• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The Seed of Origin

Pixel42 said:
This thread was started and named by the poster Billy Baxter.
Click to expand...

Things are not always as they might appear. I started this thread. I have no explanation [other than it is some type of algorithm glitch] as to why the poster Billy Baxter's post is shown as the first post but if you read post #19 as headed you should be able to work out that I am speaking the truth - that is the OP.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Movement outwards from a central point is not expansion? How does that work, then?
Click to expand...

The expansion I am referring to is the idea that space is expanding...imagine a buoy as the ground zero marker and ships moving away from GZ as representing observable matter [in form] and space as the ocean all this is happening upon...the ocean isn't expanding...

I think your explanation should include details of how space can exist without time.
Click to expand...

That is the inert aspect of space. Time cannot exist without space but space can exist without time.
Once the GZ event took place, the ripple effect created form out of the "stuff" of that area of infinite space and the movement of those forms are what created time.

As Roger Penrose explained, when timelessness once again comes into play as the movement ultimately stops, things settle back to what they were - inert due to the total dissipation of the energy which happened at GZ - space still exists but time no longer does...at least in this area of space which we currently call 'the universe' - there is no reason to think that there are no other points of GZ happening in infinite space
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Things are not always as they might appear.
Click to expand...
That's what I keep telling you, but you still insist that things must be as they intuitively appear to you.

I started this thread. I have no explanation [other than it is some type of algorithm glitch] as to why the poster Billy Baxter's post is shown as the first post
Click to expand...
If you click on the post by Mojo quoted in that first post, it takes you to another thread. Evidently a mod decided that the discussion that followed it was better suited to this thread, and moved it here. That discussion took place before you started this thread, so it ended up preceding the post that created the thread.

See, there is always a rational explanation for everything, you just need the knowledge and understanding to work it out. No need for mysterious glitches, magic or supernatural conscious entities.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
That's what I keep telling you, but you still insist that things must be as they intuitively appear to you.
Click to expand...

What I am insisting on is to keep physics as the prior state rather than not, as this is not only the better use of intuition but the more logical way in which to approach interpreting what is observed.


If you click on the post by Mojo quoted in that first post, it takes you to another thread.
Click to expand...

Yes - I know.


Evidently a mod decided that the discussion that followed it was better suited to this thread, and moved it here. That discussion took place before you started this thread, so it ended up preceding the post that created the thread.
Click to expand...

Which gave you the illusion that I did not start this thread.

See, there is always a rational explanation for everything, you just need the knowledge and understanding to work it out. No need for mysterious glitches...
Click to expand...

Why did you imply that I did not start this thread then, if you knew the explanation?
 
Navigator said:
What I am insisting on is to keep physics as the prior state rather than not, as this is not only the better use of intuition but the more logical way in which to approach interpreting what is observed.
Click to expand...
Intuition has proved to be a very poor guide to the true nature of the universe, most of modern physics is counterintuitive. To understand cosmology, quantum theory ... even the law of probability, you need to leave your common sense at the door. You can't assume that what appears to be most logical to you is actually the case.

Why did you imply that I did not start this thread then, if you knew the explanation?
Click to expand...
I did not know the explanation when I pointed out that the first post in the thread was not made by you. I only worked it out when I looked at the post you pointed me to, and then followed the link back to the other thread in the post Billy Baxter quoted.
 
Pixel42 said:
I did not know the explanation when I pointed out that the first post in the thread was not made by you. I only worked it out when I looked at the post you pointed me to, and then followed the link back to the other thread in the post Billy Baxter quoted.
Click to expand...

Navigator's first post in this thread as it currently stands is #19. It reads like an OP.

What I think has happened is that Navigator started a thread called "Seed of Origin" with that post. Then a moderator has merged his thread with another thread that was already started by Billy Baxter. The moderator has then renamed Billy Baxter's OP "Seed of Origin" hence the confusion.
 
What I am insisting on is to keep physics as the prior state rather than not, as this is not only the better use of intuition but the more logical way in which to approach interpreting what is observed.
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
Intuition has proved to be a very poor guide to the true nature of the universe, most of modern physics is counterintuitive. To understand cosmology, quantum theory ... even the law of probability, you need to leave your common sense at the door. You can't assume that what appears to be most logical to you is actually the case.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, my point remains - there is no reason intuitive or otherwise, which should have us dismiss the likelihood of physics existing prior to the GZ event, which is why I argue for the logic of space being an infinite canvas in which GZ events happen continuously, creating what we refer to as 'Universe' - singular in our case since we are experiencing a singular universe - but there is no reason why innumerable universes cannot also exist as products of there own GZ moments.

