Dear iidb: Guy babbling about Christ, evolution, and the big bang.

[ideologyhunter]

This discussion made me revisit a Sam Kinison bit called Jesus Was Never Married -- one of his best, and currently on YouTube.

 

[bilby]

why couldn't the fundamental forces evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware?

Because evolution requires variation within a population; It requires competition between individuals and populations; It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance; and It requires death.

None of those four essential characteristics apply to fundamental forces. Evolution cannot occur without them.

Life is surprisingly difficult to define, but one fairly good definition is "cyclic chemistry that is sufficiently complex as to evolve". Fundamental forces are neither cyclic, nor complex. They do not compete, reproduce, or die. They are not alive.

 

[Learner]

why couldn't the fundamental forces evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware?

Because evolution requires variation within a population; It requires competition between individuals and populations; It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance; and It requires death.

Biology would in concept evolve through those particular processes of variation ,yes quite. I wasn't suggesting the process would be exactly the same for any forces, especially if such processes would require the death of biological organisms.

None of those four essential characteristics apply to fundamental forces. Evolution cannot occur without them.

The thing that interested me was asking: what else would exist if there were no fundamental forces? There'd be no existence of a universe or physical matter, according to scientific explanation..

I was genuinely curious about these fundamental forces being the glue that is holding us together as a form, perceived to be as solid mass, but really... our existence is a makeup of a variety of force fields with plenty of spaces in between.

I suppose, in a manner of speaking, we are 'technically' natural ghosts in a natural ghostly universe - existing by being held together by the fundamental forces.

What would seem to be 'ghosts' to us as we see ourselves as physical entities .. these apparent ghosts are born into the universe like like us too... held together by the same forces, only, they are held together differently in a containment of variant field strengths that becomes a variant form which becomes our ghost entity.

Anyway I used to be curious about quite a lot of things before I became Christian.

Life is surprisingly difficult to define, but one fairly good definition is "cyclic chemistry that is sufficiently complex as to evolve". Fundamental forces are neither cyclic, nor complex. They do not compete, reproduce, or die. They are not alive.

Fair point view.No argument from me here.

 

[bilby]

why couldn't the fundamental forces evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware?

Because evolution requires variation within a population; It requires competition between individuals and populations; It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance; and It requires death.

Biology would in concept evolve through those particular processes of variation ,yes quite. I wasn't suggesting the process would be exactly the same for any forces, especially if such processes would require the death of biological organisms.

Well if you didn't mean "evolution", and you don't know the meaning of "evolution", then perhaps it would be wise not to use the word "evolution".

None of those four essential characteristics apply to fundamental forces. Evolution cannot occur without them.

The thing that interested me was asking: what else would exist if there were no fundamental forces?

That's an interesting philosophical question, but not one you seem qualified to address effectively.

The answer is most probably "nothing".

There'd be no existence of a universe or physical matter, according to scientific explanation..

Indeed.

I was genuinely curious about these fundamental forces being the glue that is holding us together as a form, perceived to be as solid mass, but really... our existence is a makeup of a variety of force fields with plenty of spaces in between.

Well, no. If you want to understand quantum field theory, I strongly advise against trying to start from scratch, given that hundreds of the best brains humanity could find have taken well over a century to develop the theory.

If you want not only to understand, but also to contribute meaningfully to the field, I hope you are both young, and well prepared with an educational background that was strong in both mathematics and physics.

I suppose, in a manner of speaking, we are 'technically' natural ghosts in a natural ghostly universe - existing by being held together by the fundamental forces.

Then you suppose incorrectly, unless you have a very precise phenomenon in mind to which you are attaching the label "ghost".

What would seem to be 'ghosts' to us as we see ourselves as physical entities .. these apparent ghosts are born into the universe like like us too... held together by the same forces, only, they are held together differently in a containment of fields that becomes a form which becomes an entity born.

