Is it REALLY just a coincidence?

#41
You might want to check out Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology model. It puts an even more interesting spin on the Universe's demise. No need to worry about Heat Death there. Point being, I wouldn't get too wrapped up on any of the theories on how the Universe will end. We just don't know at this point.
I wasn't getting too wrapped up.

Soulatman finding meaning instead of what could be happenstance with a few physical parameters is no good reason to absolutely assume as he did, the universe was made for life. now by mentioning that book, I wanted soulatman to realize how inhospitable this universe was in the past and how inhospitable it might be in the future. Even in Penrose's CCC theory the universe will end with high entropy which is also described to occur in the book "The Five Ages of the Universe". Both end in heat death. Btw, do you know what heat death means?
 
Last edited:
#42
I wasn't getting too wrapped up.

Soulatman finding meaning instead of what could be happenstance with a few physical parameters is no good reason to absolutely assume as he did, the universe was made for life. now by mentioning that book, I wanted soulatman to realize how inhospitable this universe was in the past and how inhospitable it might be in the future. Even in Penrose's CCC theory the universe will end with high entropy which is also described to occur in the book "The Five Ages of the Universe". Both end in heat death. Btw, do you know what heat death means?
There is no one "death" to the Universe in CCC - it's an eternal cycle of Big Bangs, with each cycle starting out in a state of low entropy via the Weyl curvature hypothesis. The Universe possibly reaching thermodyamic equilibirum (i.e. maximum entropy) is the least interesting part of CCC. The cool part is the ramifications of having eventually nothing but radiation left in the Universe and what that means for spacetime, when there are no clocks (i.e particles with mass) around to "keep time" - that's how the current cycle wraps into the next, or how the current cycle "ends".

Btw, it's more than a "few" finely tuned parameters, with extremem emphasis on finely.
 
#43
There is no one "death" to the Universe in CCC - it's an eternal cycle of Big Bangs, with each cycle starting out in a state of low entropy via the Weyl curvature hypothesis. The Universe possibly reaching thermodyamic equilibirum (i.e. maximum entropy) is the least interesting part of CCC. The cool part is the ramifications of having eventually nothing but radiation left in the Universe and what that means for spacetime, when there are no clocks (i.e particles with mass) around to "keep time" - that's how the current cycle wraps into the next, or how the current cycle "ends".

Btw, it's more than a "few" finely tuned parameters, with extremem emphasis on finely.
The underlined is important to soulatmans assertion the universe has meaning. When the universe reaches thermal equilibrium no more work can be extracted which is not good for life even though those physical constants remain, which is the foundation upon which is assertions rest. That is one thing he's not taken into consideration which he should. He can assert with absolute confidence all he wants, but it doesn't make him right. It doesn't matter how many finely tuned parameters there are. Nobody knows whether the universe is created or is not created for life. In the far distant future the universe looks like a place antithetical towards life.

Do you know heat death means without looking it up?
 
Last edited:
#44
The underlined is important to soulatmans assertion the universe has meaning. For when the universe reaches thermal equilibrium no more work can be extracted which is not good for life even though the physical constants remain unchanged. That is one thing he's not taken into consideration. It doesn't matter how many finely tuned parameters there are. Nobody knows whether the universe is created or is not created for life. He can assert with absolute confidence all he wants, but it doesn't make him right.
Do you know heat death means without looking it up?
I think you are missing my point entirely. I assert that without a conscious mind to become aware of the universe, the universe essentially does not exist. I am an idealist, and I believe that all that is known and knowable can only ever be known by a conscious mind, and as such is within the mind. When we see the universe out there via our senses, we perceive it not "out there" as it is, but "in here", in our minds.
It does not matter if the universe began with a mighty BANG, or dies with an epic whimper. Because it began, and because it will end does not change the truth of my statement that all knowable things are known by the mind, because they appear IN the mind.
With an empirically (experientially) supported perspective like this one, how can I think the universe exists in any manner other a meaningful one?
 
Last edited:
#45
Do you know heat death means without looking it up?
I hate to dissapoint you, but I have a degree in physics. You migh want to stop assuming proponents on this board are dumb. Most have a pretty darn good understanding of physics, at least at a laymen's level. Besides, I have the implications of Heat Death wrttien out in my last post and you even bothered to underline it. From my perspecitve, you're completely missing Soulatman' point, as he is trying to tell you above.