My question is why would physicists leave their common sense at the door when it comes to prior state by assuming that physics was not involved re the prior state, and speculate non-physics instead?
 
Last edited:
As far as I am aware (not an expert don't @ me) while it is theoretically possible for there to have been something "before" the big bang, no matter or energy from that state can possibly have survived the initial inflation, so there is no way for us to know anything about that state, even in principle.
 
Navigator said:
The expansion I am referring to is the idea that space is expanding...imagine a buoy as the ground zero marker and ships moving away from GZ as representing observable matter [in form] and space as the ocean all this is happening upon...the ocean isn't expanding...



That is the inert aspect of space. Time cannot exist without space but space can exist without time.
Once the GZ event took place, the ripple effect created form out of the "stuff" of that area of infinite space and the movement of those forms are what created time.

As Roger Penrose explained, when timelessness once again comes into play as the movement ultimately stops, things settle back to what they were - inert due to the total dissipation of the energy which happened at GZ - space still exists but time no longer does...at least in this area of space which we currently call 'the universe' - there is no reason to think that there are no other points of GZ happening in infinite space
Click to expand...

This is basically you making things up and pretending this is physics.
Do you have any evidence beyond your say-so?
 
Navigator said:
Nonetheless, my point remains - there is no reason intuitive or otherwise, which should have us dismiss the likelihood of physics existing prior to the GZ event,
Click to expand...
Fine up to here. No scientist does so, they only point out that we can only extrapolate the physics we know back to that point in spacetime. The known physics is so good it actually itself predicts where it will break down.

which is why I argue for the logic of space being an infinite canvas in which GZ events happen continuously, creating what we refer to as 'Universe' - singular in our case since we are experiencing a singular universe - but there is no reason why innumerable universes cannot also exist as products of there own GZ moments.
Click to expand...
Unsupported speculation.

The speculation I think most likely to turn out to be true is actually not dissimilar to yours - that ours is just one universe in an infinite multiverse - mostly because of precedent; every time we thought we'd reached the limit we eventually learned otherwise. It seemed ours was the only world, then we discovered those moving points of lights in the sky were other worlds. It seemed ours was the only solar system, then we discovered the fixed lights in the sky were other stars. It seemed ours was the only galaxy, then we discovered those little patches of light in the sky were other galaxies. So when it comes to this being the only universe, I don't think that's the way to bet. But at the moment we can only speculate, though I'm hopeful it's a question to which the answer can eventually be discovered.

My question is why would physicists leave their common sense at the door when it comes to prior state by assuming that physics was not involved re the prior state, and speculate non-physics instead?
Click to expand...
They don't, it's only theists who do that. Different physics is not non-physics.
 
The problem, Navigator, is that your speculation is mostly like your GMs - word salad in which only you can see meaning - and appears to be based on a 'lies to children' understanding of modern physics and cosmology. Meaningful speculation tends to explore concepts like quantum fluctuations, or colliding branes in higher-dimensional space, or refer to the ideas of cosmologists like Lawrence Krauss, i.e. it indicates a deeper and more nuanced understanding of what is already known.
 
Pixel42 said:
The speculation I think most likely to turn out to be true is actually not dissimilar to yours - that ours is just one universe in an infinite multiverse - mostly because of precedent; every time we thought we'd reached the limit we eventually learned otherwise. It seemed ours was the only world, then we discovered those moving points of lights in the sky were other worlds. It seemed ours was the only solar system, then we discovered the fixed lights in the sky were other stars. It seemed ours was the only galaxy, then we discovered those little patches of light in the sky were other galaxies. So when it comes to this being the only universe, I don't think that's the way to bet. But at the moment we can only speculate, though I'm hopeful it's a question to which the answer can eventually be discovered.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and in fact, one of the competing theories for the beginning of the universe is that it arose from a point where two other universes touched in n-dimensional space. It makes my brain hurt just thinking about that.

However, I think there is a misconception that Navigator is hung-up on. He rejects the idea that the whole universe could have been compressed into a point or some tiny thing..."almost nothing" I think he refers to it as. But in fact, that is a misunderstanding of the theory. When cosmologists talk about the primordial singularity, most people jump to the conclusion that they are talking about the same sort of singularity that is being referenced with regard to a black hole, but this is not that case at all. The term simply refers to an early hot, dense phase of the universe.

This confusion comes from the idea that the all the energy and matter in the observable part of the universe was once packed into an incredibly tiny volume, but that volume was not surrounded by empty space... it was surrounded by more matter and energy (which is today is beyond the region we can observe). To add to this confusion, not only is the whole universe probably infinitely large now, it was probably always infinitely large, and including during the primordial singularity phase. The current evidence indicates only that the early universe was extremely dense but not necessarily extremely small.

Further, and this is illustrative but unrelated, the actual nature of the structure of the atom is still generally misunderstood by the public. The Rutherford–Bohr model, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, is a system consisting of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons similar to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic forces in place of gravity. This is wrong.. it is not actually how it is, but it is a great way to visualize it, and so it is still taught at basic levels.

The important thing about properly visualising the Rutherford-Bohr model is that the "relative distances"* involved are much greater than the way they are presented, they really are more like the solar system in that regard. For example, if the nucleus of a hydrogen atom was the size of a tennis ball, the electron would be the size of a pinhead and be anywhere from 300 to 750 feet away. The vast majority of the atom is protons, neutrons and electrons and a whole bunch of nothing else. If it were somehow possible to remove all the "empty space"* from a 1KG gold ingot and have all the elementary particles crammed together, with their nuclei touching, the resulting object would be a tiny sphere not visible to the naked eye... but it would still have a mass of 1KG!!!

Astronomers estimate there are roughly 1080 atoms in the visible universe, so if it were possible to pull the same trick with the entire observable universe, it would make a solid sphere that would fit inside the Solar System.... that's a pretty small volume as universes go, and that sphere would still have the mass of the whole universe!!!


*NOTE: I put the terms "empty space" and "relative distances" in scare quotes because the terms "distance" and "space" within an atom don't really have any meaning. Again, they are just illustrative.
.
.
 
Nonetheless, my point remains - there is no reason intuitive or otherwise, which should have us dismiss the likelihood of physics existing prior to the GZ event, which is why I argue for the logic of space being an infinite canvas in which GZ events happen continuously, creating what we refer to as 'Universe' - singular in our case since we are experiencing a singular universe - but there is no reason why innumerable universes cannot also exist as products of there own GZ moments.
Click to expand...

Unsupported speculation.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Any speculations of what existed prior to the GZ moment, are unsupported .

The speculation I think most likely to turn out to be true is actually not dissimilar to yours - that ours is just one universe in an infinite multiverse - mostly because of precedent; every time we thought we'd reached the limit we eventually learned otherwise. It seemed ours was the only world, then we discovered those moving points of lights in the sky were other worlds. It seemed ours was the only solar system, then we discovered the fixed lights in the sky were other stars. It seemed ours was the only galaxy, then we discovered those little patches of light in the sky were other galaxies. So when it comes to this being the only universe, I don't think that's the way to bet. But at the moment we can only speculate, though I'm hopeful it's a question to which the answer can eventually be discovered.
Click to expand...

What you are referring to is 'patterns' - observations which lead us away from pure ignorance and into better understanding of 'most likely' speculations to adopt, based upon the observed patterns.

My question is why would physicists leave their common sense at the door when it comes to prior state by assuming that physics was not involved re the prior state, and speculate non-physics instead?
Click to expand...

They don't, it's only theists who do that.
Click to expand...

Too sweeping. I would agree that some branches of theism do that, but your generated statement implies otherwise, and appears untruthful for that.

Different physics is not non-physics.
Click to expand...

Thus, it should be fine to accept the idea that what we call the universe is simply a ripple in space which created forms which allowed for time to begin and end upon the back-drop of eternity.
 
However, I think there is a misconception that Navigator is hung-up on. He rejects the idea that the whole universe could have been compressed into a point or some tiny thing..."almost nothing" I think he refers to it as. But in fact, that is a misunderstanding of the theory. When cosmologists talk about the primordial singularity, most people jump to the conclusion that they are talking about the same sort of singularity that is being referenced with regard to a black hole, but this is not that case at all. The term simply refers to an early hot, dense phase of the universe.
Click to expand...

I do not reject any idea. Questioning any idea is not the same thing as rejecting any idea.

The questioning itself points to what is referred to as 'magical thinking' in relation to a seed which hung upon itself and the germinated into itself and upon germinating, became a series of unfolding events which we humans - so near the beginning of its unfolding - perceive as an astronomical reality - and one in which we have barely scratched the surface of...

Bearing in mind what we do know about seeds, we understand that they contain coding which - and this is the kicker - require an outside substance in order to be enabled to release that information and become something other than just the seed.