Yeah, that's just woo. It would probably sound more impressive if I were taking drugs, but sadly I am stone cold sober, and so am able to identify it as meaningless nonsense.

Life is surprisingly difficult to define, but one fairly good definition is "cyclic chemistry that is sufficiently complex as to evolve". Fundamental forces are neither cyclic, nor complex. They do not compete, reproduce, or die. They are not alive.

Fair point view.No argument from me here.

So, 'evolution of fundamental forces' is clearly a category error, an impossibility, and a notion that you probably should have kept to yourself to avoid embarassment.

 

[Jarhyn]

I used to ponder in the past on the thought of evolution: the processes that initialized the formation of living beings. 'Intelligently thinking' creatures made up from elements of lifeless material, bringing about Intelligent awareness.

Apparently not enough. Literally everything that you said here is fairly well wrong.

"Evolution" didn't initialize the process.

The process was never actually "initialized" unless you want to discuss the Big Bang, and then multiple sorts of things initialize the process.

The material we are made of is not "lifeless" in some binary way.

Awareness and intelligence are a can of worms all their own.

I wouldn't even call it "abiogenesis" but "systemic accretion" or some other set of terms that implies that current systems of things came together from disparate parts.

If you want to claim you have contemplated or enough to criticize scientific understanding, you would have to understand each of these things well enough to not make statements like the one you just made.

You are woefully uneducated on the topic. Most of my education on the topic, I sought out from books all on my own.

It should be well within your grasp, but while I could probably tutor you, you don't seem ready to accept the depth of your ignorance on the topic.

 

[Learner]

why couldn't the fundamental forces evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware?

Because evolution requires variation within a population; It requires competition between individuals and populations; It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance; and It requires death.

Biology would in concept evolve through those particular processes of variation ,yes quite. I wasn't suggesting the process would be exactly the same for any forces, especially if such processes would require the death of biological organisms.

Well if you didn't mean "evolution", and you don't know the meaning of "evolution", then perhaps it would be wise not to use the word "evolution".

Evolve means gradual change. Are you suggesting seriously sticking to the claim this is strictly biological!

None of those four essential characteristics apply to fundamental forces. Evolution cannot occur without them.

The thing that interested me was asking: what else would exist if there were no fundamental forces?

That's an interesting philosophical question, but not one you seem qualified to address effectively.

The answer is most probably "nothing".

Qualified to address? 'Probably nothing' as an answer that indicates you can't address it yourself effectively.

I may never know the answer, nor do I pretend to. I am well qualified to ask that question..that means I am intelligent enough to ask because of the content of my curiosity.

There'd be no existence of a universe or physical matter, according to scientific explanation..

Indeed.

I was genuinely curious about these fundamental forces being the glue that is holding us together as a form, perceived to be as solid mass, but really... our existence is a makeup of a variety of force fields with plenty of spaces in between.

Well, no. If you want to understand quantum field theory, I strongly advise against trying to start from scratch, given that hundreds of the best brains humanity could find have taken well over a century to develop the theory.

Well, I have a good method in taking what ever answers you can give and van analyse them. I do have the cerebral capacity to investigate any knowledge claims given.

If you want not only to understand, but also to contribute meaningfully to the field, I hope you are both young, and well prepared with an educational background that was strong in both mathematics and physics.

Sure. very wise... although this isn't quite an argument response ...but keep noting I do respond back to your post anyway.

I suppose, in a manner of speaking, we are 'technically' natural ghosts in a natural ghostly universe - existing by being held together by the fundamental forces.

Then you suppose incorrectly, unless you have a very precise phenomenon in mind to which you are attaching the label "ghost".

Let's say say spirit (the type that would influence, interact and affect you,)...I usually use the word ghost in context to an apparition, an image which was another curiosity of mine (another discussion)

What would seem to be 'ghosts' to us as we see ourselves as physical entities .. these apparent ghosts are born into the universe like like us too... held together by the same forces, only, they are held together differently in a containment of fields that becomes a form which becomes an entity born.

Yeah, that's just woo. It would probably sound more impressive if I were taking drugs, but sadly I am stone cold sober, and so am able to identify it as meaningless nonsense.

Imagine when someone talked to you about quantum theory, let's say, the many worlds interpretation idea, that says: the different possible realities of a quantum object crystallise into different parallel universes at the point of measurement.

What's that saying? : Quantum theory is strange?

And there's the theory where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured,
Schrödinger's cat? Woofully fascinating mind you.

Life is surprisingly difficult to define, but one fairly good definition is "cyclic chemistry that is sufficiently complex as to evolve". Fundamental forces are neither cyclic, nor complex. They do not compete, reproduce, or die. They are not alive.

Fair point view.No argument from me here.

So, 'evolution of fundamental forces' is clearly a category error, an impossibility, and a notion that you probably should have kept to yourself to avoid embarassment.

No I was pondering. on the thought at the time about electric and magnetic fields which I did consider back then as fundamental forces of influence. . This was some time ago mind you.
There's nothing to be embarrassed about. Even when I'm wrong, it's ok. these are are just honest thoughts which I hope would be more appreciated. I don't care about intended belittling comments.when Ignored, overall, it's still a conversation to me.

 

[bilby]

Evolve means gradual change. Are you suggesting seriously sticking to the claim this is strictly biological!

No, I am seriously sticking to YOUR claim that it is:

"evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware"​

Those are your words (and your bold), and are the context of my reply.

Clearly you were making a simile with biological evolution. You even bolded the word "biological".

If you can't argue in good faith, why would I bother to engage with you any further?

 

[bilby]

Qualified to address? 'Probably nothing' as an answer that indicates you can't address it yourself effectively.

Indeed, but I never said I could. I can't perform brain surgery, but I nevertheless feel it is reasonable for me to note that you can't either.

 

[bilby]

I suppose, in a manner of speaking, we are 'technically' natural ghosts in a natural ghostly universe - existing by being held together by the fundamental forces. Click to expand... Then you suppose incorrectly, unless you have a very precise phenomenon in mind to which you are attaching the label "ghost".

Let's say say spirit (the type that would influence, interact and affect you,)

You can say "spirit (the type that would influence, interact and affect you,)", but you should be aware that no such thing can exist. We know what can influence, interact with, and affect matter; And we know that our list of such interactions is exhaustive at energies compatible with life. We can readily detect all of the interactions on that list, and no ghosts or spirits have been found despite considerable efforts to do so.

Such things exist only as fiction. They are imaginary, and are impossible in reality.

 

[bilby]

Imagine when someone talked to you about quantum theory, let's say, the many worlds interpretation idea, that says: the different possible realities of a quantum object crystallise into different parallel universes at the point of measurement.

What's that saying? : Quantum theory is strange?

Yes. It is. And it's hypothetical; A conjecture. It fits the facts, but it's only one of several ways to explain those facts (all of them strange, but not yet demonstrated to be impossible).

And there's the theory where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured,
Schrödinger's cat?

Indeed. It comes across as absurd. But it's consistent with experimental results, in a way that intuitive classical physics is not.

OTOH, your conjectures in this thread (such as ghosts and substance dualism) are inconsistent with experimental results, and so are simply false.

 

[Learner]

I used to ponder in the past on the thought of evolution: the processes that initialized the formation of living beings. 'Intelligently thinking' creatures made up from elements of lifeless material, bringing about Intelligent awareness.

Apparently not enough. Literally everything that you said here is fairly well wrong.

"Evolution" didn't initialize the process.

I didn't bother with mentioning abiogenesis.When I said evolution I included all the stages of life progressions.

The process was never actually "initialized" unless you want to discuss the Big Bang, and then multiple sorts of things initialize the process.

Big argument out of a word use. I said initialize to mean a start of a life form existence. Perhaps that was a bad word choice but do tell me. 'Never actually initialized " you say. Surely you don't mean "life never actually had a beginning". It must be the word initialized then that confuses you.

The material we are made of is not "lifeless" in some binary way.

You must tell me of the intellectual properties each element possesses. What questions did you ask the calcium in your bones? What hat it's reply?

Awareness and intelligence are a can of worms all their own.

Does your can of worms know where it's location is?

I wouldn't even call it "abiogenesis" but "systemic accretion" or some other set of terms that implies that current systems of things came together from disparate parts.

Widen the vagueness why don't you.

If you want to claim you have contemplated or enough to criticize scientific understanding, you would have to understand each of these things well enough to not make statements like the one you just made.

The impression of me is false. I'm not criticizing scientific understanding. I said I was pondering on the thought of non physical entities.

There's lots of scientific conventions that were easily accepted through popularity although they are still just theories that are not demonstrable.as you mention, the Big Bang is an example. Not all scientists agree with it...here's where I would get the criticisms that may relate to any of your arguments. I just report them to you, and tell you that according to this and that...your claim has a conflict.

You are woefully uneducated on the topic. Most of my education on the topic, I sought out from books all on my own.

Your topic of expertise is repeating word for word, text book knowledge. Anything outside the textbooks. even updates you are unaware of, will .be a conflict to your word-for-word textbook memory. This would be for your colleague of similar argumentative meand, bilby..

It should be well within your grasp, but while I could probably tutor you, you don't seem ready to accept the depth of your ignorance on the topic.

What is the topic!

Can you clarify what it was!

 

[steve_bank]

We haven't been into evolution vs religion for a while.

The BB does not start at time zero, there is no definition of how the theoretical initial conditions came to be.

What separates theory of evolution form 'alternative' explanations is TOE is based on known science and what we know of how biology works. Genetics.

Creationists who think god created the Earth three or four thousand years ago havve to explain how from Adam and Eve all the civilizations and racial diversity arose in such a short time.

The archeological evidence that shows a long history of life before humans existed.

 

[Learner]

Evolve means gradual change. Are you suggesting seriously sticking to the claim this is strictly biological!

No, I am seriously sticking to YOUR claim that it is:

"evolve like the biological form to be intelligently aware"​

Those are your words (and your bold), and are the context of my reply.

Then I wasn't clear, or you misunderstood. I am not suggesting the most obvious, that the fundamental forces would be behaving exactly like the biological processes. The only part that is exact between them in concept is they both have changes of progression.

Clearly you were making a simile with biological evolution. You even bolded the word "biological".

Yes only to highlight a differentiation between two states.Biology and the influencial forces.

If you can't argue in good faith, why would I bother to engage with you any further?

Good faith...I am doing.

 

[steve_bank]

Biology works by atomic forces. Chemical reactions.

Biology is a high level category, a convenient abstraction.

Mix the right chemicals and you get an explosion.

Atoms have evolved.

 

[Elixir]

I began when some sperm found an egg, but I was too young to remember it.

There wasn’t much “you” ( the person I’m addressing) to remember, at the time. You’re forgiven your forgetfulness.

 

[Learner]

View attachment 54402

Yep, we call them biographers..

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Imagine when someone talked to you about quantum theory, let's say, the many worlds interpretation idea, that says: the different possible realities of a quantum object crystallise into different parallel universes at the point of measurement.

What's that saying? : Quantum theory is strange?

Yes. It is. And it's hypothetical; A conjecture. It fits the facts, but it's only one of several ways to explain those facts (all of them strange, but not yet demonstrated to be impossible).

And there's the theory where particles exist in multiple states simultaneously until measured,
Schrödinger's cat?

Indeed. It comes across as absurd. But it's consistent with experimental results, in a way that intuitive classical physics is not.

OTOH, your conjectures in this thread (such as ghosts and substance dualism) are inconsistent with experimental results, and so are simply false.

And quantum physics still says there are some things so improbable that they are not permitted to occur. It's not the case that all things are possible under quantum physics. Quantum physics isn't magic.