Anyhow, I was only trying to share a cool idea - CCC. I should have known I would be sorry for trying.
 
#46
I hate to dissapoint you, but I have a degree in physics. You migh want to stop assuming proponents on this board are dumb. Most have a pretty darn good understanding of physics, at least at a laymen's level. Besides, I have the implications of Heat Death wrttien out in my last post and you even bothered to underline it. From my perspecitve, you're completely missing Soulatman' point, as he is trying to tell you above.

Anyhow, I was only trying to share a cool idea - CCC. I should have known I would be sorry for trying.
No need to get hurt feelings,CCC is interesting and not a point of contention.
Ok, then you know heat death and thermal equalibrium are the same.
As for CCC theory and the future evolution theory presented in the book both agree and for practical reasons make life impossible in the distant future. We presently live in the Goldilocks era of the universe.
As for Soulatman's idealism which he did not mention until the last post as I recall has boxed himself in making impossible for him too to think he could be wrong. His greatest weakness is, he does not see the world as it is, but as he wishes it to be.
 
Last edited:
#48
As for CCC theory and the future evolution theory presented in the book both agree and for practical reasons make life impossible in the distant future. We presently live in the Goldilocks era of the universe.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with what Soulatman is saying. Soul, correct me if I am wrong here. It doesn't even have anything to do with the Universe being finely tuned for life. Part of the "fine tuning" involves evolution from an era that could not support life to one that could, critical density being one simple example of something that plays in here.

His greatest weakness is, he does not see the world as it is, but as he wishes it to be.
That's an incorrect assumption often made about proponents. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, though.
 
#49
And that has absolutely nothing to do with what Soulatman is saying. Soul, correct me if I am wrong here. It doesn't even have anything to do with the Universe being finely tuned for life. Part of the "fine tuning" involves evolution from an era that could not support life to one that could, critical density being one simple example of something that plays in here.



That's an incorrect assumption often made about proponents. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, though.
He identifies himself an idealist. His words, not mine.
 
#50
From your article:

"In recent years, however, the status of the constants has grown more muddied, not less."

I brought this subject up a couple weeks ago or so, and it ended up being a pretty touchy subject, indeed . . . seemed to be the subject that closed a 15 page thread down . . . probably partially (or mainly?) because it was tied to Sheldrake . . . whose name can't be uttered in this forum . . . (As I said then: God forbid a person suggest a rather simple experiment to establish whether there was anything to this idea or not).

But yes, I remember even before having any clue who Rupert Sheldrake was that the idea of physical constants that could be counted on throughout the life of the universe seeming questionable. (Now, I'm just an ol' layman, so people can take it for it's worth . . . but in my simple experience the thing I've learned is that everything fluctuates. Everything . . . why must it be utterly impossible for the constants, too? Because someone's equation said otherwise?) I just figured at the time that it would be a question of predictable or nonpredictable change (of the constants) that would really make or break the situation for the (sorry for the term) materialists. One thing that seems to me to be even more fundamental to that mindset than the primacy of matter is the idea that things are (in theory) predictable. I don't think they are at all.
 
Last edited:
#51
Nothing disingenuous about it. I just think these images look nothing alike to my eye. I honestly can't see where the "identical" comes from.

The differences my eyes are seeing which I have numbered in the photo below are:
  1. The color although that is irrelevant
  2. The universe has 6 quite clear "branches" almost in a uniform starfish pattern. The brain cell doesn't have any uniformity to it at all. In fact all of it's "branches" are completely random in their direction. The patterns just do not match.
  3. The brain cell has 2 larger blobs both on the top and bottom of the picture. There are no blobs at all in the universe picture.
And these are just from looking at the basic structure of the 2 photos. There are many more things which are not the same.

So when I say they are nothing alike... it's because you have to do pattern matching. Not all humans for instance look alike... but nearly all have the same "structure". 2 arms, 2 legs, head, torso, spine, bipedal etc. You can have 2 completely different species but still see a connection eg: monkeys and humans. You can't though say humans and fish look the same because structurally they are not.

It's the same with this photo. The patterns just don't match.




When I look at these images, this is what I see...

