SimonFunnell

Wonderful...although I have no idea what you are saying.

My understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is as follows: We are in a room with a table, objectively, the table is a table, you cannot have a subjective opinion on this matter because it is an objective fact. You don't argue or disagree over objective facts, a table is a table regardless of who you are. Now I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, this is subjectivity. Objectivity is context independent, it doesn't matter what room you put the table in, its still a table. Subjectivity is context dependent as opinions can change based on the context, for example, I may be of the opinion that the table is too big for the room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too small for the room, however move it to another room and I may be of the opinion that the same table is too small for the new room while someone else might be of the opinion it is too big. So lets try an be objective, what is that we agree on exactly? Because voicing subjective opinions without have an objective base is folly.

So are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry, under the right conditions, give rise to life? Is that not the same thing?

Ok, that seems fair enough. Would form be a better word than create? Is it acceptable to say the laws of physics/chemistry gave the cell form? Or does this suffer from the same problem? What is the best way to describe event? Thanks.

Sorry, are you saying the laws of physics/chemistry lack creative power? Are you saying they lack the power to create a cell?

This my friend is from your heart and not your head, you may feel that way but it is simply untrue. Making comments about a persons being is neither relevant nor appropriate in civil discourse. Please forgive me but I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the creative power of the laws of physics/chemistry are not limited and are in fact unlimited? Unlimited as in they do have the creative power to create mobile phones? That seems fair enough and I would agree with you.

Really? I am not sure what you are trying to say, would you care to elaborate? I am happy to learn if you are kind enough to educate me.

I think it is important to know I am not a proponent of intelligence design, I would just like a richer understanding. For this I need to know we are on the same page so would people agree with this? Natural process (the laws of physics and chemistry) cannot account for the complexity of a mobile phone and therefore by implication natural processes have limited creative power. Meaning that natural processes (the laws of physics and chemistry) can create complexity but there are limitations to that complexity. Would people agree with that?

Well sure humans are part of the general natural process. But are you then saying that somehow humans (intelligent agents) gave rise to the first cell? Surely the idea is to eliminate intelligent agents from the creation of life?

Lets try and focus on the topic. When I talk about natural processes, I guess I am talking about the laws of physics and chemistry. Would people agree or would they define it as something else? Remember that we cannot include life in natural processes as we are looking for the process that created life. So the basic question is can the laws of physics and chemistry compose a simple cell. As I understand it, this is what evolutionists believe, that the laws of physics and chemistry gave rise to the first cell (like in a primordial soup). Am I correct in thinking this? Thanks.

The problem with that is that the natural processes that gave rise to the mobile phone (intelligent agents) could not have possibly given rise to the first cell, because that's intelligent design. So natural processes here must exclude biological life and intelligent agents.

Well lets take a mobile phone. I think must people would agree that natural processes (wind blowing, rain falling, chemical reactions, atomic activity and so on) lack the power to create (lack the creative power) a mobile phone. Therefore a mobile quite clearly passes the limits of the creative power of natural processes. If a mobile phone passes the limit of the creative powers of natural process, then there must be a limit. Scientific research into understanding this limitation could yield useful intelligence.

I mean, as I understand the basic logic, if you boil it down to its essential idea, it is basically three questions: 1 - How much creative power do natural process have to create complex things. 2 - What are the limits of this creative power (i.e. what is the maximum level of complexity this creative power can give rise to). 3 - Does the complexity of the most simple cell cross this limit. There is of course no religion in that, they are perfectly valid questions. Now if the answer to number 3 is 'yes' then the most simple cell is not the result of natural processes (which, as I understand it, is what evolutionists believe), meaning it must be the result of something else. At this point, if the answer to question 3 is 'yes' then its not unreasonable to think it might be the result of an intelligent agent. That is all that is said about an intelligent agent. Where is the religion in that?

Thanks for the answer! The problem is, I don't really understand. Could you briefly explain to me your understanding of intelligent design please? I am assuming that you, like me, have looked at it and understood it?

Hi, I have looked at intelligent design and I am bit puzzled. I mean, I hear scientists say it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' and shouldn't be taught in our schools but after looking at it I really don't see any religion in it whatsoever? Consequently, could a someone who is against intelligent design being taught in our schools clearly explain intelligent design and why it is 'religion cloaked in scientific language' to me please? I would like to see what I must be getting wrong, thanks!

So we have a machine that automatically generates random wing designs and tests them (something like evolutionary theory). Some designs win out, others lose. But the winning design was predetermined by the environment it was being tested in. We could have an environment that does not support flying and hence no wing designs will work. Consequently, the design of the wing is an inherent part of the environment. In this way, the random generation of forms is irrelevant, the outcome is always the same, the wing that best suits the environment, wins out. Its not just with wings, abstract forms are part of the universe (the system) and life inherits its form from it, it is formed by the environment.

I admit my knowledge is patchy, but I do have stuff to add, I just can't explain it all here on the forums. I am working on documenting my ideas in full, then I am going to get a video done (against advice from this forum, but still...). I am trying to focus on improving my knowledge so as to be accurate as possible. As suggested, it can be hard to get proper information from watching pop-science and what not.

This does seem to be a decent forum where you can indeed dig deeper to get the facts (there are some facts). I was banned from a physics forum unfairly in my eyes, there was no warnings, no appeal process, just an authoritarian moderator who was judge, jury and executioner. My crime was suggesting the universe could be a kind of cellular automata (another reason I am not convinced by the big bang) and not really explaining it very well (I think physics 'theory of everything' will turn out to the be the fact the universe is a kind of cellular automata). I have a good 25 years left in me and there is nothing stopping me from getting a degree in physics for example, its just I am a little put off by some of my experiences with the field of physics. That said, the field of physics has got the be discerning so, I suppose its about striking a balance somehow. Thanks for the responses anyway, I have some reading to do.

I'll be honest with you, I do not believe the big bang happened, and I am not the only one. Amongst people I know, from a broad spectrum of life but all generally laypersons, most if not all usually 'find it hard to believe' that the whole of the universe was somehow compressed into a small space. I am little troubled when it is said 'the universe was created in a big bang' rather than qualifying it with a 'to the best of our knowledge' or the like. Yes I am a layperson but it is not for physicists to dismiss us because we don't understand the 'elegance' or what not of the equations. I sometimes think physicists are so engrossed in the business of physics that they forget to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I am a sceptical of some of sciences theories, especially in the context of the grand narrative (big bang, creation of stars/planets as spacetime expands, emergence and evolution of life, heat death/big crunch), but I have good reason for this. Why am I sceptical? This is worth pointing out because when I was younger I was a ‘believer’. Now some may interpret that as being under the spell of some holy book, but you would be wrong. To be clear, I have no interest in religion and this is the only mention it is getting. So what was I a ‘believer’ in? Well, it was basically something we all know and love, evolution. I believed in evolution. I am going to have to elaborate. When I was younger I basically believed, because that’s what it was, quite literally, that life emerged out of the primordial soup. Now let’s be brutally honest about this, because this is where my scepticism was born, we don’t know how life got started. Period, we do not know. We do not have the knowledge to explain how life emerged. This meant I believed something that was effectively an idea to be an actual fact. Now was this my fault? Well the young are notoriously naive, ignorant, assuming and not very wise/discerning, so yes, these things played a part. But because I was young this can easily be forgiven, it’s thankfully not a crime to believe something be true or not. The same cannot be said about the scientific establishment because they basic set the official line and they are responsible for effectively misleading me. I am not saying there is some sort of conspiracy, however as I have grown older (I am 40 now) I have found that some influential scientists are certainly instrumental in giving the impression we might know more that we actually do, as well as cultivating a unpleasant disdain in people under their influence towards others who are sceptical of science theory or aspects of it. That said, there are also a lot of brilliant people who come up with brilliant things, I am all for science, I am just not convinced about all of it. That's why I am here, I would like to understand as much as possible.

Using dictionary.com I found this under polymorphous 1 - "having, assuming, or passing through many or various forms, stages, or the like." 2 - "polymorphic" So I mean probably "passing through many or various forms, stages, or the like". As opposed to a background through which things pass.

I am interested in the following information so I can study further, what is the history of dark 'stuff'? What I mean by this is, to the best of my knowledge there is dark matter, dark energy and dark flow. When and how did these come about exactly please? Did they come about together or did one follow the other? Thanks.

Thanks for the answers. Would it be fair to say, by virtue of the fact there are more than one theory, as opposed to one definitive fact, that 'we don't know' how the universe began or how it will end?

I guess the title is the question, is space polymorphic? Or is it a background on which things occur?

Hi, my first question is, what is the official line on what happened before the big bang? I have been told three things: - Two branes collided creating a big bang. - There was no space or time before the big bang, space and time came into being with the big bang. - We don't know. My second question is similar but instead is about the fate of the universe. Is this article on wikipedia an accurate one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Thanks.

I have started a new post here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93879-theory-of-everything/