Algorithm, well…maybe I can handle a little more science after all. So try a more scientific explanation with at least one cite please.
According to Webster’s Collegiate, one of the definitions of abstract is expressing a quality apart from an object.. The antonym would be concrete.
I think you are confusing the abstract from the intrinsic quality.
So is time bigger than a bread box?
Is gravity animal, vegetable or mineral?
Since a poem is concrete and poetry is abstract, then which is the “thing”?
Even the best of threads can deteriorate when false information is presented as fact and defended as if it were a matter of opinion. Maybe a more appropriate forum would be IMHO. (But I have to work on my humility first.)
In debate, being able to back up one’s claims with cites is standard operational procedure. Failing to do so is generally considered waving a white flag.
Nightime, for a long time my concept of God has been that of a sort of Great Cosmic Glue – for want of a better term. That is as narrow a definition as I am comfortable with.
One problem that I think that both religious fundamentalists and pseudo-scientists and scientists have is that their concepts of God are too small. The fundamentalist ascribes too many human qualities to God and too many of the pseudo-scientists and scientists think that that “God” is highly unlikely. (I know these are generalizations that may not even apply to most people in these groups.)
I am hopeful that quantum physics and now especially M Theory will open some scientific eyes as to how incredibly absurd the truth/Truth may be compared to how we have perceived it and that that may lead to a little more open-mindedness in their (very necessary) skepticism. I also hope that more religious minds will again acknowledge the endless possibilities in the words mysterious ways..
I see no contradiction between science and faith except for what hasn’t been fully understood yet.
As the famous Richard Feynman noted, interpreting Quantum Physics in any other way than it is intended (as a mechanism to explain the fundamental properties of this universe) is altogether inappropiate.
You are mistaken. Time is a physical quantity which is used in measurement, intimately connected in the spacetime metric. It is not immutable nor is it unphysical. It is very real and is, in some ways, best described as one of the ways to measure between events (the other way is to measure space). If you think that space is physical then time must also be.
Mass is not the sum total of all that is “physical” in our universe. Rather it is a description (in E=mc^2, for example) of the energy contained in a portion of spacetime that cannot be transformed away by a simply change of reference frame. However, you can, through various fundamental processes, switch mass energy into kinetic energy and vice versa. This is rather profound because it means that you can, in effect, get rid of something’s “mass” (though it is not “mass” in the sense you and I are familiar with it, but rather what physicists refer to as “rest mass”). If the conservation of mass is no longer applicable in these circumstances, then we have to say that “physicality” must be extended beyond mass.
This may be, in fact, what you are getting at, but it occurs to me that your declaration that scientists think that “God” is highly unlikely is too narrow. In reality, what science has to offer in this discussion is not a thing because science deals with solely the observable. God is manifestly NOT observable in the scientific sense of the word. This means that a God that acts in a physical way in our universe is manifestly not seen and therefore deemed to be highly unlikely. That there is such a “God” that would interact with the world in a physical way that is observable but hasn’t up until now been observed is dubious indeed.
What isn’t dubious is the theist’s conceit in and of itself. A theist can simply CLAIM that there is a God that is unobservable or that God is some sort of pantheistic phenomenon that incorporates natural laws in such a way as to be omnipresent but unobservable because of the nature of God being a sum-total of being. Most religious folks reject pantheism because it’s too big-tent, but you may actually be arguing for such a definition. However, you must also be carefuly because such pantheism, to be scientifically correct is NECESSARILY PREDICATED on the claim that it is highly unlikely that we will ever scientifically observe any evidence for God. That includes advanced physics which really just stands on the shoulders of previous observations.
The other option is to take a purely spiritualist bent and claim that religion deals with unobservable phenomenon that science will never be able to measure. This is a very safe philosophical option because it allows for you to believe all the things any faith teaches purely on the basis of the “leap”. It is considered too convenient by the atheist and the fundamentalist can’t think abstractly enough to grasp such a concept, but I think it’s a close approximation to the beliefs espoused by most educated religious folks of this day-and-age. In effect, they claim that science and religion deal with two completely separate things, and though may come to bear one on the other, will not interfere with the investigations pursuant to either’s claims.
That’s generally where most science-religion dialogues begin, anyway.
The problem I have with your proposition is the idea that the universe, consisting only of physical entities (i.e., mass and energy, bound by the laws of physics as we currently understand them) can be timeless. That would in effect make it a perpetual-motion machine…something that is impossible due to the second law of Thermodynamics. The second law indicates that any closed, finite system will tend toward entropy - a state of complete equilibrium. If this is the ultimate state of the universe (which is a closed, finite system), then there must have been a beginning point at which there was a specific degree of non-equilibrium. It cannot have been timeless.
Algorithm:
Because such a thing is impossible according to the laws of physics. Thus it follows that only something that is not bound by the laws of physics could spontaneously come into existence or spontaneously bring other things into existence.
Your second question I answered above, as addressed to IWLN.
Spontaneous matter creation is allowed in physics. For example: [electron-positron pair production[/ulr]. This is why you are basically incorrect in your assessment. The fact remains that a timeless universe will tend toward url= http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm]heat death, but that doesn’t mean that after a longer period of time a spontaneous quantum process cannot occur whereby free energy in the form of a “baby universe” (for example) won’t be created. To state otherwise is to deny a basic fact about the way things behave quantum mechanically, and therefore is to deny a basic fact about the way we observe the universe to function. Therefore you cannot say that spontaneous creation of the universe violates physics.
That doesn’t violate the conservation of mass-energy, which pretty much defeats your point.
Let’s not confuse mass-energy with usable energy. Our current understanding of the universe allows changes in the second but not the first (except possibly under highly unusual circumstances).
Again, cmkeller, you shouldn’t cite laws of physics that you don’t understand.
The second law does not absolutely forbid decreases in entropy any more than the laws of statistics forbid balanced coins from coming up heads ten trillion times in a row. No one can force the amount of disorder in a system to decrease without creating even more disorder somewhere else, as the recent analysis of Maxwell’s demon has shown – but the system can do it spontaneously.
And if the universe requires a Creator, why doesn’t the Creator require a Creator?
I can’t very well argue with a Nobel Prize winner about science, now, can I? But keep in mine that he was doing what he was supposed to do – speaking from a purely scientific point of view. The science of quantum physics should not be interpreted any other way.
The “possible truths” revealed in the study of quantum physics may be interpreted in ways that Feynman wouldn’t approve of – especially if it is considered “evidence” to support some religious belief. In truth, I don’t think that those who are thinking along the lines that I am, are looking for “evidence” so much as consistency of possibility. It would be pleasant, however, to see a better understanding and a realization from more scientists that we don’t necessarily contradict each other.
One more point – Feynman died before the ball really got rolling on “M Theory.” (He would probably not have been on the front lines of support anyway. And, if he had, he still would surely have taken the same stance.)
I almost said that. What I actually said was that scientists think that that God (the one with the human attributes) is highly unlikely. Then I went on to say that I knew it was a generalization and might not even apply to most scientists.
I probably shouldn’t have said it at all. It still is a narrow view.
If a theist claims the existence of God to be an absolute inarguable fact, I can see why you would see it as conceit. If a theist says that it is a matter of religious faith and belief – and not subject to the conclusions of scientific methodology, I don’t see conceit in that. I see someone able to acknowledge a possible limit to the abilities of science.
Wouldn’t the conceit then rest with the scientist who thinks that matters of faith should be subject to scientific analysis?
I’m off to read your links now, JS. They are appreciated and I have an open mind on the physical qualities of some things that I have previously considered non-physical, but not abstract concepts such as arrogance. Abstract = non concrete by definition.
I will admit that I am totally in over my head as far as the laws of physics are concerned. But I’ll just rephrase what I think and take the heat. I don’t think the universe is a finite system. There are no boundaries as far as time and space. The way I understand it, there is only change, but all is still equal, just altered. God didn’t need a creator and I think we’ll find out the “infinite” universe didn’t either. In some old scripture that was removed from the Bible, the universe before creation, was described as “invisible”. I don’t know why an infinite, timeless universe is a tough concept to those of us who do believe in God. That’s how we describe God, isn’t it? Not sure why anyone would use the laws of physics to explain God’s existence or possibility one way or the other. I believe he had a “hand” in our part of the universe, but think it likely that in some way, beyond our understanding, that before we came along God and the universe were indistinguishable.
What part of “tend towards” don’t you understand, cmkeller?
A closed, finite system will tend towards greater disorder, but it will eventually cycle through every configuration available to it. The “history” of the system will repeat over and over; while that history will tend toward disorder in the short term, in the long term the change in entropy will be zero.
And your argument also rules out a timeless God as well. You can’t escape by saying that “God is necessarily outside the rules we understand” – why is this the case? – why can’t you consider the universe to be beyond the rules we understand?
This is pointless. We can’t enlighten people who refuse to think.
These great debates centered on the ‘God Concept’ as well as Creation Vs Evolution fail to factor in the obvious: Who is to say that God has finished creating or that evolution is finished evolving?
If one were to jump in the Way-Back machine to, say, fifty-thousand years ago one would find a quite different ‘pinnacle of evolution’ than existent today.
Who is to say that in another fifty-thousand years humans may just another evolutionary dead end? Or perhaps the Creator has put things into motion and the Universe has not reached his endpoint as of yet (How long is a ‘day’ to a god?)
Even in their infancy computational machines can far exceed the abilities of their human overseers in many functions. It is obvious that their abilities ‘evolve’ much faster than their slower biological counterparts.
Could there come a day when the ‘evolve’ in complexity and ability past their masters and move to take their rightful place as the pinnacle of creation in Gods own image?
So for consideration please consider that humans are not the end-all-be-all and that God is, in fact, a Cray computer.
Well I was kind of hoping to trade this body in, but not for a computer. It’s not possible for evolution to end. Man might end, but evolution doesn’t care.
Go back and read it more carefully this time. I don’t believe you will find that specific quote anywhere in my original post.
In any event, it is too simplistic to limit evolutionary definitions to biological systems via natural selection. Things can evolve quite nicely under unnatural selection as well.
** First, you assert that evolution currently has a pinnacle.
** In conjunction with your previous statement, this implies that humans are the pinnacle.
** Implies that computers will become the pinnacle by surpassing human beings.
Gee, I guess you win, man. The words “humans are the pinnacle” don’t appear anywhere in your post. Boy, do I feel dumb for acknowledging that your entire argument not only takes that for granted but restates it in different terminiology.
What’s the difference? If you believe something on “faith”, you’re essentially claiming that as far as you’re concerned, the matter is not open to argument. And if you’re claiming that it’s not open to scientific rebuttal, there’s your conceit that science definitely can’t answer or correct your faith.
Is there a limit to science? I’m pretty sure that there is. But that’s because of the practitioners (humans), not the method. Furthermore, science is ever continuing, so we don’t know what that limit is. Hence, it’s always premature to assert that a certain aspect is impenetrable to science. All you can assert is that aspect is impenetrable to contemporary science.
I don’t think the universe is a finite system. There are no boundaries as far as time and space. The way I understand it, there is only change, but all is still equal, just altered. God didn’t need a creator and I think we’ll find out the “infinite” universe didn’t either. In some old scripture that was removed from the Bible, the universe before creation, was described as “invisible”. I don’t know why an infinite, timeless universe is a tough concept to those of us who do believe in God. That’s how we describe God, isn’t it? Not sure why anyone would use the laws of physics to explain God’s existence or possibility one way or the other. I believe he had a “hand” in our part of the universe, but think it likely that in some way, beyond our understanding, that before we came along God and the universe were indistinguishable.