creative and orgaining force

[Athena]

Simple question, is there a creative and organizing force? If not how did the universe come to be?

[lemur]

The only way I can see that the universe can be self-creating and self-organizing would be for it to be cyclical. Since energy is not created or destroyed, that seems feasible. What I don't get is how a universe that dies in heat-death and eternal expansion can somehow recycle into a new big bang. Entropy seems to be a one-way process but on one hand you have the eternal expansion and whatever causes that; and on the other you have gravity and the tendency for all matter to eventually collect into a single point if it didn't all escape from each other through motion and expansion. If gravitational contraction didn't form the energetic point that began expanding with the big bang, then you're left with the question of what did. In that case, I think some "creative force" would be required other than gravity and the other natural forces. Of course, even if the universe was cyclical, you could still ask why forces and energy exist and behave as they do and how is it that humans have managed to develop the ability to understand them as well as some have.

[DevilSolution]

Cynical seems extreme, creativeness is not infinite of time but possibilities. Not even sure what that means but something cant come from nothing and something cant be nothing again it always exist's in some or form another, the rest probably lies in chemistry, maths and physics. Computers seem pretty limitless as far as creating thing's go but right now we seem to have physical constraints in one form another in (Z) being able to control our own existence thats to say 1) fate exist's and 2) you cant say your not going to die tomorrow or win the lottery(maybe i bought the ticket for you, its not an impossibility //ignore this if your get the bit before it) and 3) the boundaries havent been met yet, we are all still be part of some collective consciousness(unlucky) in which we can increase our own level of ability and overall knowledge of things that will expand the boundaries. Anyone know python?

 

Rhetorical question btw does 0 = 1?

 

(Z) {i changed it to in because on seemed contradictory to 1,2 and 3 //ive no idea what this means}

[Light Storm]

Simple question, is there a creative and organizing force? If not how did the universe come to be?

 

If this text blurb as you read it represented life as we know it... we couldn't possibly begin to understand the programming code running in the back ground. Let alone the programs running behind that one, and then the hardware behind that.

 

the point I'm attempting to make is that if there is a 2nd dimension to our 1st, it would forever be outside of our understanding.

[michel123456]

Simple question, is there a creative and organizing force? If not how did the universe come to be?

 

Below my opinion(s)

 

1.Creative force?

Creation has never been observed. So I personally dismiss the question.

 

2.Organizing force?

Actually we know 4 of them. These are the 4 interactions electromagnetism, strong interaction, weak interaction (also known as "strong" and "weak nuclear force" respectively) and gravitation.

The interesting thing is that scientists struggle to the unification of those 4 interactions in quest of a single "organizing force". IMHO you need 2, not one.

 

3.how did the universe come to be?

Ask someone else (see 1.)

[Moontanman]

Simple question, is there a creative and organizing force? If not how did the universe come to be?

 

 

Simple answer, there is no evidence for a creative organizing force, or against a creative organizing force either for that matter, as for the second question, no one really knows....

[Athena]

Simple answer, there is no evidence for a creative organizing force, or against a creative organizing force either for that matter, as for the second question, no one really knows....

 

You are so stubborn. I don't know how anyone could look at the tadpoles in the river and insist there is no creative or organizing force. I think we can be pretty sure the tadpoles exist because of a creative force, and they will be frogs, and not skunks, because of an organizing force. For hydrogen to become the next element, there had to be a creative force, and each stage of the creation was limited by controlling forces.

 

Michel123456, I think your comment stands with Moontanman's. Perhaps giving birth to a child is a requirement of appreciating the creative force? What do you mean we have never witnessed creation. I do not understand not the being aware of creation. It happens everyday, especially in the spring.

 

I really like lemur's question of all this being cyclical. That is something to ponder, and it makes me feel a little uncomfortable with my sense of reality. As the universe breathes out, will it breath in? I am so over my head. I understand the big bang came with a lot of heat. As the universe expands, it cools. Particles with more kinetic energy move faster and farther apart. Particles with less energy move more slowly and stay closer together. When a warm object is brought near a cooler object, thermal energy will be transferred to cooler one. Don't things get really strange at absolute zero? The heat is transferring from where to where, as the universe expands? Like when it gets all spread out, how cold will cold get? Could this reverse the flow? As I puzzle through this, not knowing enough about anything, I wonder could everything return to hydrogen? Become compressed hydrogen, and create the big bang all over again?

 

Like maybe energy is forever, but when it is spread out and covers more space it is less intense, and for sure matter is transformed.

 

Light Storm thanks for saying we can't "possibly begin to understand the programming code running in the back ground", because now I feel less stupid. However, we have decided Hydrogen was the first element, and if things are cyclical, we should be able to run the movie in reverse, and understand the whole cycle.

Edited May 30, 2011 by Athena

[Moontanman]

You are so stubborn. I don't know how anyone could look at the tadpoles in the river and insist there is no creative or organizing force. I think we can be pretty sure the tadpoles exist because of a creative force, and they will be frogs, and not skunks, because of an organizing force. For hydrogen to become the next element, there had to be a creative force, and each stage of the creation was limited by controlling forces.

 

 

I'm stubborn? Genes are what decides what species of frog the tadpole will be, no mysterious force, that is demonstrably true Carol.

 

Michel123456, I think your comment stands with Moontanman's. Perhaps giving birth to a child is a requirement of appreciating the creative force? What do you mean we have never witnessed creation. I do not understand not the being aware of creation. It happens everyday, especially in the spring.

 

 

Giving birth to a child is no more a show of creative force than the tadpoles, and the regrowth in the spring is not creation by any definition i am aware of, if you feel it is give us some evidence, child birth is the result of sex, genes and the drive to reproduce that is part of the genetics of organisms, not some mysterious force. What do you mean by creation? or creative force? Define it at least.

 

I really like lemur's question of all this being cyclical. That is something to ponder, and it makes me feel a little uncomfortable with my sense of reality. As the universe breathes out, will it breath in? I am so over my head. I understand the big bang came with a lot of heat. As the universe expands, it cools. Particles with more kinetic energy move faster and farther apart. Particles with less energy move more slowly and stay closer together. When a warm object is brought near a cooler object, thermal energy will be transferred to cooler one. Don't things get really strange at absolute zero? The heat is transferring from where to where, as the universe expands? Like when it gets all spread out, how cold will cold get? Could this reverse the flow? As I puzzle through this, not knowing enough about anything, I wonder could everything return to hydrogen? Become compressed hydrogen, and create the big bang all over again?

 

As interesting as Lemurs assertion is it is not even suggestive of a creative force much less proof of it.

 

Like maybe energy is forever, but when it is spread out and covers more space it is less intense, and for sure matter is transformed.

 

Please elaborate on this assertion.

 

Light Storm thanks for saying we can't "possibly begin to understand the programming code running in the back ground", because now I feel less stupid. However, we have decided Hydrogen was the first element, and if things are cyclical, we should be able to run the movie in reverse, and understand the whole cycle.

 

Actually we do understand the programming code running in the back round, it's called genetics, as for running the movie in reverse that was the idea the big bang came from... and as far as we can tell there is not enough matter in the universe to make it "recycle" or make the "big crunch" happen but the laws of thermodynamics would suggest this would not go one forever and would be limited to the number of crunches and bangs that could happen.

[michel123456]

What we commonly call "creation" is in reality "transformation".

I suppose you prefer use the word creation to describe for example when a baby comes into existence: at some time you were born and you exist now at a place where you weren't before. IMHO reproduction is not creation. Growth is not creation. Cellular division is not creation.

Edited May 31, 2011 by michel123456

[Light Storm]

Actually we do understand the programming code running in the back round, it's called genetics, as for running the movie in reverse that was the idea the big bang came from... and as far as we can tell there is not enough matter in the universe to make it "recycle" or make the "big crunch" happen but the laws of thermodynamics would suggest this would not go one forever and would be limited to the number of crunches and bangs that could happen.

 

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make. While we have a pretty broad perspective on looking at the bigger picture, we are failing to notice the wall or building that it's handing up in. A program would never understand what code is making it work, just like our conscience has zero control over the roll our genetics are playing out in our life time. In the grand universe of everything that is, something might be setting the foundations of laws we recognize and calculate. It's not until you get down to quantum mechanics that the laws we take for granted start going out the window. Someone once told me for the size of the universe to be infinite, there would also have to be infinite micro space. For any amount of volume, you will always be able to multiply it or divide it by 2. We recognize levels we think are at the bottom which starts and plancks and dives into super string to m-string theories where multiple dimensions exist and time takes on different meaning. Where I'm going with all of this is that no matter how far down we think we know, or how far down we can theorize to, it's is all contained within the realms of this reality. If existence as we know it has a blue print or programming code running in the background, its what makes our reality possible and will forever remain outside of our understanding. In a 2D word where you only have a flat plane, consistence there would never be able to understand how the 3rd dimension works. If you considered us to be living in a 3rd dimension reality, there could be a 4th happening that would remain outside our understanding.

[Moontanman]

I think you missed the point I was attempting to make. While we have a pretty broad perspective on looking at the bigger picture, we are failing to notice the wall or building that it's handing up in. A program would never understand what code is making it work, just like our conscience has zero control over the roll our genetics are playing out in our life time. In the grand universe of everything that is, something might be setting the foundations of laws we recognize and calculate. It's not until you get down to quantum mechanics that the laws we take for granted start going out the window. Someone once told me for the size of the universe to be infinite, there would also have to be infinite micro space. For any amount of volume, you will always be able to multiply it or divide it by 2. We recognize levels we think are at the bottom which starts and plancks and dives into super string to m-string theories where multiple dimensions exist and time takes on different meaning. Where I'm going with all of this is that no matter how far down we think we know, or how far down we can theorize to, it's is all contained within the realms of this reality. If existence as we know it has a blue print or programming code running in the background, its what makes our reality possible and will forever remain outside of our understanding. In a 2D word where you only have a flat plane, consistence there would never be able to understand how the 3rd dimension works. If you considered us to be living in a 3rd dimension reality, there could be a 4th happening that would remain outside our understanding.

 

 

I understand exactly what you are saying light storm, you trying to insinuate that if it's more complex than we currently understand then it must be inexplicable. Just because we didn't know what genetics was didn't stop it from controlling life as we know it but it didn't make it unknowable either even though it controlled us. You seem to be insistent on suggesting that something must be above what we know or no matter what we know there must be a higher level of complexity above which we can know. I see no reason to believe this to be true.

[Edtharan]

Simple question, is there a creative and organizing force? If not how did the universe come to be?

Be careful of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

The term "Force" is one highly subject to the fallacy of equivocation. People with supernatural beliefs tend to use the word to mean either an external purpose imposed on the material world, or some form of conciousness causing something to occur. However, in science (and as this is a science forum site), force has a very specific, but different meaning.

 

Essentially the difference is that in science "Force" is a blind purposeless impulse, where as the supernatural "Force" is one with a purpose.

 

So, in terms of science: Yes, I believe there can be purposeless "forces" that cause organisation. But according to the supernatural force: No, I don't believe there is a purpose behind it.

 

Using complexity theory, it is possible to show that networks have self organising properties. These can be shown to be purposeless, but organising none the less. There is no supernatural forces at work and the system can be shown to work completely in a mathematical/logical system.

 

Take for example "Conway's Game of Life": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_game_of_life

 

These 3 rules (Any cell with 3 neighbours become live, and cell with 2 neighbours stays the same and any other case the cell dies), create a self organising system. If you start with a random set of cells either live or dead, patterns will start to emerge. One that is common is the "Glider", and this is amazing as not only is it self organising, the pattern has movement through the world (although no cells actually have movement at all).

 

There is no supernatural effects at work here, just mathematics and logic, and yet there is a self organising system that shows high level functions (they have successfully made a computer that works using just those rules and a pattern of live and dead cells - and that computer could then run a version of Conway's game of life, in which a computer could be constructed which could run Conway's game of life...).

 

You can also get self organising systems that occur naturally. take for example lipids (like soap). these, when in water will form small bubble like structures called vesicles. This has nothing supernatural about it and it is completely understood in terms of chemistry and electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. Again, no purpose, but self organising systems that follow logical processes.

 

These show that no supernatural process is necessary for self organising system to exist. Although it doesn't rule them out, is shows that they are not necessary for self organisation to exist.

 

As supernatural causes are not necessary for self organisation, then the existence of self organisation does not prove supernatural existence (but neither does it disprove it either).

 

You are so stubborn. I don't know how anyone could look at the tadpoles in the river and insist there is no creative or organizing force. I think we can be pretty sure the tadpoles exist because of a creative force, and they will be frogs, and not skunks, because of an organizing force. For hydrogen to become the next element, there had to be a creative force, and each stage of the creation was limited by controlling forces.

Here you posit two properties and then conflate them into one. The properties are "Creative" and "Organising".

 

I don't think anyone could really disagree with an organising force (in terms of the definition by science). DNA is know as that organising force along with biochemistry.

 

However, "Creativity" implies purpose (otherwise it is just randomness). It is this that people are really objecting to, but because you conflate them, they do too (as they are using your definition of "Force", and the conflation shows what your definition is - the supernatural definition of "Force").

 

As I showed above, just because there is organisation does not mean that there needs to be some supernatural force (with creativity).

[A Tripolation]

You are so stubborn. I don't know how anyone could look at the tadpoles in the river and insist there is no creative or organizing force. I think we can be pretty sure the tadpoles exist because of a creative force, and they will be frogs, and not skunks, because of an organizing force.

 

They will be frogs because tadpoles are frogs and not skunks. Nothing more. Moontanman was right on this account.

[michel123456]

IMHO the extaordinary is not organisation of the physical world. The truly bizarre is randomness.

 

If you tried to build something from random pieces on which you apply simple rules (as those of the game of life or the laws of Newton) you would obtain an organized structure: a block universe. It is not so evident to preserve randomness in the result.

 

--------------------

In this sense, fractals are interesting: they contain a part of organization and a part of randomness.

Edited June 2, 2011 by michel123456

[Moontanman]

I think i could agree on some level there is an organizing force in the universe, it is demonstrably true that order does arise from chaos but i see no sign of creativity or intellegence....