Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mecha_Dude · 01-26-2002, 06:35 AM

Ok, There is no Time, it's a perception, an illusion, caused by your inability to percieve everything, so your brain has to put "order" it. Does this help?

Oolon Colluphid · 01-26-2002, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karzak the Holy:


Ah, I see where you are confused, the main point common to both is "from nothing", so I assumed peeps would realize that was where my interest lies. It really doesn't matter if it is the universe, or life, since the questions focus on the "from nothing" part of the equasion, not all that follows.

So, pick one or the othe, since both togather are too confusing, start with the
"from nothing" part.

Well, life didn't come from nothing. It came from inorganic, non-living matter. At which point it'd be good if, Mr Dictionary, you'd define 'life', just to be clear. Heaven forbid we misunderstand you again.

Ref where life came from, here's a few links to tide you over:

<a href="http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm" target="_blank">NASA's origins of life site</a>

<a href="http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA03/RNA_origins_life.html" target="_blank">RNA and the origins of life</a>

<a href="http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/menu.htm" target="_blank">Origin of life (University of Glasgow)</a>

<a href="http://www.origins.rpi.edu/chem.html#rna" target="_blank">The formation of the RNA world</a>

<a href="http://www.syslab.ceu.hu/corliss/Nature.html" target="_blank"> The emergence of living systems
in Archaean submarine hot springs</a>

And a search at PubMed brings up these <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubme d&from_uid=11539076" target="_blank">130 articles</a>.

These two are rather interesting too:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115394 67&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymerization</a>

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=115413 37&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">Hydrogen cyanide polymers</a>.

I'm inclined to think that it's you who doesn't understand the question.

Enjoy!

I'll get back to you with some info on the origins of the universe soon.

Quote:

Maybe you will even realize that the answer to both will be substantually the same.

Sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure?

TTFN, Oolon

hezekiah jones · 01-26-2002, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karzak the Holy:
Ah, I see where you are confused ... It really doesn't matter if it is the universe, or life, since the questions focus on the "from nothing" part of the equasion, not all that follows.

What "equasion"?

Your questions presume the existence of "nothing." When was there ever "nothing"?

How do you know that this observed expansion is not just the latest phase of an infinitely continuous cycle of expansions and contractions?

Also, what do you mean by "pre-organic"? Does that mean "before carbon"?

Kaina · 01-26-2002, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:

Also, what do you mean by "pre-organic"? Does that mean "before carbon"?

Perhaps the Holy one is not aware that in the presence of elemental carbon and hydrogen, organic compounds form spontaneously.

Holy one, try a little less arrogance. Instead of responding with a sigh over our lack of understanding, why don't you try explaining yourself? Thank you.

Oolon Colluphid · 01-26-2002, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaina:
Holy one, try a little less arrogance. Instead of responding with a sigh over our lack of understanding, why don't you try explaining yourself? Thank you.

"Unclear writing isn't a sign of unclear thinking, it is unclear thinking."

-- Clive James

tronvillain · 01-26-2002, 09:36 AM

NialScorva:

Quote:

Evolution as a word simply means change over time. Evolution used by itself as a science refers exclusively to biological change in species over time, not stellar, not abiogenesis, not anything other than populations breeding and adapting. We don't need to call it "stellar evolution" it's simply astrophysics. You don't need "geographical evolution", it's simply geology. Sometimes the word evolution is used not as the name of a science, but merely as meaning something that changes.

I'm reminded of something Richard Dawkins wrote:

Quote:

The real unit of natural selection was any kind of replicator, any unit of which copies are made, with occasional errors, and with some influence or power over their own probability of replication. The genetic natural selection identified by Darwinism as the driving force of evolution on this planet was only a special case of a more general process that I came to dub "Universal Darwinism."

Obviously this would only apply if universes are capable of replicating with variation that affects their own probability of replication. I once saw it suggested that black holes might provide that capability.

One meaning of "evolution" that is slightly less general than "change over time" is "the persistance of the stable." This is the sort of "evolution" we use to explain things like the solar system.

Bill · 01-26-2002, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karzak the Holy:
Ah, I see where you are confused, the main point common to both is "from nothing", so I assumed peeps would realize that was where my interest lies. It really doesn't matter if it is the universe, or life, since the questions focus on the "from nothing" part of the equasion, not all that follows.

So, pick one or the othe, since both togather are too confusing, start with the
"from nothing" part. Maybe you will even realize that the answer to both will be substantually the same.

The issue of obtaining something "from nothing" is commonly grouped under the heading of "creation ex nihilo." As a strong believer in Metaphysical Naturalism, I reject the entire concept of "creation ex nihilo, as incoherant. It is flatly impossible for something to come "from nothing." Even in the case where God-believers assert that "God created X," the "from something" part is clearly "God." So, if you wish to assert that "God created the universe," then the universe comes "from God" as opposed to "from nothing."

As for the Big Bang itself, I would assert that there is some sort of "larger reality" which comprises part of "all that exists" and which contains the Big Bang and all of its products and consequences, as well as any similar things that might exist "out there somewhere." For more on this point, you might wish to try reading my essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/crsc.html" target="_blank">At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design"</a> and get back to me with any further questions.

== Bill

Karzak the Holy · 01-26-2002, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
[QB]It is flatly impossible for something to come "from nothing."

Why is that? The TANSTAAFL theory is nice, but hardly is proof of the pre-big bang state of the universe.

nothing in your paper disproves the nothingness theory of the pre big bang universe.

Bill · 01-26-2002, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Karzak the Holy:
Why is that? The TANSTAAFL theory is nice, but hardly is proof of the pre-big bang state of the universe.

nothing in your paper disproves the nothingness theory of the pre big bang universe.

All of philosophy is filled with word games. It is always best, in philosophical discourse, to attempt to make yourself clear.

The so-called Big Bang involved incomprehensible quantities of energy (at least it did so far as we can conceive of it happening at all). I fail to comprehend what your "nothingness theory" implies as the source of that energy. My lack of comprehension is not due to any failure on my part, but rather to your failure to make clear exactly what it is that you intend to mean by your alleged assertion.

== Bill

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]

Karzak the Holy · 01-26-2002, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theophage:
[QB]By definition, a poorly worded question is one that is not understood.

"Nothing", by defintion, cannot exist...

Again, if you fail to understand part of the question, be specific as to what confuses you.

"how does life evolve from nothing?", seems pretty straightfoward to me.

Also nothing can certainly exist, in theory anyway. "the absence of all magnitude or quantity", it describes at least one theoretical state of the pre big bang universe.

since everything discussed on this board is pretty much only theoretical, I thought a grasp of the theoretical might be found here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2002, 06:35 AM	#21
Mecha_Dude Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Everywhere... I'm Watching you... Posts: 1,019	Ok, There is no Time, it's a perception, an illusion, caused by your inability to percieve everything, so your brain has to put "order" it. Does this help?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.