Why did our universe begin? (Split from Atheist wins Nobel Prize thread)

[Learner]

]First, when you post a youtube video or link to a lengthy article, please provide a summary of your argument that you believe the reference supports. Because I have no fucking clue as to what your point is.

Context and the implications by the studies mentioned in the vid, is about 'thoughts or descisions'; the logical conclusion that they as qualified scientists say, after years of studies are suggestiing thoughts and dscisions can be executed outside/or seperate of the brain. I think even as a layman I understand the possible implications and besides, watching the vid you get to hear reference, straight from the horse's mouth.

I watched the video, all 30 mins of it, and I found nothing in it that contradicts my argument that consciousness is always associated with complex material networks. The person presents five evidences against materialism, but really, be brings up five things about human brains that we don't currently understand. None of the "evidences" provide examples, or even assert that consciousness can exist independent of a material foundation. Nobody here has claimed that we understand how the brain works, so you are arguing a strawman here. The person in the video then goes off the deep end, hypothesizing that nature can be best understood by imagining that nature has a purpose. He doesn't actually provide any evidence to support this argument.

So, my point and Bilby's point stands; consciousness in the universe is always tied to the complex interactions of matter/energy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide examples of consciousness existing without the underlying material substrate. And we all know you can't do that.

My, such limited options you present me with - when you say it that way, no wonder you're not getting the preferred response! Oddly, I take to the idea that All consciousness is made of energy, so I'm not at all making any argument against this. Immaterial & no energy at all was NOT the context I was viewing from. Non-physical structural matter with the existence of energy IS the context I view it from.

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Immaterial as in completely nothing ( I think you mean), I think I get you. Well then, that's the problem innit?

With the way you're shaping the "argument" which looks suited to your argumentative need, although, you won't get that discussion that your looking for (if you call it that, accusations 'n' all) because quite simply, the concept I see is... God IS energy, and is described so, in the bible.

Why should it be impossible for electrical data or infomation not to be held (in natural containment) of electrical or magnetic fields? Like the varying fundamental forces that each have particular unique characteristics affecting the properties of matter, in a predicatable fixed manner, like from memory when observed.
(not the best analogy)

What the fuck does any of this mean? When I use the word material, I am talking about things that are made up of matter/energy, or arise from matter/energy. Electric/magnetic fields would fall under this definition. But again, I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say here, and I am guessing that you don't have a clue either. You are just making up shit and throwing words together without comprehension of what the words mean, by themselves, or as part of the sentences you use them in.

Same again as mentioned above.

I don't remember this being my premise - saying both existed!!? Certainly not a biblical view, you could have pointed out. I would have thought at least you would have summized from the biblical narrative, and saying the usual rhetoric "Other Christians would disagree with you" when the narrative says: God Himself created the universe.

This is what you said:

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

What did you mean by this?

I mean as posted above, a "philsophical" approach (with tongue in cheek), entertaining the idea in what seems to be the language everyone speaks since there's only philosophy, as steve_bank rightly mentions in a post, being hypothetical without knowing (because no one does) and making absolute claims.

 

[bilby]

Enough with this roos jumping to arks stuff.

Why aren't we revising holy books to reflect actual understanding of things? We gave up a bunch of other faiths when the bases for ancient religions became laughable.

This strange fixation that holy words written down millennia ago are somehow sacrosanct is unsupportable. It is even more unreasonable to believe the fixedness of unverifiable texts as it is to believe the fixedness of an unsupportable creation no matter how many begats are asserted.

Yeah, we need commandments that reflect reality:

Thou shalt not exceed the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum;
Thou shalt not decrease the entropy of a closed system;
Thou shalt not give a sucker an even break.

That kind of thing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Why did our universe begin?

A more reasonable question would be why is it that anyone would think that it was a rational question and, if even if they thought it were a rational question, why would they think Christian mythology holds the answer?

 

[Learner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_telescopes

The (gravitational) centre of our Solar System is typically inside the Sun. The Sun's not difficult to see; Even with the naked eye, most people can discern it.

That would be most obvious. The post I made was a mistake in haste. I meant to say (and in regards to) the "observation through telescopes... the centre of the Galaxy," not the easy to see local solar-system.

The edge of the universe is defined by the observer. Every observer is at the centre of their universe.

Fine.

Let us accept the microbes in the universe. No evidence that theres more than the mere microbes existing and having "evolved" as the creatures have on earth.

