Where do you think we came from? - Page 7

How do you suppose we find answers to the big questions if all we are interested in is senseless jabber, gratuitous likes and superfluous emoticons?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

How do you suppose we find answers to the big questions if all we are interested in is senseless jabber, gratuitous likes and superfluous emoticons?

I was mourning the non-event that the Mayan prediction was :(

I liked your point about interconnectedness. But I am sure you realize that interconnectedness amounts to encoding; there has to be a decoder too somewhere. An RNA for a DNA, if you will.

http://science.time.com/2013/01/24/goodbye-silicon-hello-dna-the-future-of-data-storage/

Not sure if it is relevant or not. But interesting.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I was mourning the non-event that the Mayan prediction was :(

I liked your point about interconnectedness. But I am sure you realize that interconnectedness amounts to encoding; there has to be a decoder too somewhere. An RNA for a DNA, if you will.

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

"Where did it all come from?"

FT,

The first hop skip and a jump back in time will take us to unicellular organisms, the second to hydrogen, the third to gluons and quarks, the fourth to strings (?) and the fifth to quantum gravity (?)

The physical part of the "truth" behind the universe cannot leap past the big bang singularity, as Vintu alluded to in one of his eloquent posts.

I am guessing there's more to your "curiosity" than you are letting out (I am hoping there's some yearning to find the "Truth" behind the existence of the universe and not a desire to raise a few target rating points :)

With that in mind, let's start framing the questions correctly.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i wonder. When we're done playing science mechanics, i think that at best we will understand how things work, not why they work the way they do.

I think as long as it could be proved (like Godel did in his incompleteness theorems) that certain things (like, say, consciousness) is beyond the physical universe, we could rest in peace knowing that there is more to this than meets the eye. It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us.

I'm pretty late to this thread. Very interesting discussion going on.I'm going through the first thread and I want to address a point here:

Freethinker's quote:

Though I accept that story that by chance a ship can get to safe harbor, I will address this point. I do not believe in a creator because there isn't evidence of one. You don't believe because we don't have the full explanation of the origin of Universe yet. People like you used to say Indra is in charge of rain, Bhaskara for rising of sun, etc. Why? Because they didn't know how these things happened. And instead of finding out, they stupidly created imaginary beings and made them in charge. But that doesn't make them real. There is no one running Universe, at least we haven't found anybody.

I don't think we can call them stupid. They were far more intelligent than we are all put together. Because, they knew that we won't respect our nature enough if they don't call it God.They did not just name it God but also addressed the procedures to apparently 'pray' these Gods. Like suryanamaskaras or reciting a chant in the presence of Sun etc to pray 'bhaskara'.Kyun?! Just to get our daily dose of vitamin D.nothing else!!! They guessed as time passes mankind will fail to appreciate obvious gifts of healing and nature and lead an undisciplined life and fall prey to bigger diseases in exchange to neglecting smaller daily activities like just standing under the Sun.

I meant to particularly pin-point the bolded line because those who are in disagreement to God of various forms, certain mindless religious rituals put ALL rituals/beliefs under the same non-scientific/stupid category. But the ol' ones were pretty intelligent in my opinion. If they just called these things 'God' and just left it at that, then I would've stood in the opposite team.But they wove PURE physics around these things. They would've been lost as banal instructions if not in the name of God.😃 Hence, God of various forms.Even they believed in a supreme above these Gods.(The one we are probing now- Supreme as in Science or God?) Even they din't dig too deep into the Supreme coz maybe even they were still searching the answer? Whateves!

Over the years these Chinese whispers distorted the real theories and people twisted them to their convenience. I do not believe ANY of the religions in their current forms. They are manipulated.

Hence forth, Reserved. Lemme finish the 1st thread.Very interesting.And if I've repeated any point or theory already discussed.Apologies.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I think as long as it could be proved (like Godel did in his incompleteness theorems) that certain things (like, say, consciousness) is beyond the physical universe, we could rest in peace knowing that there is more to this than meets the eye. It's the supposed randomness of this universe that we are unable to square with the order that we see all around us.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

supposed randomness. That brings up two questions- is it really random. And if it is really random, does that disprove God?

It depends on who/what generated the randomness that we see.

If I type in "zxcvbnm", it might look random at the outset but what generated that is a keystroke action by me wherein I just hit a couple of keys in the last row on my keyboard in sequence. So are the letters sequential (as in exhibiting a pattern) or are they random? It depends on who the entity parsing the string is. To me, it had a pattern. To you, it probably did not (till I told you :)

So to go back to your question: "is it really random?"

The short answer is, we don't know who/what generated/generates the particles that exhibit the probabilistic wave-like behavior we usually associate with randomness.

To the other question: "does the supposed randomness disprove God (or even an algorithm, if God is replaced by a computer)?"

The answer is - most definitely not.