Everything from nothin????????? (Muslim, science, body, cross)

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by TKramar

But things move from order to chaos, not the other way around.

You are touching upon a deep puzzle that I have been contemplating for years. The same problem applies to the Big Bang model in cosmology. The physical universe as a whole is moving from low to high entropy. So at the moment of the BB, the universe must have been in the most highly ordered state (lowest entropy).

But we need to clarify your statement: It is simply not true that things always move from order to chaos. We know for a fact that in thermodynamically open systems (such as earth), things often move from chaos to order. This is the concept of self-organizing systems.

So for order to arise from my hypothetical primordial chaos, there seemingly needs to be an input of energy (unless the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not always apply). One possibility: quantum uncertainty combined with infinity. In an infinite universe, any finite event that can happen presumably will happen (given the nature of probability). Thus, a finite portion of the primordial chaos could spontaneously form a highly-ordered state. I don't find this satisfactory.

Another important consideration: The energy needed to feed self-organization does not, in itself, need to be highly organized. Sunlight drives self-organization on earth, but sunlight itself is just a jumble of EM waves. A component of the primordial chaos might simply be a chaotic blend of "energy" that feeds other components of the chaos, thus leading to the self-organization of these components. In this case this primordial "energy source" might be what some people will want to call "God."

And another idea: It is not uncommon or illogical to suppose that the fundamental units of any given system account for the laws of the system, but do not, in themselves, "obey" the laws. They are the source of law, not subject to the law. The primordial qualia proposed in my theory might, thus, be the reason for thermodynamics, but there is really no logical reason to think that they, themselves, need to obey the laws of thermodynamics. Thus they themselves (unlike the material objects that they compose) might be "self-energizing" (like "perpetual motion machines"). This would imply that the laws of thermodynamics are emergent, rather than fundamental. There is really no logical or scientific reason why this couldn't be the case, and various physicists have proposed some very interesting variations of this idea. At the moment, I tend to favor this last idea, which could be loosely summed up as follows: The universe as a whole is a "perpetual motion machine" and what we understand as the laws of thermodynamics are statistical patterns that emerge from this perpetual motion.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

So when I turn on my flashlight to guide me down the halls at night. That light does not exist?

Yawn. You're simply converting matter to energy, silly. Oh, and we've been waiting for you over on the NAMI thread. Stunning new information on your Noah's ark has been brought to light! I'm sure you'll enjoy reading about it, and commenting!

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Blue Hue

Is there any example of order or pattern , that is not in conformity to the elements or principals which "contain the order or pattern" ?
A random system will produce perfect consequence.

There are endless examples of self-organizing systems in the natural world, and a great many mathematical models as well. None of these systems "contain the order or pattern," as such, prior to the emergence of the pattern. Now, of course, the system does contain the constituent elements of the system prior to the emergence of patterns, and perhaps this is what you are talking about.

As for the idea that a "pattern" is only a pattern relative to some subjective feeling or purpose, I might partially agree. But patterns are also objectively real - which is to say, the components are connected however they are connected, and it is just a matter of fact. Now, whether a pattern "means" anything in some larger sense requires a subjective point of view, which my theory addresses by the concept of "qualitative." I refer to a "qualitative primordial chaos," which implies a primordial form of Subjectivity.

[dobeable]

Originally Posted by TKramar

But things move from order to chaos, not the other way around.

but the planet we live on has the perfect amount of sunlight,water,air etc for life to survive,sounds pretty ordered to me

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by dobeable

but the planet we live on has the perfect amount of sunlight,water,air etc for life to survive,sounds pretty ordered to me

It's the water that fits in the hole not the hole fitting around the water.

[dobeable]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

This is still not an answer to my question. I am asking you how long you think our species, human, has been on the planet, not what some story in a fairy tale says.

Answer to the nearest 5000 years. 5? 10? 50? 100? 1000? 10000?

It really is a very simple question, I am amazed it is taking you this many posts to answer it. If I knew how to make it simpler for you I would gladly do so.

if your looking fort an exact date,then ill have to investigate,whether that matters or not im not too sure since it has nothing to do with the OP,but it is intersting that they have found remains of what they call the first civilization, in India,they found sewer systems that we only used only couple of hundred years ago,they seemed to have great intelligence and scientific knowledge of many things,after all the first scientists came from india,maths came from india,the number system we use today came from india,the first astronomers etc,and while the rest of the world were living very simple lives this civilisation was living in abundance with kingdoms all over the shop,where did they get there knowkledge from?

[dobeable]

Originally Posted by Rafius

It's the water that fits in the hole not the hole fitting around the water.

you could change one little thing like the distance from our planet to the sun and it could mean no life on this planet,their is order.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by dobeable

you could change one little thing like the distance from our planet to the sun and it could mean no life on this planet,their is order.

Which I think is pretty impressive evidence of the randomness of life on this planet. If there was a "design" the only possible design would have been to create a source of energy (the sun) then place a number of orbs filled with an array of elements (planets) at some distance from that energy source just to see what might develop and since I don't believe that their is this invisible scientist in the sky working on their doctoral dissertation I find this to be a satisfactory explanation.

However, the fact that life as we know only exists on 1 of the 8 (poor Pluto) planets in our solar system and that no life as we know it, could possibly exist on any of the other 8 due to the chemical make up, gravitational pull, or temperature seems to me to be pretty convincing argument in favor of pure chance.

[achickenchaser]

Originally Posted by dobeable

you could change one little thing like the distance from our planet to the sun and it could mean no life on this planet,their is order.

Consider how many billions of galaxies there are with no known life. The fact that one out of all those just happens to have the right combination for life doesn't seem so miraculous when you think about it. What are the odds? One in a few billion? One in a hundred billion? Simply by chance alone, you'd think we'd get lucky at least once....and we did.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by dobeable

you could change one little thing like the distance from our planet to the sun and it could mean no life on this planet,their is order.

So Mars is evidence that there is no order in the universe.

Because for every planet that is exactly the right distance away from the sun, their are dozens that are not.

In fact, the planets are distributed randomly, with some that are the right distance from the sun and many which are not.