By JM At some point you just have to conclude that the creator just IS and does not NEED to be created in turn. All of that infinite regression stuff is based on our inability to grasp the concept of existence without creation. If indeed that is the way it works. :)
Below is a post made by me to J Merkt. My reply is this. No, I don't have to accept all or any part of your post. That's called free choice. But do I accept any or all of it? Well your first sentence is to broad in scope to give a yes or no to. And the second sentence is too ambiguous for me to understand.
If you would reduce the scope of the first, and make the second a little clearer, I'll do my best to answer.
@JF Re: your post, part of which is copied here: "1) The physics of the Universe from the 'big bang' until our Sun and Solar System began to form, which reveals no evidence of a chaotic system - only a predetermined system of specific results. 2) The molecular formations of the crust and the way earths core established an electro-magnetic shield that diverted the solar wind, allowing the atmospheric elements to remain near the surface. 3) The first life forms oxygenated the oceans and atmosphere for multicellular life forms to exist and the sequence of life, along with the similarity of the DNA Structures in all existing life forms. 4) The sequence of the humanoid life forms until Homo sapiens and the ongoing mutation of each life form, including the modern human brain and body, indicate a probability of infinite evolution. 5) The study of embryonic and fetal development, from the fertilization of the human oocyte until birth (day-by-day, event-by-event) will, on average, result in a 7.5 pound baby. This would mean that approximately 324,193,548,000,000,000,000,000,000 Atoms were provided by the Mother of the embryo or fetus (depending on the stage of development) and each 'knew' where to go and what to do when they entered the embryo or fetus. A 7.5 pound baby is 4.838709677419355% of the 'average' 155 pound adult having 6.7 octillion Atoms (meaning 67 followed by 26 zeros)."
Very interesting post, i must acknowledge, although i'd have to disagree with a few things. (What, ME disagree with YOU?? Who could ever think of THAT??? LOL) Specifically,
1. You have to be very careful to talk about predetermination & science. At the smallest levels, whether you're talking about Planck-length strings or bigger particles in the Standard Model, our universe is fundamentally random. Vast experimental experience proves it's completely random as far as we can tell.
Now, if you want to say that (e.g.) all the solutions of Schrödinger equations actually ARE God, then that WOULD be consistent with experimental science. I.e., "whatever" "decides" what quantum state a given particle/wave will be found in when it's experimentally acted upon actually IS God. Experimental physicists experience their results as random, but they really aren't, those results are what God "decides," are even what God IS. God could literally act in our lives by "making those quantum decisions."
2. Technically, it's the molten outer core of the earth, with lots of iron, that causes the magnetic field that protects life here, not the crust or the mantle between them (nor the solid core beneath the molten core). Without that field, life would have had a much more difficult time on earth. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next thousand or so years, since our magnetic field is almost certainly starting one of its pole reversals. We're overdue - it's been 700K years, far more than usual.
3. Technically, the blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) that oxygenated the earth's ocean & atmosphere were early organisms but not the very 1st, arising hundreds of millions of years after the beginning of the very 1st life. The oceans were reducing environments for hundreds of millions of years before the cyanobacteria produced all that waste (for them) oxygen.
4. The universe may or may not be infinite in space, but barring multiple universes, it clearly is NOT infinite in time. Hydrogen IS being consumed, irreversibly. Lighter elements are being fused into heavier ones. It may take more than a trillion years (a lot less if the big rip theory is correct), but the universe we know WILL end. Ergo, evolution will also end, at least in this universe.
That still leaves us a long, long time to evolve, though. We have proceeded thru biological, cultural, industrial & informational evolution, each moving faster & faster. We biological organisms may only be a step in evolution toward much faster, more intelligent & longer-lasting machines that will spread out over our galaxy.
5. Well, maybe. Like i said above, i don't believe in determinism, at least not for us. God, as described above, is the only one that MIGHT possibly be deterministic.
Now, IYAM perhaps a better argument for God could be the development of life. Some estimate fantastic odds against organic molecules "spontaneously" organizing themselves into self-replicating organisms. How did it arise on earth? If we were to find microbial life elsewhere in our solar system, & especially on extrasolar planets, it would tend to obviate this problem. JMHO.
I will make one post (only) regarding your reply. As in the Redford Thread, you do not read a person's comments for their meaning, but only to provide a rebuttal that does not really address the meaning within the poster's statements. Instead of asking for a clarification of the meaning, you reply with nonsense about what the poster intended as the essence of their concepts or knowledge of the subject. A conversation with you only includes going around in circles, with you repeating your arguments infinitely, by rewording your comments and including even more negative comments that never gets back to understanding the meaning of the original statement(s).
In my circle of friends, our discussions are base on the potential of investing for the purpose of building corporations to pursue knowledge in order to capitalize on the results. We do not argue, but strive for some agreement on any subject that can achieve reality or a better result for reaching a scientific understanding. You on the other hand, never make a real attempt to understand a persons actual position or just ignore their position in order to continue a never ending discussion. I don't play that game and you have misrepresented what my statements meant and the essence of those statements. You have underestimated what I know and have taken a pompous attitude about them in your comments.
Please don't address me on this subject again, as I will not be reading what is posted here, just like I will no longer read the Redford Thread. A conversation with you goes nowhere.
In the environment where I live and discuss any subject with people, I can go through my daily life without arguing with poeple. We have friendly discussions to reach a common focus, even if that means we agree to disagree. Conversing with you creates too much tension and uncertainty, since you never move from your stance regardless of the proof(s) that are provided.
OK, whatever. I "never make a real attempt to understand a person's actual position"? Interesting that i quoted you literally & also said your comments were interesting. I then proposed other ideas consistent with both science AND God, & gave an alternative argument for the existence of God.
It is somewhat disturbing, though, that as a captain of industry you are SO anti-scientific in your attitudes. The comments i made on your hypotheses have been proven by science many, many, many times over. Go read something about quantum physics if you don't believe me. Or try to read something about the earth's magnetic field.
LRJ, Interesting. I did not intend to start a big thing on this subject. There are a very large number of competing views and I certainly don't hold the keys to the kingdom! What I have to say below is my opinion only and it does not negate or discount your opinion. By the way, I do understand that infinities behave in funny ways, for example, some infinties are larger than others.
When I said "you", I was not speaking of you specifically but of "you" on general, or perhaps in this case, "I". I have concluded from the arguments that creation implies a creator and the existence of the creator implies a prior creator, ad infinitum, that "we" don't understand this. I came to the conclusion that the infinite series of creators is based on an inability to comprehend the possibility of existence without creation, that is, the creator just IS.
THere's no "always" associated with that, as in "always was", because the concept of time depends upon beginnings and endings. Another concept that I find incomprehensible, that is, there can be a "beginning" that had nothing prior because there was no time until the "beginning" started the clock. Incomprehensible or not, I think that the concept of before the big bang is meaningless. The was no time so there could not have been a "before".
Space is another of those things that did not exist until the beginning. The universe expands but not "into" something. Space only exists within the universe so there is notheing "outside".
Enough ranting about my particular concepts of the universe. Just for the record, I do believe that there is an infinite creator who somehow started it all. After that, I'll reserve my understandings/beliefs for some other forum and/or time. I have a working set of beliefs and understandings by which I direct my life. However, at 65 years of age, I have not completely formulated them in a comprehensive way and would only discuss them with a very close friend.
So, LRJ, my apologies if you thought I was trying to direct/correct your thinking. It was unintentional. Joe
This thread seems to be lacking a mission statement--not to mention some reason for it to be in the Amazon Dream with Me forum. Is it just spillover from the Amazon Science forum, 90% of whose threads have as little to do with science as this has to do with Jackie?
Or is it all a setup for this clip?
Which I suppose Jackie could sing...like a decade from now, if her avocation turns in a technocomedioironic direction...
Makes more sense. Too bad it wasn't titled "Epistemological Jackie."
That'd warn off anyone who didn't want to get into it--and attract those who did.
Here's my contribution, then, to the infinite regress problem:
>>A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"<<
Jackie is the Black Swan -- the unanticipated Being who, without forcing, forces us to rethink our musical epistemology.
Lucky for us empiricists, we start with an empty gas tank, then fill it as we accumulate experience, cooking up, then moulting, explanation after explanation, progressively refining our weltanschaung, while at the same time getting used to moulting theories as we go.
@Frisco, Yes, I think God is highly appropriate, especially since Jackie herself declares God as her source of talent and inspiration. Epistomology might be appropriate, but some may not understand the term.