Its Blatantly obvious that Paul S. has no idea what he is talking about.
I was going to reply with a pure scientific reply to why the The Big Bang theory can't possibly exist, but its not worth arguing with people who seem to know nothing about what they are talking about (I was mightly disappointed to see Paul didn't have a physics degree).

Some of Paul Davies theories are very interesting - though they wouldn't you because they all fall back on the "God Theory".

One thing I like about inflation theory it that it does make it clearer to me that life - for all its complexities - can emerge just by blind chance alone. Inflation theory if it right and I find it highly plausible it is, it has really conquered Mt Improbable.


Fred Hoyle did some calculations on the likelihood of a hypothetical minimum self-reproducing cell coming together, given all its stuff (this is impossible anyway, by natural, non-enzymatic processes). Hoyle hypotesised a cell of only 400 enzymes/proteins; a real world bacterium has about 2,000! For this hypothetical minimum cell, Hoyle calculated a probability of it forming by natural processes of 1 in 10^40,000.

To put this in context, there are about 10^80 atomic particles in the universe (that is only the observable universe not the inflationay cosmos I will come to that later). If the universe actually were 15 billion years old this would give about 10^18 seconds. If every second and every atomic particle were an experiment in a soup of all the stuff necessary for single cell, this would amount to 10^98 experiments. This is a long way short of any chance of getting our 'cell'. Let's make every microsecond an experiment. This gives 10^104 experiments. This is not getting us anywhere. Let's make every atomic particle in our universe a universe like our own with every atomic particle in those universes and every microsecond an experiment. We now have 10^204 experiments. Hey, we're still a long way short of 10^40,000 necessary for a reasonable chance of succeeding. The chances of getting our cell are zero.

But a big life line is the inflationary cosmos when our early universe as Andre Linde estimates the universe inflated exponentially by the order of 10^10^12. That is more than ample to create any life form by blind chance. 10^204*10^10^12 experiments! now we have life all over the universe. Albeit the nearest would be way out of our observable reach

:cheers:

I can mostly agree with what you're saying...

[Italic UBB code added].

...which clearly means it needs some physical experimental back up.

Paul2003, You say

But nowhere do you define the level of complexity at which these complex structures can be identified as functioning with the most minimal level of ability to function independently of non-living forces. And at no point have you attempted to answer or even discuss the following questions:

I'm simply asking you to read the problems I have and attempt to answer them; without bordering on religion.

Currently, it's throught that such complex structures as life require DNA/RNA structural design and maintenance strands/codes in order to function as what we call "life". However, new experimental and observational evidence suggests that the most simplistic limit to what the structural workings of life can be, may to be much, much simpler, and that the typical "minimum requirements" of DNA/RNA signatures may not necessary be so. Though the current limitations still stand firm until more concrete evidence and observations come about.

How Small Can Life Be?

Also, certain labortatory experiments recently carried out with dead animal cells strongly suggests that, under the right conditions, "dead" cells can become "active". It was a tantalising indicator that "dead" cells aren't necessary dead, but may just be "dormant".

Arctic permafrost may hold clues to life on other worlds

Now...

There's no way in hell that it can emerge just by blind chance alone. If what people are saying is correct and you do believe in a higher power, I find it very contradictory and amazing that you can think anything can happen by chance! The plausibility of pure chance isn't even worth considering!

The Inflation Theory is simply a modified and extended version of the Big Bang Theory, which I'm sure many can prove to you is wrong!

Judging from your next comments

I strongly suggest you go back to the drawing board! :rolleyes:

Can I suggest an excellent book to read - all about Cosmology written by a guy who has a B.Sc in Physics from Uni of British Columbia, and an M.Sc and PH.D in astonomy from Uni of Toronto.

He set out to disprove Christianity by use of Cosmology and instead became a Chrisitian after indisputable proof he discovered.

His name is Hugh Ross and the book is called 'The Creator and the Cosmos'.

I am happy to lend it to whoever (I have a copy). I warn you that it is very heavy reading. Hector, I think you would appreciate the book very much! I think you are as brilliant as this guy appears to be!

:cheers:

I'd remind you to leave religious discussion out of this tread; unless you're going to contruct a proof.

This word means incontestable; unquestionable; incontrovertible; undeniable; irrefragable; certain; positive; undoubted; sure; infallible.

And in all of cosmology theory, nothing is indisputable!

With this I whole heartedly agree with you on. I make a point to avoid that other thread.

:cheers:

OK I found some more spare time this weekend to answer these questions

It is IMHO an ensemble of your episodic, declarative and procedural memories and that is about all, but when you strip them away consciousness is just consciousness, period

Quote:

-What is consciousness?

Your sense of alertness in dreams and wakefulness with its inherent sensation of the passage of time as there was an interval of 15 billion years of time before your birth and just as oblivious to that as you would be to a nanosecond.
If you were totally ignorant of any cosmology and left of a desert island the universe would be as subjectively as old as you are.
The opposite is deep sleep when you are not dreaming or awake. You may of had this if you ever had a general anesthetic. One second you are awake counting down the seconds to the anesthetist the next second you are wheeled out of the OT feeling a little sore and groggy.

Quote:

-Why do we want to understand how the universe works, beyond any desire to improve our chances of survival?

This is just a distinctively human quest that goes back for centuries. Every culture give serious consideration to their cosmology and yearn to find answers. It is just a natural curiosity we have that is built in us. as a consequence you will be asking your Mum questions as soon as you can talk.
What holds the stars up Mummy?
How old are the stars Mummy?
Where did thy come from Mummy?
How big is the moon Mummy?
Where does rain come from Mummy?
What are clouds made of Mummy?
Unfortunely ome cultures draw conclusions on their cosmology little too prematurely. One factor that got Galileo into so much trouble


:cheers:

Ooops! let too much time elapse before I could edit.

This childhood curiosity for the world around you is often overwhelmed by more pressing survival issues, but they are never totally blotted out and as a result we get cosmology. There is a bit of healthy pragmatism if we discover that something we once believed to be the truth to be false like a flat earth.
Some cultures are bogged in denial but they usually do not dwell on a fallacy for too long.
Unfortunately some cultures draw "absolute" conclusions on their cosmology little too prematurely. One factor that got Galileo into so much trouble


:cheers:

Ohh boo hoo. :rolleyes:

The book addresses the very substance of this thread, and therefore is entirely appropriate.

The evidence is indisputable! Just you don't agree. Big deal. Most people lawfully convicted of crimes don't agree either - doesn't mean that they didn't do it!

:rolleyes:

Here is a good book for you. I covers much of what we have been discussing. Especially when I opened up the second last page of chapter 2 and bingo! Sir Fred Hoyle's abiogenesis calculation. However Kauffman put forward a very good argument around this abiogenesis problem and he even get raving reviews from Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University for his theory. :cheers:

lol, Stephen Jay Gould has about as much itegrity as Adolf Hitler - if I can find the journal about him I'll post it.

Paul, why do you defend something you clearly don't understand?

That is a classic old fashion strawman argument by equating anyone you dislike with Hitler. I have heard so may comments equating G W Bush with Hitler. I do not like Bush but equating him with Hitler it going way way over the top.

At Home in the Universe
The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity
Stuart Kauffman

This is the name of the book. I do understand it. Good read, get it!

Description:

At the moment I strongly subscribe to what is termed the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)
WAP states that the ways that the universe might be observed to be is limited by the fact that observation requires the existence of observers. It is impossible to observe a universe that does not permit the existence of observers like a universe boring gas or just pure energy, and so only a universe that permits the existence of observers could be observed. It is only through the eyes of an observer that any universe can be aware of its own existence. Only through an observer is there any perception of time as you were totally oblivious to the 15 billion years between the big bang and your birth.

At the moment you are the central player in this observation effect and in the event when you die not only yourself dies, but the center of this anthropically tuned universe in which you are the central player.

What I believe happens is that universe will reorientate and anthropically retune itself around another observer in which you are central. It will permit you to exist where ever there is a possible observer, but only where is organic matter - like a human brain - complex enough to process it.

This person or other complex entity you become will not necessarily be in the future relative to this one as the "present" as you perceive it is purely subjective. It is not the as your intuition implies it is the seat of all reality in the universe. In a true 4 dimensional universe all events in the universe from the big bang to far flung future are all equally real. So you may find yourself reemerging in the past relative to this one and not the future.

:cheers:

Before I address the sudden accumulation of replies while I've been away, I'll just correct a mistake I made in the locked thread about theories of the universe, on the last page:

The fixed statement..

Now...
From what I understand...
Straw Man:
A writer may not attack the argument that the opposition sets forth, but may attack one of the opposition’s points as if it were the whole argument, distort what the opposition is attempting to express, or exaggerate the opposition’s argument to the point of satirising it.

Paul2003, I don't think you have completely understood the context of the questions..they have a universal context..but anyway. As I implied, my questions about "life" are not easy to answer..I've spent years trying to solve them..remember :rolleyes: !? You're going to need a lot more than just one paragraph to even begin answering them.
Fair enough.. :rolleyes:
(ditto)
Times does not pass because it does not exist. Alertness in dreams and wakefulness..ok. Still missing certain points..

Then why do we have this "natural curiosiy"? More depth needed!

You never mentioned any "evidence". What interpretation of this "evidence" does the book give. I may not be able to dispute evidence, but I can dispute its interpretation. What's the interpretation an why is it interpreted in the way it is?

:rolleyes:
The word universe means "all that is", excluding absolutely nothing, including any supposed observers! There can only be one universe! It contains everything! If someone doesn't show you that the Big Bang Theory is flawed soon, I'll flood this tread with reasons why it is! Pages and pages of them! Then the challenges will really begin!

If you must know, I can prove all religions are fundamentalist!

Of course religions should be fundamentalist in that only one of those could be true.

If God doesnt exist, then there must be some supreme being responsible - which is the substance/basis of all of the main religions. So proving that they are fundamentalist really proves nothing.

Answer this question for me - if the Bible cannot be found to be credible, then explain how the fact were 2 constellations were mentioned in the book of Job, thousands of years before scientists discovered these star systems?

BTW the systems are Pellaides and Orion.

Isn't that a scientific fact???

I did not say time passes, I just said we have the sensation that it passes. It is actually a fixed dimension like the other three physical dimensions albeit an asymmetrical one that was broken at the time of the big bang. One thing that gives us a our sensation of time is "moving" is the second law of thermodynamics.

The English language does make it difficult on the issue of describing the true nature of time, because it frequently implies that everything in the universe is grounded in "past tense", "present tense" and "future tense" and there is so much built into English literature such as "time passing", "time flying" "the winds of time" ,"the arrow of time" etc which is a bit of a problem.

The learning appetite of a child needs to be extremely high such as the natural object permanence Object Permanence: A developmental term that refers to a child's ability to understand that objects still exist after they are no longer in sight, such as a toy train going under a tunnel. Babies eight-months old or younger tend not to have this ability, and think the train vanishes from existence. It is not until they become more cognitively developed that they understand to search for an object even though it has been hidden from view." In the case of that train.
As soon as they latch on that there are objects that exist that they have not discovered, they yearn to go much further and explore ever crack and cranny in the room, the back yard, the neighborhood, the world and the universe.

:cheers:

PaulM,

Why does a supreme being have to be responsible for anything? I think the have to bit is just what you want.

On the contrary, it proves how illogical and wilfully ignorant they are! Religions promote in society a tolerance and understanding for religious behaviour. Religious failure is ["everyone who accepts it"]'s failure. Society's willing ignorance is religions excuse. Religious desecration of society's respect for the truth, for our responsibility to be intellectually diligent, for judging what might be true against what we can discern with our senses to be true, religious faith is the exact same thing that makes what Osama Bin Laden does OK. Religious guilty pleasure, insistence on ignoring what their senses and intellect tell them removes them and helps remove society from any position in which it's sensible to pass moral judgment on anyone else for believing in the absence of evidence, and then acting on these beliefs, however loony, because they do precisely the same thing every religion does! Though I have to admit that the very concepts of respect, morality and ethnics are illogical in themselves, so the argument against religion pretty much falls back on wilful ignorance and want of happiness rather than truth! Let's keep religion out of this ok. My claim was designed to ward off religious discussion.

It's not possible to know to 100% accuracy that Pellaides and Orion would be the constellations discovered thousands of years later by scientists, and thus possible that the names were mentioned and given for other reasons! That is a scientific fact ! And I don't care what the "book of Job" is. Unless you can read the mind of who or whatever wrote the book, you can't know for sure why.

Paul2003,

Neither did I say you did! :rolleyes:
I've already covered why we perceive it to pass and why it doesn't exist as a result! It's assumed that a perpetual motion machine can't produce energy from "nowhere", but to what part of the 2nd law do you refer?
Why don't you actually digest my posts properly for once !
:cheers: ..but..That they yearn to go much further and explore ever crack and cranny in the room, the back yard, the neighborhood, the world and the universe due to having the knowledge that there are objects that exist that they have not discovered does not tell me why that knowledge leads them to yearn.

Naz - you lamblast Paul2003 for not reading & digesting your post (rather meglomanically imo) yet you failed to read or digest mine.

Firstly, my post was in repsonse to your bold assertion that you could prove that "all religions are "fundamentalist". My reply was aimed at that. ALL religions attribute life to the authorship of a supreme being.

So your point is irrelevant drivel! It's not what I want at all! :rolleyes:

I don't knwo where you learn about "religions" from, but I suggest you go back and try again! :rolleyes:

You see, in your vitiolic condemnation of "religions" you fail to understand the how / why's / wherefore or even basically the point!

In fact, most of the above paragraph is unintelligble ramblings!

From where do you think the terms morality and truth stem from? Why is murder wrong? Stealing? etc etc. How do you think those values were reached?

As Jack Nicholson says "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!"

If one believes or percieves something to be the truth - then you would hope that they would be fundamental in their participation or belief - would you not? Otherwise - it makes a bit of a mockery if one goes searching for the Truth, finds it, and then only believes half of it??

So it's important to know "the mind" of the person writing a book or whatever now is it? So - do you ring the Sydney Morning Herald Editor(s) everyday and ask them what "their" mind was before you can read the paper? :rolleyes:

You cannot leave spirituality out of the subject of cosmology. They are intertwined. That is where science fails. They simply cannot explain spirituality. At all. They simply bury their heads in the sand and dismiss it with their "proove it" argument which again is illogical and hypocritical because they canot even explain yet some of the basics of life! E.g. emotions!

Easy answer, knowledge of object permanence gave our primitive ape like ancestors a survival advantage to know when a leopard a disappeared into the jungle has not disappeared off the face of the earth. So we not only had to consider the existence of leopards which still pose t future threat but other dangers that may be lurking in the jungle that they haven't even seen yet. For the sake of their survival it was in their interest to know as much about the jungle and the world as they possibly could.

:cheers: