Is this BEDROCK ? Things will always ultimately get better !

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Having quested for ultimate bedrock. Namely , what is at the bottom of " EVERYTHING" .?

One could make the statement ,

 

..." Things are bound to ultimately get better " ...

 

Well if I were designing anything , say a boat to go to sea . Because of the intrinsic nature of the sea , if you fall in , or sink into the sea , you usually die !

 

I would make sure , that in my design , above all else , there must be some means , like a water pump , to pump any ingress of water OUT .

 

So things would get better , always , as living is better than drowning , always !

 

Hence , it would stand to reason , that however the universe came about , there must be by design or otherwise a mechanism to stop the Universe going ' belly up ' or dying . Otherwise it would be either bad design or it would not have got to the age it has . 13-14 Billion years .

 

So despite ups and downs , even humongous , creative and destructive times, :-

 

............. ...... " Things will always ultimately get better ? " ... Hopefully ? ........... ..........

 

Mike

[Sirona]

I don't understand your sea analogy; are you suggesting that intervention is needed to avoid fatal accidents? While it's possible to minimise your risks, it's ultimately impossible to be able to account for every possible disaster and 'intervene'. Your point is not entirely clear and I'm not certain of what you want to discuss. You're obviously an optimistic person, which is fantastic, however, you have only identified what you believe to be a problem in several posts (along the lines of needing to intervene to stop some catastrophic disaster which you believe is happening) but what are your suggestions?

Edited May 29, 2016 by Sirona

[Strange]

Hence , it would stand to reason , that however the universe came about , there must be by design or otherwise a mechanism to stop the Universe going ' belly up ' or dying . Otherwise it would be either bad design or it would not have got to the age it has . 13-14 Billion years .

 

 

It might be like a large complex machine that is running down very slowly. (In fact, it almost certainly is. See also: entropy.)

[swansont]

Hence , it would stand to reason , that however the universe came about , there must be by design or otherwise a mechanism to stop the Universe going ' belly up ' or dying . Otherwise it would be either bad design or it would not have got to the age it has . 13-14 Billion years .

 

 

It's not at all obvious to my why this should be true.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I don't understand your sea analogy; are you suggesting that intervention is needed to avoid fatal accidents? While it's possible to minimise your risks, it's ultimately impossible to be able to account for every possible disaster and 'intervene'. Your point is not entirely clear and I'm not certain of what you want to discuss. You're obviously an optimistic person, which is fantastic, however, you have only identified what you believe to be a problem in several posts (along the lines of needing to intervene to stop some catastrophic disaster which you believe is happening) but what are your suggestions?

 

.

I am trying to say that , I have reasoned things through , by going right back to the beginning. This is not entirely a new venture for me as I have been reasoning this out and discussing it with others since my 20's in the 1960's . Which seems a long time ago but a lot has happened since then .

 

My father was a designer , I was a designer ( engineering ) , some of my children are designers, and I have taught young people about design, ......so .. Although not a nautical designer , I am saying if

I designed a people carrying boat to sail the high seas , I would design in many layers of back up, should an accident occurs , for survival . Then survivors go on to have a happy and fulfilled life ( better life ) . As of course is the current case with most modern nautical design .

Similarly , if I designed the Universe. ( which I clearly didn't ) , but I have often thought back to the very very early , very , very earliest of times .. what would I do ? I know that is fanciful , but it's possible to have a 'thought experiment ' . What would I do , if there were only me there ? Etc etc . Would I design a universe that was going to deteriorate , stay the same , or get better ? I would certainly , even by logic design a system / universe that would get better.!

 

Now if a universe just happened , the evidence is , that the trend , ( not individual declines and boosts ) , is that the universe is getting better ) . There seem to be in built mechanisms , where things 'get better ' .

We might be in a very tough bit at the moment ,where political and economic systems, may well go into serious decline and failure . But ultimately , I am optimistic that things will , with manifold style changes be world changingly better !

 

Mike

 

It might be like a large complex machine that is running down very slowly. (In fact, it almost certainly is. See also: entropy.)

Parts may be running down and spreading out , but equally parts are also coming together into better systems . Take the earth once a swirling mass of lava , now a beautiful world full of complex life . Scientifically / the environmental / material universe ,then things are getting better . But politically , economically , and behaviourally , things might well be getting ' horrifically ' worse . This needs sorting !

Other parts of the universe are growing from explosive hot gas to galaxy upon galaxy of wonderful and beautiful better structure. Our turn as a peopled wonderful world is yet to come , somehow !

 

Mike

 

 

It's not at all obvious to me why this should be true.

 

.

Which ever way you look at it , there are 'inbuilt mechanisms' , whereby things change with time for the better , whether they be animal , vegetable , or mineral level . There is everywhere an inbuilt selective system . Except for the human , political , economic , and other systems have got into a real muddle . That is the real area that needs , wants and demands drastic immediate change . When that happens .....

 

....Then , Things will then , as always ultimately get better ? ". In the long term . Surely ?

 

Mike

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Sirona]

Forgive me if I appear to be blunt because while I do appreciate your concern and compassion towards others, I don't feel you're at all logical. I don't quite understand why you don't believe marine engineers build boats so they're as safe as possible. Obviously boating accidents still do happen but that's mostly due to a sudden and unpredictable change in weather conditions. If you read up on maritime archaeology, you'll see how much boat design has improved. Also, there are already existing devices which make it much more likely to survive a boating accident such as floatation devices, gps, navigation lights, visual distress signals, horns, fire extinguishers, engine spare parts, anchor, rope, etc. You need to take personal responsibility too; data suggests that many leisure boating accidents occur as a result of intoxication. Drowning is the most common cause of boating deaths and statistics show that less than 25% of people wore a life jacket in 2003.

 

Personally, it seems people taking personal responsibility and being accountable is more important than this lung pump you speak of which I am still not sure how you would implement since you didn't explain it.

 

Again, what is the relevance of the sea analogy?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Forgive me if I appear to be blunt because while I do appreciate your concern and compassion towards others, I don't feel you're at all logical. I don't quite understand why you don't believe marine engineers build boats so they're as safe as possible. Obviously boating accidents still do happen but that's mostly due to a sudden and unpredictable change in weather conditions. If you read up on maritime archaeology, you'll see how much boat design has improved. Also, there are already existing devices which make it much more likely to survive a boating accident such as floatation devices, gps, navigation lights, visual distress signals, horns, fire extinguishers, engine spare parts, anchor, rope, etc. You need to take personal responsibility too; data suggests that many leisure boating accidents occur as a result of intoxication. Drowning is the most common cause of boating deaths and statistics show that less than 25% of people wore a life jacket in 2003.

Personally, it seems people taking personal responsibility and being accountable is more important than this lung pump you speak of which I am still not sure how you would implement since you didn't explain it.

Again, what is the relevance of the sea analogy?

.

I am sorry , I have clearly not explained this particular point clearly enough . .. I was in no way trying to criticise any way past and present ship design , in any way being in deficit.

 

I was trying to use the example of the dangers of sea travel and the human state ,of the inability to survive. Humans at sea , as an example of a problem needing a solution . And as such there is a clear requirement for designs needed when ships are designed. This is of course met , by ship designers.

 

The analogy , though clearly ambiguous , is that the existing whole Earth population ' appears to be ' in a bit of a state of crisis. Namely , at sea , without a paddle ( or a pump for that matter ) . No doubt somewhere in the structure of this complex Earth system , are the equivalent of , the life boats and other survival equipment. But typical of even ship disasters, there is a certain degree of ' panic ' going on . Rushing about , not sure what to do . No clear direction , as to what clearly to do, to survive the current crisis.

Perhaps , as with some historic sea disasters , we will be rescued , or some internal safety equipment will be found in time . However this latter solution does not look the promising option.

 

Returning to the original proposal of the thread, that " there usually are inbuilt designs or mechanisms , for 'things to get better ' .." Then there is hope and anticipation that , that is the result for the future of the Earth. Things will , one way or another , ' will get better '

 

Mike ( I hope that is 'clearer than mud' )

 

Ps this comment in the original post :-

 

" Well if I were designing anything , say a boat to go to sea . Because of the intrinsic nature of the sea , if you fall in , or sink into the sea , you usually die ! I would make sure , that in my design , above all else , there must be some means , like a water pump , to pump any ingress of water OUT . "

 

I was, meaning at a very simplistic level , meaning , the first thing in a design for safety in a boat , is a pump to pump out the leaking water coming into the boat , so the water would get pumped out of the boat , and we hopefully would not sink .

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

The analogy , though clearly ambiguous , is that the existing whole Earth population ' appears to be ' in a bit of a state of crisis. Namely , at sea , without a paddle ( or a pump for that matter ) . No doubt somewhere in the structure of this complex Earth system , are the equivalent of , the life boats and other survival equipment.

 

 

That is where you seem to leave logic and take off into science fiction (or Creationism). There is NO logical reason why there should be any such systems in place. The Earth came about by chance, we happened to have evolved while conditions were favourable. If conditions change (perhaps because we change them) we may not find it easy to survive.

 

The nearest thing to what you are describing is perhaps that fact that if we were to be driven to extinction then other species would thrive in our place.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That is where you seem to leave logic and take off into science fiction (or Creationism). There is NO logical reason why there should be any such systems in place. The Earth came about by chance, we happened to have evolved while conditions were favourable. If conditions change (perhaps because we change them) we may not find it easy to survive.

 

The nearest thing to what you are describing is perhaps that fact that if we were to be driven to extinction then other species would thrive in our place.

 

.

Three of the mechanisms that are necessary and in place are :-

 

1.)reproduction , 2)recognition/application of benefit ( things can get better ) , 3) and change .

 

All accepted by the science community . ( mechanisms none -the -less )

 

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

 

Your comments about " science fiction (or Creationism). "

 

I would be surprised if there was not a physics scientist in our reader list that did not have an interest ( one way or another ) in either/or one of these two subjects. Most of today's scientific inventions , have been preceded by a science fiction version 50 years previously. And creationism was the norm for 80 to 90 % percent of civilised human history

( say from 4000 BC - 1600 AD ) . So again this has had a major impact on civilised human experience and history .

 

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

 

Mike

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

So I don't really know what your point is. There are no "rescue systems" built into the planet.

 

Three of the mechanisms that are necessary and in place are :-

 

1.)reproduction , 2)recognition/application of benefit ( things can get better ) , 3) and change .

In what way are these three things relevant to your point?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So I don't really know what your point is. There are no "rescue systems" built into the planet. In what way are these three things relevant to your point?

.

My point in the original post was : the basics of the universe , or a fundamental characteristic of the universe is that :

Things must progress to become better with time .

 

If this were not the case , namely things get worse , as time goes by . Then the universe would be on a decline , and would have been unlikely to have lasted 12/13 billion years .

 

If things remained static then the universe would still be a massive dust cloud , dissipating into infinity.

 

The fact that it is progressing into developing stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters , and a world of minerals , life , and weather systems , testify that things are getting better , all the while as time moves forward.

 

For most of these ( mentioned in the last paragraph ) there needs to be a system for reproduction, something that recognises beneficial change , and the changes themselves . ( an overview description )

 

These are present on Earth and so there is evidence here for the statement .

 

"Things can and will get better ultimately . " if this were not so we would not be here , would we not ?

 

Now if you are meaning getting out of our political , economic , behavioural , resource, crisis , that is a separate matter . That needs another solution . If not ,... Well the natural , inbuilt systems of the universe will be thwarted here on earth . But I do not think that is going to be left, let to happen .

 

I suppose we could be left to just fizzle out or blow ourselves to bits . But I do not think that is what is going to happen .

 

Mike

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

My point in the original post was : the basics of the universe , or a fundamental characteristic of the universe is that :

Things must progress to become better with time .

 

How do you define "better"?

 

 

 

If this were not the case , namely things get worse , as time goes by . Then the universe would be on a decline , and would have been unlikely to have lasted 12/13 billion years .

 

The universe may well be in decline. In fact it obviously is. It is expanding and cooling. Eventually we will not be able to see any other galaxies.

 

On what basis do you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years? Can you show the calculations that lead you to that conclusion?

 

 

 

The fact that is is progressing into developing stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters , and a world of minerals , life , and weather systems , testify that things are getting better , all the while as time moves forward.

 

Again, what does "better" mean?

 

Also, stars form and die but eventually the conditions for creating new stars will be gone and no new stars will form. Then the last star will die and the universe will be cold and dark. IS that "better"?

 

 

 

For most of these ( mentioned in the last paragraph ) there needs to be a system for reproduction, something that recognises beneficial change , and the changes themselves .

 

What is there, on Earth, that recognises beneficial change?

 

What is there, in stars and galaxies, that can be described as reproduction?

[swansont]

My point in the original post was : the basics of the universe , or a fundamental characteristic of the universe is that :

Things must progress to become better with time .

 

 

This is a false dichotomy of an unusual sort (usually it's because there is at least one other option). In this case it's because, as Strange has implied, that the terminology is undefined. What's better for you may be worse for me.

Which ever way you look at it , there are 'inbuilt mechanisms' , whereby things change with time for the better , whether they be animal , vegetable , or mineral level . There is everywhere an inbuilt selective system . Except for the human , political , economic , and other systems have got into a real muddle . That is the real area that needs , wants and demands drastic immediate change . When that happens .....

 

....Then , Things will then , as always ultimately get better ? ". In the long term . Surely ?

 

 

I was asking about how you came to the conclusion (based on reason, you say) that the universe was designed. This bit doesn't address that.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This is a false dichotomy of an unusual sort (usually it's because there is at least one other option). In this case it's because, as Strange has implied, that the terminology is undefined. What's better for you may be worse for me.

 

I was asking about how you came to the conclusion (based on reason, you say) that the universe was designed. This bit doesn't address that.

.

 

The Google definition of ' better ' as :-

ˈbɛtə/

adjective

"

" more desirable, satisfactory, or effective."

 

The subject of design of the universe depends on your point of view .

 

( A) If you go the self design route then you can take the ' selection process ' whereby better solutions do better in the universe , and so thrive more effectively . So a great balancing , and jostling between respective parts self perpetuates " better ness " namely more desirable , more satisfactory, more effective "

( B) if you take the Creationist route , then better could follow the same route as (A) perhaps with intervention from time to time .

 

Mike

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

" more desirable, satisfactory, or effective."

 

 

So when the Sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the Earth that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective?

 

And when all the stars have died and the universe is cold and dark, that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So when the Sun turns into a red giant and engulfs the Earth that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective?

 

And when all the stars have died and the universe is cold and dark, that is more desirable, satisfactory and effective?

 

.

I would think that by the time our sun goes supernova ( say 5 billion years ) our ability to move about the universe would have improved ( bettered ) and we could change our home to a new younger star. Perhaps to a more satisfactory and effective star.

 

I think the ' jury is still out ' , on the far future of the universe . Maybe that too has the ability to move on to a better, more effective , satisfactory , universe, home, ?????, ( whatever) . Be interesting to see what it is ?

 

On what basis do you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years?

 

What is there, on Earth, that recognises beneficial change?

 

What is there, in stars and galaxies, that can be described as reproduction?

.

Well I thought it was an established fact that the Big Bang to now was 13 billion years of effective growth.

 

The flora and fauna recognise beneficial change by better suiting the environment .

 

Well it has been mooted by cosmologists that stars and galaxies can go through a sort of growth, division on collision with another galaxy, and stars can supernova ,producing material for future generations of stars.

 

All the time ' I would suggest ' the universe is getting better, ( more effective, satisfactory , and Desirable )

 

Mike

Edited May 30, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

The Google definition of ' better ' as :-

ˈbɛtə/

adjective

"

" more desirable, satisfactory, or effective."

The subject of design of the universe depends on your point of view .

( A) If you go the self design route then you can take the ' selection process ' whereby better solutions do better in the universe , and so thrive more effectively . So a great balancing , and jostling between respective parts self perpetuates " better ness " namely more desirable , more satisfactory, more effective "

( B) if you take the Creationist route , then better could follow the same route as (A) perhaps with intervention from time to time .

Mike

How do inanimate objects have desire, or satisfaction?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How do inanimate objects have desire, or satisfaction?

I thought most eminent scientists agreed that " if the universe , or parts of the universe are not " OBSERVED" then the whole thing , the universe, is completely pointless. So if , the universe , is observed , as it clearly is , then the inanimate objects are the subject of desire and satisfaction , as well as effectiveness.

 

Mike

[Strange]

.

I would think that by the time our sun goes supernova ( say 5 billion years ) our ability to move about the universe would have improved ( bettered ) and we could change our home to a new younger star. Perhaps to a more satisfactory and effective star.

 

I think the ' jury is still out ' , on the far future of the universe . Maybe that too has the ability to move on to a better, more effective , satisfactory , universe, home, ?????, ( whatever) . Be interesting to see what it is ?

 

So you are guessing about what might happen in future and using that to support your idea. This is the fallacy of begging the question.

 

Well I thought it was an established fact that the Big Bang to now was 13 billion years of effective growth.[/background]

 

Not quite an established fact, but yes that is the consensus. But that wasn't the question. I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years?

 

The flora and fauna recognise beneficial change by better suiting the environment .

They also recognise adverse changes and adapt to that. Or they could become extinct (if that is the "better" solution).

 

Well it has been mooted by cosmologists that stars and galaxies can go through a sort of growth, division on collision with another galaxy, and stars can supernova ,producing material for future generations of stars.

 

 

I have never heard of such a model. Citation needed.

 

All the time ' I would suggest ' the universe is getting better, ( more effective, satisfactory , and Desirable )

 

Your opinion does not really count as evidence.

I thought most eminent scientists agreed that " if the universe , or parts of the universe are not " OBSERVED" then the whole thing , the universe, is completely pointless.

 

 

I have never heard anyone say that. So, again: Citation needed.

If things have been getting better for 12 billion years, why is everything still a bit crap? Surely it should all be perfect by now.

[swansont]

I thought most eminent scientists agreed that " if the universe , or parts of the universe are not " OBSERVED" then the whole thing , the universe, is completely pointless. So if , the universe , is observed , as it clearly is , then the inanimate objects are the subject of desire and satisfaction , as well as effectiveness.

 

Mike

 

 

We know there are parts of the universe we can't observe. And if you're talking about human desire, then this suggests that the universe was created for humans, which is a religious, not scientific, view.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Boy! You guys are giving me a hard time.

 

Make my day . Why can't you just say . Mike you are a jolly nice guy, and we think your ideas sound great !

 

Then I will feel great . You will feel great for being generous hearted

 

Mike

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Mike, you are a jolly nice guy.

 

Will that do?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You have made me laugh , that must be good ! I am afraid I am off for the next couple of hours , to a cafe meeting , to discuss deep scientific ideas about ' visualisation ' , so be prepared .

 

And walk the dog .

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

Boy! You guys are giving me a hard time.

Make my day . Why can't you just say . Mike you are a jolly nice guy, and we think your ideas sound great !

Then I will feel great . You will feel great for being generous hearted

Mike

That's not why we're here. This not the "Stroke your ego" forum.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We know there are parts of the universe we can't observe. And if you're talking about human desire, then this suggests that the universe was created for humans, which is a religious, not scientific, view.

.

 

There is often a problem among scientists when you wind the clock totally Back to ' Zero '

Many scientists like to start the story from some extremely small period of time onward from Zero , not from the Big Bang or the beginning .

 

Yet that is the time of highly philosophical issues ( like what preconditions existed, what happened at time zero, who or what made it happen . Many scientists are willing to take it from some small time onward of zero , as then energy or matter exist somehow and they are prepared to take it from there. However that area AT and FROM time zero, to begin with is a ' no go ' area for many .

 

Herein possibly lay the answers to previously raised matters .

 

Mike

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos