Universal starting point revisited
S D Rodrian
jo10...@aol.com (Jo10bi12) wrote:
> Dear Rodrian,
> Get to the point!
It's a very large point (this matter of
explaining everything)...
> You don''t need about 1300 words to state your
> case.
My client is facing the death penalty.
So please excuse me if I defend her
as I choose to defend her, and not as
the prosecutor might prefer I defend her.
> "...any volume which takes up more then
> one singular space will ( very likely )
> experience those pesky convection
> currents which the laws of thermodynamics
> always push from higher zones of pressure
> to zones with lower pressure ..."
> In effect you are stating the second
> law of thermodynamics. If the universe (
> everything that exist ) was a static
> even distribution of energy, entropy
> would already be at a maximum - all over
> the universe. In other words the
> above quote will only apply to sub systems
> of a universe with a non uniform
> distribution of energy.
I believe I said that, only in basic English.
> "...The primordial ( or, should I say:
> the pre universe of matter ) universe of
> energy could not "have been" a true
> homogeneous singularity BECAUSE the laws of
> physics ( thermodynamics ) de facto
> were active IN it ( otherwise the universe
> of matter would never have been able
> to "come" out of it ). ..."
> This then is
> the core of your argument.
> You are injecting the concept of non uniformity (
> which you must ) into your original model
> of a static uniform and even
> distribution of energy in order to allow
> for work ( goal directed use of energy )
Well, I believe I said that a true singularity
is not possible--therefore I never could have
proposed any such "static uniform and even
distribution" as the absolute nature of the
universe of energy.
> and the eventual production of stars,
> galaxies and planets with sentient
> beings. You are also saying that this
> is the way it had to be in order for the
> universe to evolve - PERIOD.
> I on the other hand would argue
> that the universe had to be designed,
Ah! There's the rub: You "want" a universe
which starts off from the most highly-evolved
(most ultimate-possible evolutionary) zenith:
God! I, on the other hand, am trying to
understand how "God" (and every other development
which has evolved in the universe) actually
came to... evolve/develop.
> from its very inception, in such a way
> that it would eventually produce
> sentient beings who are able to "think"
> and form concepts.
And burp, & the rest of it: yes! But you are
only saying that "the universe is deterministic"
(get to the point, for Heaven's sake). It IS
deterministic--therefore ALL its lines of evolution
branch out from its one simple/straighforward origin
into the rich, lush and complex panorama that is
the modern universe. You are not interested in the
Grand Adventure of tracing the universe back to its
roots, and only in proselytizing the superstitions
you have been taught by the blind/dumb numbing rote
of your particular life history. Believe me, John:
It's a sad course you have staked out for yourself
to spread questionable truths instead of trying to
settle which truths are the ones that hold against
the never-settled test of reality.
> Everything in the
> universe now was also present in the universe
> at its inception in one form or another.
Indeed! And all life begins from the most basic
and rudimentary origins as well: You cannot have
an elephant evolving into one-cell organisms
any more than you can have The Ultimate Being
present before everything has even started to
evolve! [The Bible is inherently in chronological
error, dear John; for it states that God first
created the heavens and the earth and only then
did he create Man (but the thinking being is
the tool-maker, John): So the Bible ought to have
said, "And then God created the saw and the hammer
and THEN made everything else with'em (throwing in
some nails and a Phillips screwdriver for luck).
> This must, of necessity, include "thought".
SDR sez: The trickle of a rainshower in some distant
nameless place we know not--Who knows that it begins
the mighty river that eventually lifts all ships!
[I think Ronald Reagan was the trickle-downer...]
The time-line of evolution is set in stone. (And
those who are not illiterate may follow it there.)
> Any conjecture on the
> nature of a universe without "thought"
> gives significence to the universe in
> question and thus introduces "thought"
> into the universe in question.
Any suggestion that the universe's origin begin
from/with God is merely shifting the question
from how the universe evolved to how God evolved:
And I can hardly make sense of how the tooth fairy
evolved, let alone God! So I'll leave that 2 you.
> Actual
> observation of another universe is not
> possible as any knowledge of "another
> universe" makes that universe
> ( everything that is ) part of THE universe.
Actual observation of Missi Pyle crapping
is also hard to come by; but we can be quite
certain the event transpires despite our
not being able to be there to witness it.
That is both the beauty AND the curse
of having a human mind.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
music.sdrodrian.com
> Best Regards,
>
> John
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
joh...@my-deja.com
S D Rodrian <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
> In article <20010207222705.27805.00001982@ng-
S D Rodrian
Fred Stone <fsto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> S D Rodrian wrote:
>
> > In article <3A83FEE0...@earthlink.net>,
> > Fred Stone <fsto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <3A82E76F...@earthlink.net>,
> > > > Fred Stone <fsto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > S D Rodrian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3A82AD03...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > > > > > "Charles R. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Excuse me, did you state the universe is deterministic?
> > > > > > > If so, could you explain (briefly) what you mean by that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Very briefly indeed: "There are NO uncaused effects."
> > > > >
> > > > > Quantum events, (such as emission of photons,
> > > > > radioactive decay of atoms,
> > > > > etc) are uncaused.
> > > >
> > > > Nor bunnies found at the bottom of
> > > > magicians' top hats. I feel your pain.
> > >
> > > Was that supposed to be a meaningful response?
> >
> > Yes: Supremely meaningful, in fact...
> > If anyone/anything could get something from nothing,
> > O what a beautiful world this would be! (As sung
> > by Ray Stevens or Cat Stevens, one of those.)
>
> Strange, I had thought at first
> that there was something
> in this thread about first-causal
> arguments at the "starting point"
> of the Universe.
There is! However, if you already "know"
that "existence is all that exists (without
any qualifications of time/place)," then
you know that the universe of matter is
something which is but for a time--it does
have both a beginning and an end. Moreover,
as I said before: Existence itself, on
the other hand, does NOT: And this means
that when it comes down to it... everything
"in existence" (including the universe of
matter itself) which we like to think of
as having both a beginning and an end, are
but only as "peaks among/amid the unending
extents of existence" that underpin it all:
They have no more beginnings/ends than do
the white peaks one "makes out" over a choppy
sea... we ourselves may "endow them" with
the great honor/attribute of quite discrete
"individuality" but, in reality, they are,
exactly like every wave in the ocean: only
a jumble of "chaotic" reactions (and it's
hardly possible to have a reaction without
the action it's reacting to/with/against):
In other words, it's ALL just a jumble of
purely relativistic (never really absolutely
discontinuous) causes & effects.
> I didn't realize that it was about
> music appreciation.
Or, as the old song goes: "Where one mountain
ends and the next mountain has its beginning...
that place is but where you, and no one else,
has pointed to." --I just made that up, so
don't start after the tune.
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa # 1369
> -insert appropriate White Zombie lyrics-
Sure:
"I shouldn't have vacationed in Haiti.
Nor gotten a witchdoctor iratee.
But how was I to know
His daughter's yes was no?
I was, Titanic'ly:
Th'Unsinkable Infatuatee
sunk by that nippy
inebriate that's Me!"
--SDR, ASCAP/BMI