OK. What's the evidence of microbes in the wider universe, beyond the Earth? What's the reason that you reject "more than mere microbes" beyond the Earth, but not microbes themselves? What's "mere" about microbes? Microbes are alive, and part of an obvious continuum of life.

'Entertaining the thought' no evidence, that microbes in the obvious continuum of life, beyond earth developing into bigger creatures than microbes, etc..

You are at the centre of your universe, and so is everyone else (including, but not limited to, microbes). It doesn't make you (or anyone else) special, important, or even interesting.

Fair enough

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, we need commandments that reflect reality:

Thou shalt not exceed the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum;
Thou shalt not decrease the entropy of a closed system;
Thou shalt not give a sucker an even break.

That kind of thing.

Actually I was thinking the laws should guide the formation and execution of transactional emotion related behavior

1. though shalt treat others as you would have them treat you

2. thou shalt be invested in the welfare of others

3.Thou shalt be generous to all persons

4. Thou shalt be considerate of the feelings of others.

5. Thou shalt strive to serve others.

...

All the above are responses for beings in a material social environment aimed at countering selfish effects of the fact we evolved.

After all we are emotional social beings in a material world. A world in which we evolved to be equipped to to protect ourselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, we need commandments that reflect reality:

Thou shalt not exceed the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum;
Thou shalt not decrease the entropy of a closed system;
Thou shalt not give a sucker an even break.

That kind of thing.

Actually I was thinking the laws should guide the formation and execution of transactional emotion related behavior

1. though shalt treat others as you would have them treat you

2. thou shalt be invested in the welfare of others

3.Thou shalt be generous to all persons

4. Thou shalt be considerate of the feelings of others.

5. Thou shalt strive to serve others.

...

All the above are responses for beings in a material social environment aimed at countering selfish effects of the fact we evolved.

After all we are emotional social beings in a material world. A world in which we evolved to be equipped to to protect ourselves.

I tend to think the following is a really good baseline, myself. They are tenants rather than "commandments", though.

As always, trust, but verify, however.

I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

 

[atrib]

Context and the implications by the studies mentioned in the vid, is about 'thoughts or descisions'; the logical conclusion that they as qualified scientists say, after years of studies are suggestiing thoughts and dscisions can be executed outside/or seperate of the brain. I think even as a layman I understand the possible implications and besides, watching the vid you get to hear reference, straight from the horse's mouth.

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

So, my point and Bilby's point stands; consciousness in the universe is always tied to the complex interactions of matter/energy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide examples of consciousness existing without the underlying material substrate. And we all know you can't do that.

My, such limited options you present me with - when you say it that way, no wonder you're not getting the preferred response! Oddly, I take to the idea that All consciousness is made of energy, so I'm not at all making any argument against this. Immaterial & no energy at all was NOT the context I was viewing from. Non-physical structural matter with the existence of energy IS the context I view it from.

Your options are limited by your seeming inability and/or unwillingness to read and understand simple English. Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, which is why I use the terms matter and energy interchangeably. They are the same thing. Were you really not aware of this?

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Immaterial as in completely nothing ( I think you mean), I think I get you. Well then, that's the problem innit?

Exactly. To dispute my claim, you have to demonstrate that immaterial consciousness can exist, and point to a few examples. Because every conscious thing in the universe we know of is associated with matter/energy patterns. Can you please do that now instead of sending us on wild goose chases.

With the way you're shaping the "argument" which looks suited to your argumentative need, although, you won't get that discussion that your looking for (if you call it that, accusations 'n' all) because quite simply, the concept I see is... God IS energy, and is described so, in the bible.

Matter and energy are the same thing. You can't claim God is immaterial, and in the same breath claim that God is energy.

I mean as posted above, a "philsophical" approach (with tongue in cheek), entertaining the idea in what seems to be the language everyone speaks since there's only philosophy, as steve_bank rightly mentions in a post, being hypothetical without knowing (because no one does) and making absolute claims.

Babbling away like a brook. Can you please pay attention to what you write? Put a little effort into it. Because I don't have a clue what any of this is supposed to mean.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, we need commandments that reflect reality:

Thou shalt not exceed the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum;
Thou shalt not decrease the entropy of a closed system;
Thou shalt not give a sucker an even break.

That kind of thing.

Actually I was thinking the laws should guide the formation and execution of transactional emotion related behavior

1. though shalt treat others as you would have them treat you

2. thou shalt be invested in the welfare of others

3.Thou shalt be generous to all persons

4. Thou shalt be considerate of the feelings of others.

5. Thou shalt strive to serve others.

...

All the above are responses for beings in a material social environment aimed at countering selfish effects of the fact we evolved.

After all we are emotional social beings in a material world. A world in which we evolved to be equipped to to protect ourselves.

I tend to think the following is a really good baseline, myself. They are tenants rather than "commandments", though.

As always, trust, but verify, however.

I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

I shouldn't have posted my list as commandments, they are to be seen as strong, consciously expressed considerations when behaving with others.

The intentions expressed in your list are similar but I can't get to cause and effect without gymnastics. Your number 4. stands as an exemplar of my problem. The statement more like a rational proposition than an objective hypothesis.

Yah, mine suffer too.

 

[Jarhyn]

I tend to think the following is a really good baseline, myself. They are tenants rather than "commandments", though.

As always, trust, but verify, however.

I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.

V
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.

VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

I shouldn't have posted my list as commandments, they are to be seen as strong, consciously expressed considerations when behaving with others.

The intentions expressed in your list are similar but I can't get to cause and effect without gymnastics. Your number 4. stands as an exemplar of my problem. The statement more like a rational proposition than an objective hypothesis.

Yah, mine suffer too.

#4 is literally just a description of reflexive consent: that if you assume a right against others, you accept others may assume that same right for others.

It doesn't really suffer, it just bothers to show work for the tenant portion with the logical symmetry that drives it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

It's fascinating that all woo claims begin by failing to make this simple, straightforward and obvious connection.

 

[steve_bank]

The woo woo choo choo express is now departing to nowhere.What does qualified scientist ,eaqn? People with paer scince credentials in way infers scince fact when speculating.

Scince is wrong over evolution, a sxccienyist is right avbout speculation that reinforces my faith....situational ethics.

Sconce proper deals with quantifiable variables that can be expressed by Systems International units. Seconds, meters, kilograms and the rest. Anything else is speculation. A scoentist's speculation is no moree or less valid than anyone else. Hawkins got a bit weird sometimes. He claimed he proved the un8verse creates it self from nothing.

One of the few philosophers I got something from was Popper. The only thing we can consider objective knowledge is an experiments. He term that being an experimentalist.

As discussion grows around experiment it becomes progressively subjective abd interpretive.

Witness the particle slit diffraction experiment, wave particle duality. Starting with the 60s books were written mixing scince and mysticism.

Depak Chopra a licensed medical doctor spins it periodically on PBS. In the 90s he claimed his mediation caused an earthquake. At times he invokes QM roof of mind out of body. The audience is enraptured and in bliss as he speaks, like any followers of a mystic.

As of yet there is no measurable effect regarding consciousness apart from body.

 

[fromderinside]

You all are looking in the wrong direction. Look into the work of Crick and Koch and those who follow.

I suggest you go forward from here

What is the function of the claustrum? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569501/

You might also go back ward to 1992

 

[bilby]

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

My, such limited options you present me with - when you say it that way, no wonder you're not getting the preferred response! Oddly, I take to the idea that All consciousness is made of energy, so I'm not at all making any argument against this. Immaterial & no energy at all was NOT the context I was viewing from. Non-physical structural matter with the existence of energy IS the context I view it from.

Your options are limited by your seeming inability and/or unwillingness to read and understand simple English. Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, which is why I use the terms matter and energy interchangeably. They are the same thing. Were you really not aware of this?

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Immaterial as in completely nothing ( I think you mean), I think I get you. Well then, that's the problem innit?

Exactly. To dispute my claim, you have to demonstrate that immaterial consciousness can exist, and point to a few examples. Because every conscious thing in the universe we know of is associated with matter/energy patterns. Can you please do that now instead of sending us on wild goose chases.

With the way you're shaping the "argument" which looks suited to your argumentative need, although, you won't get that discussion that your looking for (if you call it that, accusations 'n' all) because quite simply, the concept I see is... God IS energy, and is described so, in the bible.

Matter and energy are the same thing. You can't claim God is immaterial, and in the same breath claim that God is energy.

I mean as posted above, a "philsophical" approach (with tongue in cheek), entertaining the idea in what seems to be the language everyone speaks since there's only philosophy, as steve_bank rightly mentions in a post, being hypothetical without knowing (because no one does) and making absolute claims.

Babbling away like a brook. Can you please pay attention to what you write? Put a little effort into it. Because I don't have a clue what any of this is supposed to mean.

It boils down to the usual argument presented by theists when asked for evidence of their gods:

 

[fromderinside]

It was by Chance.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It was by Chance.