( 1 ) Primary cluster or node.
( 2 ) Secondary cluster or nodes.
( 3 ) Tertiary smaller cluster or nodes.

  • The grey lines in both images form a connected communication network.
  • The Brain Cell using nerve tissue. The Universe appears to be ionized gases, which can act as an information conduit.
  • The nodes or clusters in both images following either 1 or 2 connection.
  • When the images are pushed together, it quite clearly appears as if they are forming a single neural network.

Neuron-Galaxy Comparison Ex 1.JPG


Neural Networks are a demonstrable example of life and can be seen in wide variety of examples, but almost all are a result of organic creation or interaction.

City-Lights-of-the-United-011.jpg

Human civilization...

Internet 1.jpg

The Internet....


But, back to the original images, I see the same similarities in these images.

Nerons-Universe Sim.JPG

Universe Simulation Stained Brain Cells


City-Brain Cell.JPG

Real City... Real Stained Brain Cell...

Computer Simulated Universe and Brain.JPG

Universe Computer Simulation... Brain Computer Simulation...


Black-White Stained Brain Nerual Network Universe Sim.GIF

Stained Brain Cells... Universe Simulation....


Brain Background Radiation.GIF

I thought these topography images were interesting...

Neuron-Tree.JPG

Neuron.... Tree...

Are these all really just a coincidence? No, I find that difficult to believe and, in fact, I don't believe that. Since all life is made from the stuff of the Universe, I think all life is an expression of the Universe and an infinitesimal part and of an infinite member components that, IMO, makes up the Cosmic Consciousness. I think we've come to a time where we need to throw away any and all preconceived notions and reevaluate our perception of life and what it is.

Thanks for your response and thoughts...

Matt
 
Last edited:
#52
Since you've stated the universe is anthropocentric please consider this. 380,000 years years after the big Bang with all of the fundamental constants in place would you state the universe was made for us when the temperature was 5000F. You'd have a valid point if the universe started at a comfortable 70F. I think you should investigate what is expected to happen to our universe as it ages. You may not then be so quick to assert this universe is fined tuned for life or us..

and why would you presume that the destruction of the universe goes against a design hypothesis? of course big bang science is total speculation and most of it just silly, people have a silly notion that if design isnt what they think it should be then its not there, bad design as some people call it, is still design
 
#53
He identifies himself an idealist. His words, not mine.
That has nothing to do with "seeing the world as one wishes it to be". You should be aware that most of the Idealists on this board were once materialists, switching their views once they saw limitations in materialism. One example is materialism being unable to explain evidence even Richard Wiseman and other noted skeptics have said is good enough to meet normal scientific standards (yes, I am talking about psi). If you look even closer, you will notice most folks who say they are Idealists, like myself, are still somewhat "materialistic", in the same way we still subscribe to Newtonian physics, which is still valid in its domain, even though Relativity does provide a broader view of reality.

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" - Richard Wiseman

Once again, why don't you stop assuming proponents are dumb, wishful thinkers. They're mostly folks who are not stuck on any one particular world view and who aren't afraid to follow the evidence wherever it takes them, which of course offends anyone who is stuck on a worldview, whether it be religious, or die-hard skepticism.
 
Last edited:
#54
That has nothing to do with "seeing the world as one wishes it to be". You should be aware that most of the Idealists on this board were once materialists, switching their views once they saw limitations in materialism. One example is materialism being unable to explain evidence even Richard Wiseman and other noted skeptics have said is good enough to meet normal scientific standards (yes, I am talking about psi). If you look even closer, you will notice most folks who say they are Idealists, like myself, are still somewhat "materialistic", in the same way we still subscribe to Newtonian physics, which is still valid in its domain, even though Relativity does provide a broader view of reality.

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" - Richard Wiseman

Once again, why don't you stop assuming proponents are dumb, wishful thinkers. They're mostly folks who are not stuck on any one particular world view and who aren't afraid to follow the evidence wherever it takes them, which of course offends anyone who is stuck on a worldview, whether it be religious, or die-hard skepticism.
Did Idealism choose him or he choose Idealism?
I never said soulatman is dumb and he does choose a philosophical perspective that makes sense for him.
 