The seed requires a backdrop which already exists in order to be be able to germinate - to release its coding.

That is why I speculate that space is eternal and acts as the ground in which the seed germinates and becomes what its encoding specifies.
 
smartcooky said:
When cosmologists talk about the primordial singularity, most people jump to the conclusion that they are talking about the same sort of singularity that is being referenced with regard to a black hole, but this is not that case at all.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between the singularities?
smartcooky said:
The term simply refers to an early hot, dense phase of the universe.
Click to expand...
Well, there are hundreds of thousands of years where the whole universe could be described as "early hot, dense phase of the universe" but there is also a singularity in the model.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
What's the difference between the singularities?
Click to expand...

The Big Bang singularity is a low volume of point of very high mass and infinite density It contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. Its inflation created space, time, and all of the matter and energy we know today.

A Black hole singularity is created after the collapse of a the core of a massive star beyond the event horizon - the point at which the gravity is so great that the escape velocity is higher than C.

The differences are;

The Big Bang singularity contained all of the matter and energy in the Universe. Black Hole singularities do not.

Black Hole singularities exist IN space/time, The Big Bang singularity WAS space/time

Space and time began with the Big Bang singularity, but black holes actually stretch space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether.

According Hawking, Black Hole singularities always lie in the future - if you get near to one, that is the end of time for you, while the Big Bang singularity is always in the past.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
I do not reject any idea. Questioning any idea is not the same thing as rejecting any idea.

The questioning itself points to what is referred to as 'magical thinking' in relation to a seed which hung upon itself and the germinated into itself and upon germinating, became a series of unfolding events which we humans - so near the beginning of its unfolding - perceive as an astronomical reality - and one in which we have barely scratched the surface of...

Bearing in mind what we do know about seeds, we understand that they contain coding which - and this is the kicker - require an outside substance in order to be enabled to release that information and become something other than just the seed.

The seed requires a backdrop which already exists in order to be be able to germinate - to release its coding.

That is why I speculate that space is eternal and acts as the ground in which the seed germinates and becomes what its encoding specifies.
Click to expand...


Can you not see the basic mistake you are making here?

You applied the biological term "seed" to refer to the primordial singularity, and then you try to apply the biological attributes of the term you referenced to the thing you applied it to.

If I applied the term "work-horse" to a type of vehicle, say a Ford F150 or a Lockheed C-130 Hercules, it would be ridiculous if I then questioned why they don't have four legs, neigh and don't run on chaff and oats!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Can you not see the basic mistake you are making here?

You applied the biological term "seed" to refer to the primordial singularity, and then you try to apply the biological attributes of the term you referenced to the thing you applied it to.

If I applied the term "work-horse" to a type of vehicle, say a Ford F150 or a Lockheed C-130 Hercules, it would be ridiculous if I then questioned why they don't have four legs, neigh and don't run on chaff and oats!
Click to expand...

It is not a mistake, given the idea that everything about the idea of the object is that it contains everything which is the universe, inside itself.

Unless that too is a 'lie for children', the analogy of a "seed" is very appropriate re the story told...
Also you seem to forget the term for power which come from vehicle engines is referred to as 'horse-power' and nobody seriously wonders why they don't have four legs, neigh and don't run on chaff and oats...although we ought not forget chaff and oats are a type of fuel...
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
It is not a mistake, given the idea that everything about the idea of the object is that it contains everything which is the universe, inside itself.

Unless that too is a 'lie for children', the analogy of a "seed" is very appropriate re the story told...
Also you seem to forget the term for power which come from vehicle engines is referred to as 'horse-power' and nobody seriously wonders why they don't have four legs, neigh and don't run on chaff and oats...although we ought not forget chaff and oats are a type of fuel...
Click to expand...

You cannot apply biological analogies to the Big Bang and expect to be taken seriously!!
 
You cannot apply biological analogies to the Big Bang and expect to be taken seriously!!
Click to expand...

I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough and is not different from your use of the Sol-System analogy when referring to atoms...

There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.

The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]

So unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot refer to something which - as described - is as close to being a "seed" than it is to any other known thing in the universe - it should be taken as seriously as scientist wish us all to take the theory seriously.
 
Navigator said:
I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough.
Click to expand...

No, it is completely different and it does not fit at all in any serious way

Navigator said:
There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of reason to ignore it. They aren't even the same thing.

Navigator said:
The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]
Click to expand...

Science does not work they way you think it does.

You are no longer worth taking seriously, if you ever were anyway
 
I see Navigator is still assuming that something which seems obvious must be true, despite the many counterexamples which have been pointed out. I guess some people just cannot be taught.
 
Navigator said:
I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough and is not different from your use of the Sol-System analogy when referring to atoms...

There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.

The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]
So unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot refer to something which - as described - is as close to being a "seed" than it is to any other known thing in the universe - it should be taken as seriously as scientist wish us all to take the theory seriously.
Click to expand...

Citation needed for the highlighted.
 
Pixel42 said:
I see Navigator is still assuming that something which seems obvious must be true, despite the many counterexamples which have been pointed out. I guess some people just cannot be taught.
Click to expand...

He is also assuming that since he wants it to be true, it must be true.

At first I was prepared to cut him some slack and treat his musings seriously, but not any more. Terms inferring that "the physical universe must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin" and "Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidentality happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved" are simply paraphrased versions of Intelligent Design Dogma.

It has become obvious that he is a JAGA (Just Another "Godidit" Advocate)
 
Navigator said:
I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough and is not different from your use of the Sol-System analogy when referring to atoms...

There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.

The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]

So unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot refer to something which - as described - is as close to being a "seed" than it is to any other known thing in the universe - it should be taken as seriously as scientist wish us all to take the theory seriously.
Click to expand...

Please cite the data- mathematical or observational- that you have found, that fits your description of the formation of the universe. What data do you have to show there is something outside the space/time continuum of the know universe? What predictions can you make, that could be used to prove your ideas?
 
Seeds contain DNA and intricate biochemical machinery to render the coded DNA sequences into proteins that build the plant as it germinates.

Even if there were also some kind of "idea" or "intention" or other mystical quality imbued in the seed (for which there is no evidence), we know that if you damage or remove the DNA or the biochemical machinery, the seed doesn't grow. You can make unfalsifiable claims that there's more involved than material, but it is certain that the material is necessary for the seed to function as a seed.

What's the "DNA" in the primordial universe? There was no matter and it was too hot and dense for any material pattern to exist at that time.
 
smartcooky: You cannot apply biological analogies to the Big Bang and expect to be taken seriously!!
Click to expand...
William: I can and furthermore will continue to use the "seed" analogy as it fits the description nicely enough and is not different from your use of the Sol-System analogy when referring to atoms...

There is no reason whatsoever that we have to ignore the patterns which are obvious and in doing so, exclude these from referential terminology when applying analysis re the given story.

The Mother Like Child...so if anyone wants to be taken seriously re the object that exploded itself into itself to produce what we currently observe and refer to as "the physical universe" then whatever is in the universe and is said to have come from said object, must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin - the object scientists describe as where everything came from.

[Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidently happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved.]

So unless someone can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why we cannot refer to something which - as described - is as close to being a "seed" than it is to any other known thing in the universe - it should be taken as seriously as scientist wish us all to take the theory seriously.
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak: Please cite the data- mathematical or observational- that you have found, that fits your description of the formation of the universe. What data do you have to show there is something outside the space/time continuum of the know universe? What predictions can you make, that could be used to prove your ideas?
Click to expand...

I use the same data as the scientists produce. As I have explained already, there is no apparent reason as to why the object which exploded, has to be regarded as the only thing that existed, since that constitutes magical thinking [MT].

The obvious alternative to MT is that what is being observed as having a beginning and predicted to eventually end, must therefore be manifesting on a backdrop/stage/fabric/matrix of an eternal nature - physical in essence - yet also inert in its undisturbed state.

Myriad: Seeds contain DNA and intricate biochemical machinery to render the coded DNA sequences into proteins that build the plant as it germinates.

Even if there were also some kind of "idea" or "intention" or other mystical quality imbued in the seed (for which there is no evidence), we know that if you damage or remove the DNA or the biochemical machinery, the seed doesn't grow. You can make unfalsifiable claims that there's more involved than material, but it is certain that the material is necessary for the seed to function as a seed.

What's the "DNA" in the primordial universe? There was no matter and it was too hot and dense for any material pattern to exist at that time.
Click to expand...

When we are informed that an object containing everything that is the universe we are experiencing, the analogy of a seed is the closest thing we have in nature which exemplifies what the object was.

Obviously the "Seed of Origin" object cannot be considered to behave exactly like a biological seed here on this planet, because what it produced is cosmic in scale and includes this planet as part of what was manifested from the original coding packed together as it would have been.

