realize and I hope that String Theory holds the answer to all of this because it is a question I really want an answer to. At what point do we consider ourselves in the world of the macro instead of the micro? My answer is that for as large as we are in comparison to the micro world, we as well as everything are still micro on some level and therefore we are just as random, just as unpredictable, and just as unstable thereby giving nature and everything it consists of, the power to do whatever it "wants" to given infinite time.
Careful now troop.Your sounding like a theist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,439,515 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozart271 View Post
Troop, interesting post. I agree, randomness seems to be built into the fabric (Strings? Who knows, but if not string theory, it's gotta be something!) of spacetime. And is there any reason to believe randomness shouldn't be the creative force, so to speak? To play devil's advocate, I could argue with randomness or indeterminacy by using one of those "multiple" universe ideas, or the idea that on the quantum level the particles (or vibrations of strings) take every possible path, so in that case determinism could be posited. Problem is, they don't take every path once we measure them, so there we are on that micro-macro boundary again. (We can take heart that at least it's not the macro-evolution thing! )

If you could step perpendicularly out of our 3D world into the 4D like the square in "Flatland", and see space-time all at once (just like we experience 3D space all at once), what would you see? I mean, if the forward flow of time is just a construct of our 3D brains, then perhaps the universe, encompassing its entire energy field, is totally "there" and thus determined, with the randomness being our own perception!

I'm resigned to the fact that I'm probably (no pun intended) not going to figure out what the quantum physicists have yet to figure out, but it's kind of fun attempting to wrap my brain around it, not unlike trying to wrap a tissue around a soap bubble.
Well, the way I understand it, String Theory is an attmept at a "Grand Unification Theory". What promise is in store for it is to determine why gravity seems to be so weak on the "macro-level". What's interesting about gravity and electromagnetism and the two nuclear (strong and weak) forces is that they seem to all function fine by our standards on the "macrolevel". Yet, when we do calculations for black holes and the Big Bang to try and predict or understand what is at the core of them, all of our math breaks down when we try to conjoin gravity into the mix. It's almost as if it is entirely separate. Hopefully, with the onset of String Theory, we can find the answer to this and much more.

And, yes, I've written long diatribes on the probabilities of multiverses. I'm almost partial to the idea that since we are all made up of quantum "things" then because we exist in a quantum level that every action we take made up of quantum processes can be split and branched off on another multiverses due to quantum entanglement theory. To mix the quantum entanglement theories and String Theories together seems to be what encompasses the multiverse theories (in a very small nutshell).

But, as far as randomness is concerned... I was thinking about this the other night. I hate to bring up my job but I tend to feel like I deal with randomness every night and so this is just one of those examples that I felt I'd give.

The other night as it was pouring down rain, I went out to an airplane that was just about to depart. The Captain said that his compass system had an "Off" flag intermittently flickering in and out of view. Sure enough, after watching it for about thirty seconds it was quite obvious that this thing was quite erratic. Because it is a flight safety item I had to fix it or call the thing down. So, I went downstairs and looked in the electrical equipment area and took a look around. I didn't see anything, but I did notice that there were a few drops of water leaking into the bay because of the heavy rain. It happens quite often on this kind of airplane but rarely does it cause any problems. Well, suspicion got the better of me, and I decided to look at the main compass system which seemed to be out of the way of the water. Low and behold, when I pulled up the cover I found that water had somehow managed to snake its' way all the way down a ten foot wire bundle, straight onto the back of the plug that one of the components is a part of. Now, what are the chances of that happening? I mean, given all of the wires, and all of the parts, and all of the square footage of a typical airplane, what are the chances that this water would find it's way into the airplane, creep itself down a wire bundle, and collectively rest on the back of a plug causing power to be intermittently applied to the Captain's compass system and in return making his flag appear intermittently in and out of view, thus resulting in a call to my office where I was dispatched to find the problem in the middle of the pouring down rain? I mean... What are the chances?!?! But,that is how I make my living. Off the laws of randomness. That is how I look at it. Yet, here is how the believer must look at it.

Some form of deity decided to give those four flight crew members a test of faith and prowess along with myself and my co-worker. Therefore, he specifically swirled up a thunderstorm that would strike several other states before coming to where I worked. He designed it so that the cloud would hover right over the parking spot of this airplane in just such a fashion that it would dump an enormous amount of rain on the airplane. Through some form or fashion he then guided the rainwater down through a miniscule crack in the skin of the depressurized aircraft, guided it down a wire bundle, and then let the water rest on the back of the plug in which an "Off Flag" was flickering in and out of view thus resulting in the crew requesting a maintenance action to be performed and me in return getting the phone call. Thankfully, everyone was on awares that night and the test was passed and God was then satisfied.

Now, you tell me... Which one sounds more ludicrous?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,439,515 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakback View Post
Careful now troop.Your sounding like a theist
Nah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 11:12 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,628,603 times
Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Now, you tell me... Which one sounds more ludicrous?
Oh, but I LOVE the "God" explanation!!

(By the way, my husband is an airline captain. He would love that story--he has an odd little story of being in Mexico preparing to take out a flight, and having a mechanical problem. It turned out there were a gazillion bugs totally clogging the pitot tubes! Now, did those little critters all fly in there by chance, or was God up to his tricks again?)

Seriously, string theory may just be the Grand Unifying Theory. I think randomness is here to stay, whatever the underlying reality that generates it is. If you go for the multi-verse idea, or the idea of multi-dimensions (which I recall string theory requires), then you could also imagine randomness as a percept that we little ol' humans can't get beyond because we must live in this darn 3D realm!

Teresa
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 11:27 AM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 13,244,091 times
Reputation: 2192
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Now, what are the chances of that happening?

Now, you tell me... Which one sounds more ludicrous?
Given the thousands of events and the round the clock nature of your business, the chances are actually pretty good. In my own business, we have a saying that is a good rule of thumb - if it can happen, it will happen eventually somewhere. So best to look to stop it from being able to happen at all.

Yeah, that god guy is a tricky devil.


There's a real disconnect in trying to apply elementary particle physics to macro physics. What may happen on the sub-nano scale doesn't appear in we organized energy using beings. What could happen in extreme force pretty much destroys us as we don't exist anymore if our organization is destroyed (that would be our bodies).

Also, e=mc squared doesn't exactly mean everything is energy. It means there is a conservation of energy and mass. To get energy out of mass, the mass gets converted to energy at extremely fast speeds. To get mass out of energy, energy is converted to mass. Some elementary particles seem to behave as energy (i.e, radiation) sometimes and as mass at other times. Get to the atomic level and it is more one or the other. The c squared is also the part that means it all has to happen really fast for any conversion. That's why none of this is seen on our plodding macro scales. We see Newtonian physics at our level.

There are a number of science fiction stories that have been written on these types of postulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 12:32 PM
 
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,162 posts, read 11,419,655 times
Reputation: 1463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozart271 View Post
In another thread there is an excellent post by GCSTroop describing concepts of "God" and atheism/agnosticism. He could not buy into supernatural causes for reality, and I feel the same way. But what about natural ones?

Einstein delineated E= M x C squared, which proved the equivalence of matter and energy. Thus the universe is energy. About this energy field: Why could it not be that this is the same thing as consciousness? If it all came into existence in a Big Bang (or if it is eternal), I don't see why this consciousness/energy couldn't be the fabric of reality. By physical laws and probability, parts of the universe's energy is bound up in matter, which is no more than a form of energy that we perceive differently that we do light or heat energy. Our complex brains and nervous systems are physical manifestations of this energy. Due to this complexity, our nervous system is capable of realizing complex consciousness (compared, say, to the low level of consciousness of an ameba, or near-zero consciousness of a grain of sand ).

Energy is neither gained nor lost on a universal scale, but through the laws of probability it can be more concentrated in some parts of space-time than others. So there is no reason complexity cannot develop by natural laws. Given eternity or some vast scale, probabilities can reach near-certainty.

I realize this doesn't explain why there is something rather than nothing, but I think it allows a nonbeliever like me a way of viewing what is as a natural phenomenon, while lending spiritual sustenance in the notion that we are all part of this one fabric.
All this (at least for me) sounds like hinduism, that's exactly why I felt attracted to this religious path.

Hindus believe that all existence is a product of the cosmic consciousness, this cosmic consciousness projection is the guiding principle behind creation and his vibrations are what produces energy, the combination of consciousness and energy = the material (and spiritual universe)

I'm going to quote a very wise Hindu swami, not with the intention of proselytizing but to give an example of a Hindu's view of the universe and how it is exactly what you just described

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Addresses at The Parliament of Religions/Paper on Hinduism - Wikisource

Science has proved to me that physical individuality is a delusion, that really my body is one little continuously changing body in an unbroken ocean of matter; and Advaita (unity) is the necessary conclusion with my other counterpart, soul.
Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, it would stop from further progress, because it would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could not progress farther when it would discover one element out of which all other could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfill its services in discovering one energy of which all others are but manifestations, and the science of religion become perfect when it would discover Him who is the one life in a universe of death, Him who is the constant basis of an ever-changing world. One who is the only Soul of which all souls are but delusive manifestations. Thus is it, through multiplicity and duality, that the ultimate unity is reached. Religion can go no farther. This is the goal of all science.

All science is bound to come to this conclusion in the long run. Manifestation, and not creation, is the word of science today, and the Hindu is only glad that what he has been cherishing in his bosom for ages is going to be taught in more forcible language, and with further light from the latest conclusions of science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2008, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,439,515 times
Reputation: 4317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesaje View Post
Given the thousands of events and the round the clock nature of your business, the chances are actually pretty good. In my own business, we have a saying that is a good rule of thumb - if it can happen, it will happen eventually somewhere. So best to look to stop it from being able to happen at all.

Yeah, that god guy is a tricky devil.


There's a real disconnect in trying to apply elementary particle physics to macro physics. What may happen on the sub-nano scale doesn't appear in we organized energy using beings. What could happen in extreme force pretty much destroys us as we don't exist anymore if our organization is destroyed (that would be our bodies).

Also, e=mc squared doesn't exactly mean everything is energy. It means there is a conservation of energy and mass. To get energy out of mass, the mass gets converted to energy at extremely fast speeds. To get mass out of energy, energy is converted to mass. Some elementary particles seem to behave as energy (i.e, radiation) sometimes and as mass at other times. Get to the atomic level and it is more one or the other. The c squared is also the part that means it all has to happen really fast for any conversion. That's why none of this is seen on our plodding macro scales. We see Newtonian physics at our level.

There are a number of science fiction stories that have been written on these types of postulations.
I think my point was more based around what we define as macro and micro. Is micro that which has no mass - something similar to a photon, a top, a quark, or a charm? Is an atom considered on the macro or micro scale? And wouldn't an atom be constituted of the micro even if we considered it macro?

It's a lot like biology. On a macro scale, we are human beings. But, on a micro scale each cell in our body performs a different function, goes about doing its business in a certain way to make up the macro-being as a whole. A liver cell is a little different than a brain cell or a skin cell but we are all constituted of microbiology.

So, my point is that regardless of the scale in which we look at things, macro or micro, we are still governed in some form or fashion by the laws of the micro - quantum it seems?

If, for example, all of my cell walls start to deteriorate and break down, I, as a macro-being will not be doing much of anything. And, so the problem as I see it is looking at things with absolutes. It's the same bad thought process as saying micro-evolution occurs but macro-evolution does not. It's the same bad thing as asking who did the first English speakers speak with. The same bad thought as the chicken and the egg and other absolute forms of thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:17 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top