#55
Ouch. No need to belittle a forum. Though you are anthropomorphizing a website. Kidding aside, if the owners, admins and/or most posters here want to constrain to logical and rational, then I'd like to know so I can go post elsewhere. Logical and rationality - like a Phillips screwdriver - have their place but they are a small part of awareness and very limited (and limiting) approaches. Approaches that the materialists/physicalists have elevated to a level of near-divinity.

BTW .Even Spock and Tuvok had to go beyond. ;)
Tuvok and the "Doctor" were my favorite Voyager characters. But, Nelix was the Star Trek equivalent of Jar-Jar Binks in Star Wars, except Jar Jar Binks had a cute factor, Nelix went directly to "Huh?" and "wtf?" Nelix's face looked like frat kid drunk night vomited on someones Chinese Crested-Pug mix dog inspired makeup.
 
#56
This is true, I wish I had the mental fortitude to say "I don't know" more, but the voices keep giving me answers to everything.
At least you can understand what your "voices" are saying, mine are multilingual. So far I've been able to discern Portuguese, Swahili, and Etruscan, yeah, I had to bring in a ancient languages linguistic expert on that one. Took a while, but figure that bastard out. And the other two really get my tighty-whiteys in a twist, they are using sign language, I think it's Guatemalan, but since I can't see it, I'm not sure, duh! But, I know there all talking about me. Mmhhmm.. Every time I try to listen they get all whispery and nervous like. I'll get them eventually, mark my words. I should just threaten to fire all of them, that would fix their little red wagons. Yeah, that's right "voices", I know you're listening to the words in my head I'm typing. So speak English, damn it. It's the U.S. of A!
 
#57
t
There is no one "death" to the Universe in CCC - it's an eternal cycle of Big Bangs, with each cycle starting out in a state of low entropy via the Weyl curvature hypothesis. The Universe possibly reaching thermodyamic equilibirum (i.e. maximum entropy) is the least interesting part of CCC. The cool part is the ramifications of having eventually nothing but radiation left in the Universe and what that means for spacetime, when there are no clocks (i.e particles with mass) around to "keep time" - that's how the current cycle wraps into the next, or how the current cycle "ends".

Btw, it's more than a "few" finely tuned parameters, with extremem emphasis on finely.
The theory of the finely tuned Universe, IMO, could be explained with the theory of the infinite number of Universes or even one infinite Universe. Since both could be examples of a cyclic Universe, then the possibility is we just happen to exist in one precisely tuned to precipitate the particular type of organic life we observe. Bi-lateral symmetry morphology and Bi-pedal locomotion are the predominant descriptions of all ET sightings and abduction experiences. The only other I've read were of a giant praying mantis type with 4 or more legs.

So, in a another Universe, for example, of increased gravity, the conditions are tuned for sentient life to be predominantly gelatinous or one where matter and energy are amorphous. The sentience might form from and in condensed pockets of quantum coherence and stable wave functions that attain superposition and sentient potentiality.

Truely endless possibilities, IMO.
 
#58
Tuvok and the "Doctor" were my favorite Voyager characters. But, Nelix was the Star Trek equivalent of Jar-Jar Binks in Star Wars, except Jar Jar Binks had a cute factor, Nelix went directly to "Huh?" and "wtf?" Nelix's face looked like frat kid drunk night vomited on someones Chinese Crested-Pug mix dog inspired makeup.
I allow the stories and characters in the sci-fi I watch to be what they are. I don't do the "this reality as measurement" thing. If I can't allow the reality shown, I don't watch the series. For me Neelix is real and valid as are all in the Trek universes. Beyond that, Neelix is someone I would hang out with. A likeable and quirky fella.
 
#59
I allow the stories and characters in the sci-fi I watch to be what they are. I don't do the "this reality as measurement" thing. If I can't allow the reality shown, I don't watch the series. For me Neelix is real and valid as are all in the Trek universes. Beyond that, Neelix is someone I would hang out with. A likeable and quirky fella.
I can relate to your view, but I prefer the narrative framework and character interrelationships to feel organic to flow, however imaginative the story line is, logically. Entertainment media often meddle with good ideas, for whatever reasons, that detract rather than add, but I don't dismiss a story entirely just because I don't care for one character.

I would have been interesting having Quark as a bartender.
 
Top