The MT involved with this claim that the object was all that existed and will eventually reimagine itself as another Seed of Origin in some far off distant future - perpetually repeating itself as it has done for eternity - splats against the fact-wall of the actual information the germination has thus far poured out which any consciousness in functional form can observe and interpret, depending upon what filters they use to do so.

Furthermore - and to address this:

smartcooky: He is also assuming that since he wants it to be true, it must be true.

At first I was prepared to cut him some slack and treat his musings seriously, but not any more. Terms inferring that "the physical universe must have existed [as coding] within the Seed of Origin" and "Biological life on this planet of ours didn't just accidentality happen. Rather it was obviously mindfully achieved" are simply paraphrased versions of Intelligent Design Dogma.

It has become obvious that he is a JAGA (Just Another "Godidit" Advocate)
Click to expand...

It is certainly true that I use the theistic filter as a means of interpreting what is being observed, I also understand that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology ["lies to children" as Pixel42 referred to such-type stories] came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case.

I also acknowledge that modern scientists wish to distance themselves from ancient theistic thinking...so they make it appear that the idea is new and discovered by them - which certainly they did discover as something more than just theistic magical thinking - but in their haste to suppress the idea of intelligent design, they gave themselves the right to interpret the discovery in such a manner as to enforce the suppression of the theistic idea...and anything outside of that mind-set and interpretation would be regarded as Windows Of Opportunity which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

Throwing "WoO" at the perceived threat, does not make it go away. :)

Sincerely, I do not view the contradictions of position [theist/non-theist]as overly important at this stage of the game-play . My reasoning for that, is based on the logic that;

IF:
there is a Cosmic Mind
THEN:
Eventually, any species which survives long enough to continue along with the unfolding universe will eventually discover that and invent ways in which to engage.

Our current position is so close to the beginning as to be counted as mostly inconsequential to that future specie-wide discovery and engagement but it is still interesting and pertinent that ignorance branched into theism for it shows the propensity of self-aware consciousness to understand that no matter where it finds itself, it wonders what it is doing there and goes about ways in which to investigate in order to answer the question.

Whereas the non-theistic branch simply wants to take advantage of the situation and leave such questions outside the tightly shut and curtained window... assuming that such a time will never come because there is no Cosmic Mind.

How they know this for sure, has never been explained adequately enough for me to accept their assessment of the situation - and subjectively speaking - my Window of Opportunity [WoO] is wide open and I am finding the sights to see, very interesting.
 
Navigator said:
I use the same data as the scientists produce. As I have explained already, there is no apparent reason as to why the object which exploded, has to be regarded as the only thing that existed, since that constitutes magical thinking [MT].
Click to expand...

No

Navigator said:
The obvious alternative to MT is that what is being observed as having a beginning and predicted to eventually end, must therefore be manifesting on a backdrop/stage/fabric/matrix of an eternal nature - physical in essence - yet also inert in its undisturbed state.
Click to expand...

Meaningless gobbledygook

The universe is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine.
English astrophysicist Arthur Eddington

Navigator said:
When we are informed that an object containing everything that is the universe we are experiencing, the analogy of a seed is the closest thing we have in nature which exemplifies what the object was.
Click to expand...

Nope. Even what you think is "the closest thing" is not close.

Navigator said:
Obviously the "Seed of Origin" object cannot be considered to behave exactly like a biological seed here on this planet, because what it produced is cosmic in scale and includes this planet as part of what was manifested from the original coding packed together as it would have been.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for the existence of this "coding"?

Navigator said:
The MT involved with this claim that the object was all that existed and will eventually reimagine itself as another Seed of Origin in some far off distant future - perpetually repeating itself as it has done for eternity - splats against the fact-wall of the actual information the germination has thus far poured out which any consciousness in functional form can observe and interpret, depending upon what filters they use to do so.

Furthermore - and to address this:



It is certainly true that I use the theistic filter as a means of interpreting what is being observed, I also understand that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology ["lies to children" as Pixel42 referred to such-type stories] came about thousands of years before modern scientists confirmed it to being the case.

I also acknowledge that modern scientists wish to distance themselves from ancient theistic thinking...so they make it appear that the idea is new and discovered by them - which certainly they did discover as something more than just theistic magical thinking - but in their haste to suppress the idea of intelligent design, they gave themselves the right to interpret the discovery in such a manner as to enforce the suppression of the theistic idea...and anything outside of that mind-set and interpretation would be regarded as Windows Of Opportunity which should never be opened, let alone the curtains be drawn...

Throwing "WoO" at the perceived threat, does not make it go away. :)

Sincerely, I do not view the contradictions of position [theist/non-theist]as overly important at this stage of the game-play . My reasoning for that, is based on the logic that;

IF:
there is a Cosmic Mind
THEN:
Eventually, any species which survives long enough to continue along with the unfolding universe will eventually discover that and invent ways in which to engage.

Our current position is so close to the beginning as to be counted as mostly inconsequential to that future specie-wide discovery and engagement but it is still interesting and pertinent that ignorance branched into theism for it shows the propensity of self-aware consciousness to understand that no matter where it finds itself, it wonders what it is doing there and goes about ways in which to investigate in order to answer the question.

Whereas the non-theistic branch simply wants to take advantage of the situation and leave such questions outside the tightly shut and curtained window... assuming that such a time will never come because there is no Cosmic Mind.

How they know this for sure, has never been explained adequately enough for me to accept their assessment of the situation - and subjectively speaking - my Window of Opportunity [WoO] is wide open and I am finding the sights to see, very interesting.
Click to expand...

Utter bollocks, all of it.

It is not magical thinking to admit we do not know what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang, but it IS magical thinking to believe that there was a "Cosmic Mind" behind it all... the kind of magical thinking that leads to belief in such BS as God-Creators and Intelligent Design, which is your obvious shtick.

I come from a position of admitting that I do not know what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang, and that gives me the distinct advantage that I do not have to provide evidence or proof of anything. While I am prepared to indulge in evidence-free speculation, I would make no claims based on such. However, the very thing that gives me an advantage is the thing that puts you at a disadvantage... you claim some Cosmic Mind must be behind the beginning of the Universe, so the onus is on you to prove it, elsewise you're just indulging in pure, unbridled, evidence-free speculation.
 
Navigator said:
I also understand that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology ["lies to children" as Pixel42 referred to such-type stories]
Click to expand...
No, that is not remotely what the phrase 'lies to children' refers to.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Please cite the data- mathematical or observational- that you have found, that fits your description of the formation of the universe. What data do you have to show there is something outside the space/time continuum of the know universe? What predictions can you make, that could be used to prove your ideas?
Click to expand...

Navigator said:
I use the same data as the scientists produce. As I have explained already, there is no apparent reason as to why the object which exploded, has to be regarded as the only thing that existed, since that constitutes magical thinking [MT].
Click to expand...

You then follow this statement with a long rambling screed that I have snipped for the sake of sanity, and to spare real science the pain of reading it.
None of that included what I asked for, and what science asks for, which is mathematical or observational evidence for your ideas. There is no data in your answer at all.
I'll ask one more time: do you have anything beyond your own say-so?
 
Navigator said:
I also understand that ancient theists had already established in their belief systems the idea of the big bang and their mythology ["lies to children" as Pixel42 referred to such-type stories
Click to expand...

Pixel42 said:
No, that is not remotely what the phrase 'lies to children' refers to.
Click to expand...

Further to this:

I don't blame "ancient theists" for going for the explanation that seemed obvious, i.e. Goddidit, and then making up nice easily understandable stories about it - which of course they never needed to create "lies to children" versions of for anyone else. As as explanation for the existence of the universe it does work up to a point (a point they never needed to go beyond), and they didn't have centuries of painstakingly acquired knowledge and understanding to build a deeper and more nuanced understanding upon. "The Gods are angry" is, after all, not only the obvious explanation for thunder and lightning, it's also a perfectly adequate one. It's just not the correct one. Likewise doing rain dances for the rain god, sacrificing goats to the volcano god etc do seem to work, if you don't realise you need to correct for confirmation bias and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I do blame the "modern theists" who wilfully ignore those centuries of painstakingly acquired knowledge and understanding so they can continue to insist that what seems obvious to them must be true.
 
Pixel42 said:
Further to this:

I don't blame "ancient theists" for going for the explanation that seemed obvious, i.e. Goddidit, and then making up nice easily understandable stories about it - which of course they never needed to create "lies to children" versions of for anyone else. As as explanation for the existence of the universe it does work up to a point (a point they never needed to go beyond), and they didn't have centuries of painstakingly acquired knowledge and understanding to build a deeper and more nuanced understanding upon. "The Gods are angry" is, after all, not only the obvious explanation for thunder and lightning, it's also a perfectly adequate one. It's just not the correct one. Likewise doing rain dances for the rain god, sacrificing goats to the volcano god etc do seem to work, if you don't realise you need to correct for confirmation bias and post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I do blame the "modern theists" who wilfully ignore those centuries of painstakingly acquired knowledge and understanding so they can continue to insist that what seems obvious to them must be true.
Click to expand...

