Debate Mansion

   

Where do you think we came from? (Page 9)

Post Reply New Post

Page 9 of 143

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20613

Posted: 29 January 2013 at 10:58am | IP Logged
http://science.time.com/2013/01/24/goodbye-silicon-hello-dna-the-future-of-data-storage/

Not sure if it is relevant or not. But interesting.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Where do you think we came from? (Page 9)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 29 January 2013 at 12:05pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

I was mourning the non-event that the Mayan prediction was :(

I liked your point about interconnectedness. But I am sure you realize that interconnectedness amounts to encoding; there has to be a decoder too somewhere. An RNA for a DNA, if you will.

i wonder. When we're done playing science mechanics, i think that at best we will understand how things work, not why they work the way they do.I know some folks like to believe that science is the only path to enlightenment, but for me it's like relying on physics to solve problems in another domain. Never seen a square peg fit in a round hole.Smile

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 29 January 2013 at 7:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

"Where did it all come from?"


FT,

The first hop skip and a jump back in time will take us to unicellular organisms, the second to hydrogen, the third to gluons and quarks, the fourth to strings (?) and the fifth to quantum gravity (?)

The physical part of the "truth" behind the universe cannot leap past the big bang singularity, as Vintu alluded to in one of his eloquent posts.

I am guessing there's more to your "curiosity" than you are letting out (I am hoping there's some yearning to find the "Truth" behind the existence of the universe and not a desire to raise a few target rating points :)

With that in mind, let's start framing the questions correctly. 


The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vinzy

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 29 January 2013 at 7:25pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

i wonder. When we're done playing science mechanics, i think that at best we will understand how things work, not why they work the way they do.


I think as long as it could be proved (like Godel did in his incompleteness theorems) that certain things (like, say, consciousness) is beyond the physical universe, we could rest in peace knowing that there is more to this than meets the eye. It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us.

drummedup

Senior Member

drummedup

Joined: 15 March 2009

Posts: 227

Posted: 30 January 2013 at 9:13am | IP Logged
I'm pretty late to this thread. Very interesting discussion going on.I'm going through the first thread and I want to address a point here:

Freethinker's quote:

Though I accept that story that by chance a ship can get to safe harbor, I will address this point. I do not believe in a creator because there isn't evidence of one. You don't believe because we don't have the full explanation of the origin of Universe yet. People like you used to say Indra is in charge of rain, Bhaskara for rising of sun, etc. Why? Because they didn't know how these things happened. And instead of finding out, they stupidly created imaginary beings and made them in charge. But that doesn't make them real. There is no one running Universe, at least we haven't found anybody.

I don't think we can call them stupid. They were far more intelligent than we are all put together. Because, they knew that we won't respect our nature enough if they don't call it God.They did not just name it  God but also addressed the procedures to apparently 'pray' these Gods. Like suryanamaskaras or reciting a chant in the presence of Sun etc to pray 'bhaskara'.Kyun?! Just to get our daily dose of vitamin D.nothing else!!! They guessed as time passes mankind will fail to appreciate obvious gifts of healing and nature and lead an undisciplined life and fall prey to bigger diseases in exchange to neglecting smaller daily activities like just standing under the Sun.

I meant to particularly pin-point the bolded line because those who are in disagreement to God of various forms, certain mindless religious rituals put ALL rituals/beliefs under the same non-scientific/stupid category. But the ol' ones were pretty intelligent in my opinion. If they just called these things 'God' and just left it at that, then I would've stood in the opposite team.But they wove PURE physics around these things. They would've been lost as banal instructions if not in the name of God.Big smile Hence, God of various forms.Even they believed in a supreme above these Gods.(The one we are probing now- Supreme as in Science or God?) Even they din't dig too deep into the Supreme coz maybe even they were still searching the answer? Whateves!

Over the years these Chinese whispers distorted the real theories and people twisted them to their convenience. I do not believe ANY of the religions in their current forms. They are manipulated.

Hence forth, Reserved. Lemme finish the 1st thread.Very interesting.And if I've repeated any point or theory already discussed.Apologies.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

LovelyPlanet_Angie_

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 30 January 2013 at 9:58am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

i wonder. When we're done playing science mechanics, i think that at best we will understand how things work, not why they work the way they do.


I think as long as it could be proved (like Godel did in his incompleteness theorems) that certain things (like, say, consciousness) is beyond the physical universe, we could rest in peace knowing that there is more to this than meets the eye. It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us.

supposed randomness. That brings up two questions- is it really random. And if it is really random, does that disprove God? Consider:

ancient man attributed what they then understood to be random events (earthquakes, famines) as stemming from the whims of the gods. Implication here is they took randomness they couldn't explain as gods playing dice, as signs that there were higher beings who were controlling their lives.

when man began to unravel the science behind these seemingly random events, man could see greater order in things. This time, it is the 'order' in the universe that we attribute  to God. Back to square one, attributing it to God, although now it is for exactly the opposite reason.

on a separate track, folks often ask as to who created God. That sounds similar to the 'chicken and egg' dilemma. Which came first and how...Smile


K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1137

Posted: 31 January 2013 at 1:52pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

supposed randomness. That brings up two questions- is it really random. And if it is really random, does that disprove God?


It depends on who/what generated the randomness that we see.

If I type in "zxcvbnm", it might look random at the outset but what generated that is a keystroke action by me wherein I just hit a couple of keys in the last row on my keyboard in sequence. So are the letters sequential (as in exhibiting a pattern) or are they random? It depends on who the entity parsing the string is. To me, it had a pattern. To you, it probably did not (till I told you :)

So to go back to your question: "is it really random?"

The short answer is, we don't know who/what generated/generates the particles that exhibit the probabilistic wave-like behavior we usually associate with randomness.

To the other question: "does the supposed randomness disprove God (or even an algorithm, if God is replaced by a computer)?"

The answer is - most definitely not.

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 31 January 2013 at 2:17pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

supposed randomness. That brings up two questions- is it really random. And if it is really random, does that disprove God?


It depends on who/what generated the randomness that we see.

If I type in "zxcvbnm", it might look random at the outset but what generated that is a keystroke action by me wherein I just hit a couple of keys in the last row on my keyboard in sequence. So are the letters sequential (as in exhibiting a pattern) or are they random? It depends on who the entity parsing the string is. To me, it had a pattern. To you, it probably did not (till I told you :)

So to go back to your question: "is it really random?"

The short answer is, we don't know who/what generated/generates the particles that exhibit the probabilistic wave-like behavior we usually associate with randomness.

To the other question: "does the supposed randomness disprove God (or even an algorithm, if God is replaced by a computer)?"

The answer is - most definitely not.

not sure how the "most defintely not" answer squares with your raising the point earlier: "It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us."

there's something about probabililities that i feel uncomfortable with in this context. If all we are given is a probability function by God, then it still leaves a lot of randomness to chance, not to God. The randomness by definition would be in terms of realized values. Someone can have a losing streak of a 100 lifetimes (assuming reincarnation of some kind) that doesnt seem fair if there is God. Even without invoking reincarnation, someone can have continuous bad luck as one of several possible paths. Not fair again.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you think rape is a cultural problem?

2 3

Loving2011 18 1295 12 January 2013 at 10:16am
By LeadNitrate
you think strict parenting is abusive ?

2 3

beforesunrise 17 1358 02 January 2013 at 10:53am
By JalebiHearts
Do u think women think more than men?

2 3 4 5 6 7

be-happy-always 48 3187 16 December 2012 at 3:49pm
By be-happy-always
So you think you can kill your children?

2 3 4 5 6

MagicalKash 41 2199 15 April 2011 at 6:55am
By zorrro
Do you think weather affects mood?

2

Sex.Direction 15 743 17 November 2010 at 10:10pm
By AaLeo

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.