It's all part of the religious experience. The thing to do is see how sciency the woo can be made to sound while I sip some koolaid. I don't need to settle for no humdrum nature and humdrum science when I can have supernature and superscience? Awesome! Magic creatures, woo, spooky, spooky, spooky ...

And keep that koolaid coming.

 

[Treedbear]

It was by Chance.

It's all part of the religious experience. The thing to do is see how sciency the woo can be made to sound while I sip some koolaid. I don't need to settle for no humdrum nature and humdrum science when I can have supernature and superscience? Awesome! Magic creatures, woo, spooky, spooky, spooky ...

And keep that koolaid coming.

Why should Halloween be just one day a year?

 

[fromderinside]

Why? Why why?

 

[Learner]

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

Wonderful... you define and include energy as material substrate. I go along with that So...what made you think to yourself that 'Evidence against Materialism' meant the ABSENCE of ANY or ALL forms or mediums of energy/matter, in your mind, to be mine or the theist argument? Who actually argued that energy is seperate from matter?

You can'r just make up things (as you keep putting it to me) and falsely impose that notion upon me as this being my response or viewpoint!! An issue you should have had with the likes of atheist Prof. N. Krauss, when he proposed that something (universe) came from zilch, nothing (magic according William C. Lane, not biblical obviously).

My, such limited options you present me with - when you say it that way, no wonder you're not getting the preferred response! Oddly, I take to the idea that All consciousness is made of energy, so I'm not at all making any argument against this. Immaterial & no energy at all was NOT the context I was viewing from. Non-physical structural matter with the existence of energy IS the context I view it from.

Your options are limited by your seeming inability and/or unwillingness to read and understand simple English. Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, which is why I use the terms matter and energy interchangeably. They are the same thing. Were you really not aware of this?

Hopefully, I think I understand the above. So yes, matter and energy are interchangable, that I agree with, and have always understood this to be that.

Immaterial as in completely nothing ( I think you mean), I think I get you. Well then, that's the problem innit?

Exactly. To dispute my claim, you have to demonstrate that immaterial consciousness can exist, and point to a few examples. Because every conscious thing in the universe we know of is associated with matter/energy patterns. Can you please do that now instead of sending us on wild goose chases.

I dispute your claim of my supposed claim, as according to you - in that, you can say on my behalf and tell me, what my claim is. The false notion that I think and claim, "Consciosness can exist by the absolute absence of anything - no forms of energy of any kind (your context). Seems like you're talking to the wrong person for that particular discussion, as I sort of indicated in the previous post to you.

With the way you're shaping the "argument" which looks suited to your argumentative need, although, you won't get that discussion that your looking for (if you call it that, accusations 'n' all) because quite simply, the concept I see is... God IS energy, and is described so, in the bible.

Matter and energy are the same thing. You can't claim God is immaterial, and in the same breath claim that God is energy.

Again the context you insist on, without any energy of any kind, is NOT my discussion point.


Here's what theists DO say 'under the same breath' in context and concept:

God is INVISBLE, and like energy in it's various forms, are also invisble! You (plural) got conceptually muddled up!

I mean as posted above, a "philsophical" approach (with tongue in cheek), entertaining the idea in what seems to be the language everyone speaks since there's only philosophy, as steve_bank rightly mentions in a post, being hypothetical without knowing (because no one does) and making absolute claims.

Babbling away like a brook. Can you please pay attention to what you write? Put a little effort into it. Because I don't have a clue what any of this is supposed to mean.

The underlined above, to the best of my ability, consider it done.

So previously in the post regarding the above. I was saying, the premise that you "kindly" provided speaking for me, made-up by your own thoughts and not mine, i.e., the premise that BOTH universe and creator began or existed at the same time etc. I was merely discussing ''for arguments sake' with the responding post: the universe or creator, which came first? NOT because I believed in the said premise.

 

[fromderinside]

... in regards to the universe or creator, which came first?

Physical things do physical stuff. No need to consider a creator.

Since physical things do physical stuff there is no need to specify a beginning since physical things do physical stuff.

We know there is physical stuff. The presence of physical stuff is sufficient for physical things to take place.

Asking why is there physical stuff answers itself. There is physical stuff, it does physical things.

If one wants to ask whether there was no physical stuff that is a completely different question.

 

[Learner]

... in regards to the universe or creator, which came first?

Physical things do physical stuff. No need to consider a creator.

Since physical things do physical stuff there is no need to specify a beginning since physical things do physical stuff.

We know there is physical stuff. The presence of physical stuff is sufficient for physical things to take place.

Some people may just like to curiously know, discuss or debate about the possibilty.