I've never actually understood the 'it's obvious' argument. I'm told by theists that, if I look around, it will be obvious that everything was created by god, and that the signs for this are everywhere.
Well, I've looked and I've looked, and I've not seen anything that leads me to that conclusion. I look at oceans and mountains and badgers and what have you, and they just look like oceans and mountains and badgers. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were zapped into existence by an invisible man living in the sky.
This now leads me to wonder: how would these things look different if they hadn't been created by a god? What are the clues, the signs, the defining characteristics of god-made, rather than natural, objects and life forms?
Has anyone ever heard a coherent answer to this one? Navigator- do you have an answer for this?
 
I think the "it's obvious" perception is mostly down to the fact that we are conscious agents, and our predators and prey are also (to some extent at least) also conscious agents. We have a naturally selected bias in favour of attributing the things we see around us to conscious agency (e.g. intelligent design), because it's usually the safest assumption.

The classic example is if you're standing in a forest and you hear a twig snap behind you: it might just be the wind in the trees, or it might be a predator creeping up on you. We're all descended from generations of ancestors who were more likely to make a false positive mistake (assume it's a predator when it's just the wind) than a false negative mistake (assume it's the wind when it's a predator) because they were the ones who lived long enough to have descendants.
 
By the way I bought a book a while ago "the Last three Minutes" maybe Penrose, but I am sure an orderly collapse would be deemed impossible by CMBE, and that Allan Guth and his inflation idea showed CMBE inevitable.

Any thoughts?
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I've never actually understood the 'it's obvious' argument. I'm told by theists that, if I look around, it will be obvious that everything was created by god, and that the signs for this are everywhere.
Well, I've looked and I've looked, and I've not seen anything that leads me to that conclusion. I look at oceans and mountains and badgers and what have you, and they just look like oceans and mountains and badgers. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were zapped into existence by an invisible man living in the sky.
This now leads me to wonder: how would these things look different if they hadn't been created by a god? What are the clues, the signs, the defining characteristics of god-made, rather than natural, objects and life forms?
Has anyone ever heard a coherent answer to this one? Navigator- do you have an answer for this?
Click to expand...

This is just an inevitable consequence of magical thinking.

Primitive humans were unable to explain the things that happened in their every day lives - the rising and setting of the sun and the moon, the stars and the way they changed with the seasons, and the seasons themselves. The tides, the weather, natural disasters etc etc. They began to assign the blame/reasons for these things to influences beyond their control - supernatural influences, and this inevitably led to the imagining of the existence of Gods and ultimately to religions.

However, as humans slowly advanced over tens of thousands of years of developing intelligence and understanding, we began to realise that these phenomena were explainable without magical thinking, without an All Powerful Sky Daddy, without the support of the crutches of the supernatural. We began to reject those primitive "gods" explanations, in favour of true understanding and scientific thinking.

Eventually we mostly rejected religious doctrine as we have no need for it. Most things are explainable using with science, and apart from a relatively small number of religious fundamentalists, who still insist that their scriptures are the literal truth and the last word on the origin of the universe, most religions accept that they have been getting wrong for thousands of years.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I've never actually understood the 'it's obvious' argument. I'm told by theists that, if I look around, it will be obvious that everything was created by god, and that the signs for this are everywhere.
Click to expand...
It is not obvious to an honest theist. The opposite appears to be the case. There is no scientific data or theory that points to the existence of any god in any form whatsoever. At best, there are gaps where you can insert whatever you like.

This only becomes a problem if we say that there is no room for "faith" or that future generations must be indoctrinated to believe that there are no gods.
 
Navigator said:
When we are informed that an object containing everything that is the universe we are experiencing, the analogy of a seed is the closest thing we have in nature which exemplifies what the object was.

Obviously the "Seed of Origin" object cannot be considered to behave exactly like a biological seed here on this planet, because what it produced is cosmic in scale and includes this planet as part of what was manifested from the original coding packed together as it would have been.

The MT involved with this claim that the object was all that existed and will eventually reimagine itself as another Seed of Origin in some far off distant future - perpetually repeating itself as it has done for eternity - splats against the fact-wall of the actual information the germination has thus far poured out which any consciousness in functional form can observe and interpret, depending upon what filters they use to do so.
Click to expand...


The problem with the analogy isn't scale. A seed grows into a much larger plant by collecting and rearranging matter that was already present in its surroundings. That's not anything like what present day cosmological theories describe the primordial universe as doing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom