₦airaland Forum

Referred discussions -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-577313.0.html (with thehomer)

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-328837.0.html (with KAG)

I am sure you have all heard the recent news about the study which may possibly consign Einstein's physics to the dustbin.

Faster than Light - A new study may upend Einstein.

http://jdcwitherton.com/2011/10/04/faster-than-liught-a-new-study-may-upend-einstein/

Sometimes the importance of a scientist's name and the enormity of his works persuade people into accepting ideas which on very close logical reflection, they ought to have questioned. I am bringing this up because I have had endless arguments on this forum as to the true nature of time, notably with thehomer, Kag, and Viaro i think. Science has become such a creed that some persons (without realizing it) actually ignore its biggest principle - frontiers of new knowledge can be broken every day.

The specific reason i bring this up is that in the discussions we have had about the nature of time, I have consistently held time to be different from that which is imagined by current scientific thinking.

I had said to KAG, I believe, regarding Einstein's ideas -

Deep Sight:
^^^^ @ KAG - What do you say to the following suggestions -

1. That the time you refer to as being created by the Big slam simply refers to measurable time as per the finite human mind? And not the totality of time itself, which is infinite, and cannot cease to be.

2. What if at this very second, as we speak, another big slam is going off outside our universe, bringing another universe into being? Do you not see the possibility that our Universe is existing within an already existing larger "Space" and that every new "slam" that occurs is a slam within already existent time and space? To crystalize this for you: Let's imagine a civilization on a far off planet within this universe that was so primitive that they thought that their galaxy was all there was to the universe. For them, they would imagine time began when their galaxy was formed. They would not realize that their galaxy was just one within a universe already existing in a steady state of time! So i ask you: what if our universe is just like that: existing within ONE larger MULTIVERSE! If that is the case, surely, time could not be said to be created by the slam that made this universe. Rather, time would be an already existing steady state..

3. Want to change your understanding of time? Uncle Einstein was only human you know, and yes, i know the enormity of the scientific thinking that i am up against.

You have still not been able to answer this question:

Into what is the universe expanding?

Because so long as the universe is able to expand, then there must be a space for it to expand into, no?

Thus that space was already there before the big slam, no?

Let's be brilliant enough to think beyond what Einstein and co have fed the world.

I am bold enough.

Are you.

So fellas, question is - does the new experiment cast any new light on the subjects we have discussed in relation to time and the universe?

jayriginal:
By the red part, I mean to say it is the easy way out.
Deep Sight, Ill just leave off here.

Jayriginal, I understand what you have tried to say, but the point remains that he ought to have then recognised that his limited area of expertise had no bearing on the core cosmological question of the origin of all things. Thus his article remains centrally inchoate - it fails to address its core subject. Furthermore it is important to note that merely explaining a process via which a phenomenon occurs does not mean that the phenomenon did not have an initial cause.

The portions of his article which you quoted which noted the fact that he was not addressing the origin of all existence amounts to nothing but a handwave, an admission that he is not suited to address the core issue in the first place.

@ Zataxs, please stop addressing me in terms of the bible or other religious books. You seem to assume that a belief in God is the same thing as religious faith: that is not necessarily the case. As i said before, i am not religious, and my personal creed does not derive from the bible, the quoran, or any other such religious script.

Thanks.

Jay, changing the title will not mean anything. The fact remains that Dawkins set out to discredit the idea of an intelligent first cause of all things, but sadly, he did not address anything even close to the origin of things. He starts his premises with already existent things. This is an inescapable flaw on which the whole write up collapses because an article on the improbability of God, must naturally first address the origin of all things in existence, which he does not do.

@ Martian. I have no idea of test scenarios and what i related is not something that i 'do', nobody approaches me asking me such and i certainly dont claim to be a seer or such. I simply related to you my personal experience with dreams. You dont have to believe it in the least, and i dont expect you to. You should only believe that which rhymes with your own mind.

@ Zartaxs, i am not sure that i have said anything to deserve your insults. I have my views about your views, and i do not insult you for your views. You are entirely within your rights to disbelieve that which i said, i have no quarrel with that. But if you believe that everyone who has these experiences with dreams is lying, that is up to you. I am aware that what i related is not in any way special or unique to me, but is experienced by many people.

I urge you however, not to make assumptions as you seem to have done regarding my worldview: i am not a religious person and i do not subscribe to any religion whatsoever.

Thanks.

Martian:
All in my head? I don't know about that.
I was in Dar es Salam for a Managed Servces negotiation two weeks ago.
One night I woke up from a dream. In the dream a friend of mine who I had not seen or heard from for 16 years was sitting beside me. He simply said, Long, time, how have you been, we should hook up soon.
I last saw or thought of this fellow when we last saw back in secondary school. So I never think of him. He is entirely outside my worldview.
I got up because it was close to morning and I went online on my laptop.
The first message that fell into my mailbox was from that Friend I had just seen in the dream. It simply said, Long time, how hove you been, we should hook up soon.
I got back to Lagos and my brothers told me that he had visited my house that very day.
I know very well that it is not all in my head because since I was a child there is nothing significant that happens around me which I do not see in a dream some days or weeks in advance.

@Deepsight.
This happened in 2010 right?
You said you last saw the guy 16 years ago and didn't have any contact whatsoever with him.  If you haven't really had any contact with him in 16 years, that means you gave him your email address in 1994? That means you had an email address in high school in the early nineties or someone just decided to give him your email and where you live. If your story is real you have some strange people around you that will just give up your email and home address without asking you! Or the story is just the product of the infinite mind at work.

My dear, I will defend my logical arguments, but i will not defend my subjective personal experiences. They are personal to me, and i seek to convince no one of anything by sharing them. I only share to to express some of the reasons that i personally believe in a bigger reality.

Since you ask though, my family have lived in the current abode since 1990, and my friend very well knew my house from school days. Also, his email came into my facebook mail box.

Having said that, I really need to be clear that I am not seeking to convince you or anybody of anything by relating that experience. That experience is actually one of the most simple I have had, I have had many dreams in which i saw conversational sequences, only for such conversations to occur the next day in my presence, with suich precision that I am able to know from my dream the next thing to be said and by whom, and it happens just as I saw it. These are still minor instances. The really major ones are always about significant changes in my life or the life of people around me, or current affairs in world events.

I share this simply to express the fact that I cannot believe, in light of my personal experiences, that there isn't a bigger reality. I simply know otherwise, but as I said before, it is my personal experience and not a point for debate or argument to convince anybody. Everybody must arrive at his own conclusion as to the meaning and nature of this dream existence in which we subsist on our blue planet circling a red star. . . .

^ I am sorry, I cannot make such a list, because the very act of compiling such a list requires a conscious and intelligent mind, which itself is evidence of the holistic mind, which is what God is.

So can't play your game, sorry.

Cardinally, the article - "The Improbability of God" - (being directed at the original creative factor which is said by creationists to be an intelligent agent), must naturally commence its submission from the point of view of the commencement of existence and life - since that is what is at issue.

Rather than do this, the entire article completely evades and sidesteps that critical issue - which is at the centre of the matter. I had said in the other thread -

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


    a. Assumes the existence of things already


    b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


    c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with.

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

^ I don't think you have addressed the pith of that which i argued above. I started from the point of view of consciousness and the evolutionary impetus that could lead to it, before any requirement for organs of observation may arise, and built that up. I think you should read again what I wrote and see what I was saying.

--> Dead Matter --> Non Conscious Living Organisms --> [size=30pt]*[/size] Conscious Living Organisms --> Organs of observation (e.g: the eye).

Each and every step above proceeds along leaps that are absolutely unfathomable, nontheless, the leap you need to address for the purpose of this argument starts where i have placed the asterix.

Dawkins article was a nursery school write up for nursery school thinkers and I have already pointed out the many staggering absurdities in it in the other thread.

Jayrigina;, what i shared is not a 'claim' - Its just my experience which i am relating. But as you said, its my experience and no one else's. So its for me alone, and I understand I cannot lend it to anyone else as proof of anything.

But I know.

C'mon Deepsight,
Dreams are subjective and can be given any type interepretation.

My dreams are extremely precise and manifest also in precision. Its been a life long experience. I narrated a very simple instance here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.0.html#msg5953393

But as already noted, its my experience and mine alone, and not intended to convince any other person of anything.

When i consistently have dreams that play out in reality in exact detail as appeared in my dream, and when this has happened consistently since my childhood and continues up till now (I am in my thirties) this tells me that there is a super-structure about this reality beyond that which is observable with our physical senses.

Can't prove that to anyone but myself though.

KAG:
At best Dasein. At worst, an entity with some sort of awareness, preferably self awareness. The ability to appreciate, to some degree, its existence and construct a view of living from it.

What do you understand to be a being?

Now here we are. It is intriguing to me that you open up the possibility of “being” existing either “with some sort of awareness” or “preferably self awareness”. Correct me if I am wrong, but what this means is that you countenance the possibility of the existence of beings in a state of “some sort of awareness” – even if such an entity is not self aware.

Is this the case?

Yes, humans have constructed purpose in a purposeless universe.

Do you realize that this is a positive statement? It is a positive affirmation that the universe IS purposeless. To be absolutely certain of that, you need to also be absolutely certain of how the universe came about. You would require omniscience.

Clearly you are neither omniscient nor aware of how the universe came about: ergo, you cannot affirm positively that the universe is purposeless.

The best, and most honest thing that you could do would be to state that you do not know if it has a purpose or not.

It is odd that you are able to make such definitive statements in vacuums the very same way you accuse the religionist of doing.

Second,you are doind Dawkins's argument a disservice by slightly misrepresenting it. What he argues (and the evidence points in that direction) is that mutations can cause the incidence of eyes, and with continued genetic changes and selection, the human eye may naturally evolve. In a sense, mutations are "lucky" happenstances. What moves it beyond luck is selection.

Maybe I need to communicate better. Let's pause for a moment and understand carefully.

I said to you earlier on, or perhaps on another thread, that the phenomenon of consciousness is central to this matter. I do not know if you understood me accurately but I’ll try and explain what I was saying yet again.

I mentioned that with reference to a feature such as the eye – only a self aware and sentient creature would require such a development – as it would, being conscious, require the ability to observe its environment. Many creatures perform this function in other ways, such as through sound, touch, and other senses. At all events, what I seek to impress upon you cardinally is that all of these features are features of consciousness.

The question thus is – what impetus of selection within the evolutionary process leads from unconsciousness to consciousness. What drives and actuates this.

If for example, there is (as there must be) a link, or several links which bridge the gap between unconscious, non-sentient life forms such as unicellular organisms and conscious life forms, such as the most simple self-conscious creature – what competitive impetus, what selective process, would derive any need whatsoever within our purposeless universe, to develop the feature of self-consciousness.

It does not stop there. Conscious, self-aware creatures come into existence. I hope you appreciate already the massive leap which I tried to draw your attention to – to wit – unconscious to self-conscious – but let us not tarry there. There is more. The self-conscious life forms further develop highly complex organs such as eyes which are tailored to observe their environment.

It appears you are a scientist, and I certainly do not need to take you through the delicate complexity and fitness for purpose of the eye – or the more intriguing way in which it functions by being attached by message-bearing nerves to a super computer called a brain which then interprets signals into images – I am sure I needn’t explain to you the fact that this is a process of such intricate and delicate precision and complexity that it is frankly numbing that a suggestion could be made that this is not a definitively driven process. Now in thinking about this, do not lose sight of the original evolutionary leap that has to be made – inexplicably, and for no apparent reason – from unconscious life to self-aware life forms.

What we see is the feature of self-consciousness interpolated inexplicably in a puddle of non-consciousness – and that feature further advanced by powers of observation driven by incredibly delicate and complex mechanisms.

Darwin himself recognized the implausibility of the development of the eye, and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible. What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”. KAG, that is ludicrous.

When you say “natural selection” with reference to the eye, I hope you grasp the full length of the argument I am making – namely that natural selection is driven towards needs and survivability. What could have been the impetus then for – first – self consciousness from non-consciousness (which is not needed in anyway by an unconscious creature by dint of its very unconsciousness) - - - and then complex powers of observation.

KAG, you must agree that this is wholly implausible. The least that you should accept is that it is not a position that could make sense to even the most simplistically commonsensical of people.

Before you revert to me, please do take a moment to reflect on this, particularly with reference to the subject of consciousness. In what way and by what impetus would any non-conscious life form begin to become conscious – and self-conscious – to address exactly what evolutionary requirement?

That which is unconscious is unconscious and has no further needs – and as such, an argument from survivability and thus selection is dead on arrival. I hope you understand this point – and how it leads in to the next point I made about the features of conscious observation such as the eye.

Now before I leave the subject let me just add for good measure that the entire house of cards becomes absolutely untenable when we recognize that the chain of implausibility stretches even further back – namely that whereas we have started with an assumption of unconscious life forms, in reality we are supposed to accept that the life forms themselves sprung spontaneously from dead elements!

Thus we are actually speaking about a chain that moves from dead matter to spontaneous life, and then – without any evolutionary impetus whatsoever, transits to conscious and self-conscious life – and further develops complex powers of observation.

Finally, all this is said to occur in a purposeless universe.

It’s heavy KAG.

It’s really a heavy load that you guys are pushing here, and the least you can do is to recognize that, and not seek to render anyone else who recognizes that as being in some fashion or the other simply thoughtless.

Science also indicates that some phenomena may not need a cause to operate (again: virtual particles and radioactive decay). There's no getting around that.

This is a hundred per cent false, as has been shown to you SEVERAL TIMES before.

The trouble is, one is always hard pressed to find terms for an ante state that aren't dependent on, or founded in, time.

Which is a very simple and clear logical pointer to the existence of a timeline over and beyond that which commences with this universe.

Can we stop the notion of this or that "god" and simply address the cosmological question to wit: what caused teh universe to be.

That is, after all, the question we all seek to address.

The very same question which leaps into the minds of even little children as soon as they can think.

Perhaps some of the new folk on the block will be interested to read.

So. . . .bump!

^ Long time Noetic. Missed ya. How bodi?

^ Symbolism could be, and indeed is, diverse. One symbol could be a reference point for several ideas.

Lifeless environments.

Do living things exist in a vaccum? Do they not exist in the context of the so called "lifeless" environments you have referred to?

Is a mountain not part of the environment in which people live. . . .and perceive. . . .

Friend, you make it physically painful talking with you. Its like grating one's bare brain against a bed of nails.

No more.

@ Globexl -

Let's start with consciousness.

What is it? What does it connote? How does it fit into the evolutionary context? How and why does a unicellular organism become a self conscious being? Aware, intuitive and intelligent. Contemplative and complex.

What drives this. What is sentience. Why is sentience?

Let's talk. I'm online for a while.

^

1. What does the quality of consciouness, sentience, self-awareness, mean to you?

2. Could you conceptually divorce the notion of a universal mind as a causative precursor for all existence from religious notions of God?

3. If you could divorce such, would you be inclined to accepting the existence of that precursor of existence?

thehomer:
Please inform me. I'd like to know how you came about this "innate purpose of art" thing.

The innate purpose of art is the imitation of life.

Hence the common place saying - "Art imitates life."

Now, if God is understood to be the core of life itself, the encapsulation of life itself, you can then understand what I meant about creation being an imitation of life - God - itself.

Mr. Homer, it is tiresome that I would have to tell you what the innate purpose of art is. It makes me weary, and disillusioned. . . disinclined to discuss much further, if you will push such a basic thing to absurdity, such as suggesting that commercial profit is an innate purpose of art - - - in a discussion where we are dealing with the innate - or intrinsic nature of things.

Meh he was simply one out of many artists. The fact that you see him the way you do doesn't necessarily mean he automatically is "the Holy Grail of creativity". You need to learn to separate your personal desires from certain opinions to avoid your conclusion being clouded by emotion.

Friend, you don't know anything about Leonardo da vinci.

lagerwhenindoubt:
totally unrelated to the topic at hand Bros, you too like beta thing ooh no forget to invite me - shaks aplenty - carry on

Do you know me?

thehomer:
Saying that getting paid cannot be a purpose of art implies what I said which is what you're responding to.

I will not countenance this discussion until you acquaint yourself with the innate purpose of art.

It will be fair (though dumbfounding) to state that you do not know it, in which case i will inform you.

And if you think the commercial enterprise cannot be an innate purpose of art, then I can only conclude that you are not an artist.

Well just leave art alone then. It causes me physical pain to see anybody so debase it, by stating that its innate purpose is profit.

I really don't care especially when we consider that he is simply one out of many artists.

No, he was not "simply one out of many artists". He is actually the Holy Grail of creativity as far as the history of humanity is concerned. So please don't ever say that in your life again. Ejoo. I can prostrate for you. Don't ever say that again. Ese.

No I'm not. Here are definitions and synonyms of "import".

Sigh. So tiresome. Shades of words have nuances. A thing may be important to someone whereas that person does not understand its real import - or significance. 

Kay 17:
Purpose can be very dynamic, a knife has a variety of purposes which even the maker did not anticipate

I should not have to explain the innate purpose of art.

Claiming that people don't do or have never done artworks to get paid is simply absurd.

I never said that, Mr. Homer. I said very simply that that is not, and never will be, the innate purpose of art.

If you think commercial enterprise is an innate purpose of art, i can only conclude that you are not an artist

Leonardo Da Vinci, easily for me the most brilliant man ever to walk the earth, earned money from art, amongst his many other briliiant endeavours. I do wonder though, if you think that that was the innate purpose of his art.

Okay, what is the difference between the importance of something and its import?

Tell me you're kidding.

Kay 17:
There always has to be something rather than nothing and it is definitely material, cos nobody knows what the non physical is like. God then should a physical guided by physical laws

God is the self-existent eternal and fundamental principle of reality that actuates all things in itself.

All things are caused by the principle of GOD. The GOD-principle, I might say.

If matter is caused by it, then it cannot itself be matter. Thus it is immaterial.

Heck, principles are immaterial anyway.

thehomer:
So you do not think some people engage in art to get paid?

That is still not the innate purpose of art.

I am horrified if you dont know that. And here, we are discussing the innate nature of things.

So smarten up for once, mate.

This sounds like pantheism with some curiously combined words.
Just to get this straight, you're claiming that the purpose of design is the "infinite expression of the infinite mind". This of course means I have to ask what you think your own purpose is.

I am an infinitesimal embodiment of the consciousness arising from the infinite mind: I dwell therein and thereof, my purpose sealed in the variegated experience of consciousness, which defines its own eternal instant of reality. . . .

Yeah, i know, over your head.

It seems you still do not understand the fallacy you've committed. And you go on to present a non sequitur. How does the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 show intelligent design? What do arithmetic operations have to do with this discussion?

Its been a while since i had to address your seeming refusal to follow discussions, son.

Its simple really. You stated that I was dealing with opinions. I say to you that I am dealing with logic. I assert that, and prove that, by showing you that certain basic logical postulations are not a question of opinion. Such as 1 + 1. And such as 0 + 0 - a sum which shows mathematically and conclusively that no combination of nothings could ever arrive at a something. The implication of this is that we can logically dismiss any suggestion that things may arise from nothingness.

By the way, the factors of numbers inherent in reality is the most sound pointer to the ordered nature of the infinite mind. But again, that may be well over your chosen realm.

Please don't make me have to walk you through on such simple stuff again. I am tired of being misunderstood in the way I express myself.

So, this eternal and infinite mind is reality? What do you think a mind is?

Mind is the quality that is, and apprehends, all things.

Again, you are wrong. Please answer this question. How can you tell that someone considers sentience important?

Considering something important is not the same as understanding its import

brilliant. Very well put.

jayriginal:
In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God".

To be honest, I believe I am as certain as I will ever be in this lifetime.

thehomer:
How about a desire to get paid?

This is not the innate purpose of any art. I refer to the innate purpose of art.

That should have been obvious to you since what we are discussing is the innate nature of things.

Now you seem to suggest self expression as the reason for this God to design what? DNA, humans, animals, plants, stars? Which of the numerous natural objects is the self expression of this God?

Everything in existence is a part of the infinite expression of the infinite mind of existence itself: which is what reality is.

Yes it does have to do with agreeing with you since according to your claim, even scientists whose specialties and occupations lie in understanding biological systems simply do not understand them. But you somehow understand their fields better than they do since they do not agree with your claim of intelligent design.

Well i will accept that the minute you can show me one scientist that disagrees that 1 + 1 = 2, or 0 + 0 = 0.

Then, and only then, can we refer the discussion to the exclusive realm of opinion.

Until then, it remains an objective, rational and empirical discussion.

You would first have to show this ultimate purpose.

The ultimate purpose is the infinite expression of the eternal and infinite mind that is itself reality.

Sorry, that may not be scientific enough for you i know, however the material realm does have its limitations.

Ditto, the hardened materialist.

Then you are sorely mistaken because numerous scientists and humanists (secular or otherwise) do understand the importance of sentience.

The atheist ones certainly do not have a grasp of its import.

mantraa:
Sorry to interject in your conversations. i just thought i will adjust your simple equation.

1 - 1 = 0.
where +1 is matter and -1 is antimatter.

In other words, when this universe was formed from nothing it contained an equal amount of matter and antimatter.

This is severely misconceived reasoning I have to say.

~ As you start with the statement - "when this universe was formed from nothing" - then you would have to start at a zero - in other words - nothingness.

~ You therefore cannot commence your reasoning from the point of view of things already existing, whereat you have values already in existence [1].

~ Thus you have yet to resolve the core conundrum, namely - why something instead of nothing?

~ Again an understanding of the nature of anti-matter does not support the sort of equation you laid out. Anti-matter is not taken away from matter in such a manner as to suggest a removal of a factor from the other. Rather the reverse - the addition of both is what leads to annihilation of both, and not subtraction of one from the other as your equation suggests.

Furthermore, mixing matter and antimatter can lead to the annihilation of both, in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The result of antimatter meeting matter is an explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_matter

This shows that your equation is altogether misfooted.

The very first level of thought remains the origin of these elements. WE cannot magically arrive at a scenario where these exist, and then begin to discuss cosmology from that point of view without asking the initial question: where did all these elements originate from? In proper context of this discussion, this is the real question.

This is thus what is at the pith of a discussion regarding the existence of a prime mover and first cause.

thehomer:
Really? Why was the design done? You would need to know this to conclude that that there is some sort of design.

Why is a painting done by an artist?

Reflect closely on that, and therein you might find your answer.

Hint: self expression.

I hope you realize that this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. Those who understand and agree with you are correct those who understand but don't agree with you don't really understand?

No it is not. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. Nobody needs to agree with me that 1 +1 = 2. It is a logical and empirical FACT. Nor does anyone have to agree with me that 0 + 0 = 0. Nobody has to agree with me on the law of cause and effect and the laws of motion. I did not create them. These are evident and empirical FACTS son.

It is thus equally logical that design elements with given functionalities are evidentially purposed and purposeful.

Only people who believe in intelligent design do?

Yes.