The origin of mankind

[Marblehead]

Wow Karl, you missed the whole thing.

 

First, Hawking's theme for that program was that there was no need for a god in order for the universe to be created.

 

Hawking's documentary followed closely the "Cosmos" series by Neil Tyson who stated that there is no god.

 

Personally, I still hold to the theory of Singularity and the Big Bang.

 

I also hold to the understanding that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be.  Things just take different forms over time.

 

So where did Singularity come from?  It is my understanding that it was the accumulation of all Black Holes after they had consumed all matter in a previous universe.

 

For me, Dao is the processes of the universe - all energy in the universe.  And we know that energy is the root of all matter (E=MC2).  And it is a law of physics that the total energy in the universe can never be reduced or added to.  Therefore the totality is static.

 

Philosophy and science work very well together.  At least those philosophies that remain in the material universe and don't go flying off into LaLa land.  Atheism is Materialism at its roots.  The denial of anything supernatural.  This includes all gods, ghosts, etc.

 

The human brain is an amazing thing.  It can imagine even the unimaginable.  But if these imaginations cannot be supported by material (physical) facts then that's all they are, imaginations.

 

And as mentioned above, Dao is the processes of the universe.  Dao is not a thing.  One (Singularity) was a thing.  The processes of the universe (Dao) caused (gave birth) Singularity to Bang.

 

So stop confusing Dao with a material thing.  It is not a thing.  It was undefinable prior to the Big Bang.  Science can now define some of the processes of the universe therefore science can define some of the characteristics of Dao.  But there are still many unknowns.  And man will continue to search for these characteristics.

[Junko]

Are you saying that mankind was just put on this planet?

[Marblehead]

Are you saying that mankind was just put on this planet?

Nope.  Not in the least.  Humans (mankind) evolved just as all life on Earth evolved to be what it is today.

 

What caused the first life?  That question is still unanswered.

[Junko]

Each every humans got evolved?

[Marblehead]

Each every humans got evolved?

Yep.  Each and every one of us.  You, me, Michael and even Karl.

 

However, the evolution process cannot be observed, in the most part, in a single individual.  Many generations of a species must be observed in order to recognize the evolution process.

 

Basically, the shorter the life span the easier it is to see the changes.

[Junko]

Evolved in a same way?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Junko

[Karl]

Wow Karl, you missed the whole thing.

 

First, Hawking's theme for that program was that there was no need for a god in order for the universe to be created.

 

Hawking's documentary followed closely the "Cosmos" series by Neil Tyson who stated that there is no god.

 

Personally, I still hold to the theory of Singularity and the Big Bang.

 

I also hold to the understanding that "Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be.  Things just take different forms over time.

 

So where did Singularity come from?  It is my understanding that it was the accumulation of all Black Holes after they had consumed all matter in a previous universe.

 

For me, Dao is the processes of the universe - all energy in the universe.  And we know that energy is the root of all matter (E=MC2).  And it is a law of physics that the total energy in the universe can never be reduced or added to.  Therefore the totality is static.

 

Philosophy and science work very well together.  At least those philosophies that remain in the material universe and don't go flying off into LaLa land.  Atheism is Materialism at its roots.  The denial of anything supernatural.  This includes all gods, ghosts, etc.

 

The human brain is an amazing thing.  It can imagine even the unimaginable.  But if these imaginations cannot be supported by material (physical) facts then that's all they are, imaginations.

 

And as mentioned above, Dao is the processes of the universe.  Dao is not a thing.  One (Singularity) was a thing.  The processes of the universe (Dao) caused (gave birth) Singularity to Bang.

 

So stop confusing Dao with a material thing.  It is not a thing.  It was undefinable prior to the Big Bang.  Science can now define some of the processes of the universe therefore science can define some of the characteristics of Dao.  But there are still many unknowns.  And man will continue to search for these characteristics.

 

I would love to sit down with you over a cold beer and chat face to face. You have two ends of a ball of twine which end in two ends but looks like you have the complete thread. You have two philosophies wedged together in a way that you think makes perfect sense, but you did not answer my previous question. Instead you have put a 'remainder' or 'balancer' in place to avoid answering it. I don't think you are aware of it, I think it just suits your viewpoint. It's something all philosophers encounter when they embark on a treaties and discover they haven't correctly defined a term. It's very easy for the brain to just intuit some connection, just gloss over the unknown term as if it cannot matter in the overall philosophy.

 

So, firstly I wasn't suggesting there was a God. Going back to Plato reveals that his view was of our universe being a pale imitation of the real universe- one of perfect forms. This for Plato was the origin of the universe. A place no man could know, but could only perceive by the weaker corrupted projections that he perceived in this universe.

 

You see the sprouting of the glossing beginning here. Plato didn't know and so he just added a fudge factor like we often do with aether or dark matter. That there must be something that created the universe we perceive, but we can't know it.

 

Then the religious Mystics got a hold of this philosophy and substituted heaven and God for Platos perfect forms.

 

Finally the modern sophist (Kant/Hegel/Dewey/Descartes) has imparted the fully scientific universe in which many scientists have found themselves emulating philosophers and many economists also. This is the philosophy that man never steps in the same stream twice-which is essentially the Dao and why you are so attracted to it. If you get chance look up the works of the very earliest philosopher Heraclitus and you will see Daoism staring at you. Unfortunately scientist seem to be readily abandoning reason on which all science is based and are heading off into nebulous sophistry.

 

I came up with sophistry myself almost completely by accident in a pub whilst working in Aberdeen. Seems funny to recount it because so much has happened since. I had an epiphany-or so I thought-that 0=1. You might see that I had already accelerated past Hawkins at that point. I had already discovered the erroneous theory that the universe was nothingness and nothingness was equal to somethingness.

 

Atheism is not the denial of the supernatural. It is the denial of the spiritual supernatural. Atheism, in the sense you mean it, is the acceptance of the muscular supernatural. We have been bobbing along between these two mystic cults for so long we have created immense narratives of broadened fantasy. The supernatural muscular has nothing to do with science, it is pseudo science. It is science bereft of reason but like Aquinus did for religion, reason is tacked on in a supporting role for the inherent sophist mysticism that runs through it like raspberry ripple.

 

Until you wallow in the philosophies you can't grasp the significance. They are not just some dusty old folks that gave lectures and wrote their thoughts on faded parchment, their philosophies are alive in all of us, they shape our every thought and action. Science is totally inspired by philosophy, but it isn't philosophy, it's supposed to be reason and logic applied to observation. Once science began to believe it was philosophy it threw reason in the bin and fell into a religious self belief that it was the source of all knowledge. Our literature is filled with warnings about letting the tool become the artist.

 

 

 

[Karl]

Yep.  Each and every one of us.  You, me, Michael and even Karl.

 

.

 

Cheeky twat ;-) LOL

[Stosh]

That's very expansive of you Karl, but .. if could you take one baby step at a time , I could at least understand your view , though perhaps not share it. ( In fact I know I dont , but thats not important) ,,

 

Rather than going back to Plato, I have a beef with Hawking's show I saw last night , demonstrating to his confused underlings that since the universe was expanding , it must be concluded that the universe has no center .

Frankly, I dont believe that -this is what the demonstrations suggest. ( because you have to shift the trajectory of every star in the universe  !   in order to arrive at a different conclusion of where the nominate center of the universe would be. )

What they showed was just a quirk of perspective ,you have to distort the shape of the universe to make it work, and it doesnt negate that you can still find the center of an expanding circle by transecting from edge to edge. ( or if you use a simplified line of dots - you can still measure to that which is halfway from the ends )  It was like claiming the United states has no center because the earth is spinning. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

That's very expansive of you Karl, but .. if could you take one baby step at a time , I could at least understand your view , though perhaps not share it. ( In fact I know I dont , but thats not important) ,,

 

Rather than going back to Plato, I have a beef with Hawking's show I saw last night , demonstrating to his confused underlings that since the universe was expanding , it must be concluded that the universe has no center .

Frankly, I dont believe that -this is what the demonstrations suggest. ( because you have to shift the trajectory of every star in the universe  !   in order to arrive at a different conclusion of where the nominate center of the universe would be. )

 

The whole point of discussion is that we don't share each other's views :-) if you did accept my views there isn't anything else to say.

 

I don't really know how little the steps can be I'm trying to do that through objectivist 101. This stuff isn't exactly simple so you have to begin by accepting that reason and logic is the only arbitrator. If we can't get to square one it's impossible to make progress.

 

It's like showing someone a magnetic compass and a map only to be told that it can't be used for navigating because someone has a bad feeling, that it's Gods will, or that we can't ever know true reality and that the map and compass isn't representative. Then when I ask how we get to our destination, the first says the destination isn't important only how someone feels 'in the moment', the second say 'if it's Gods will we will go' the third says 'how do you know we aren't already there ?'

 

The baby steps are the acceptance that reason and logic are necessary otherwise I'm going to drop kick the compass into a lake and eat the map.

 

I don't know if there is a centre, you are presuming a regular shape. What if the universe is a spiral, or an enormous curl or a stack of cubes ? I don't know, it's immaterial to me if there is or isn't. That's not my fight. I can kind of get where he might be coming from if you consider 'space' is simply the distance between specific objects. So, we can determine (roughly) the centre point between two planets, but then if we have billions of galaxies how do we then find a centre ?

[Stosh]

Draw and cut out two circles , one bigger than the other , each on a sheet of paper fold each twice so you can find the center of each , put a dot at each place where a fold is at the edge of the paper. Then ,as long as you keep the axes of the folds aligned, you can shift the small circle around anywhere within the large circle , and the trajectories of the dots at say 12oclock , 9 oclock and three oclock ,, always cross at SOME point - (the theoretical center of the universe based on trajectories)  but the center of the big circle is still midway across the diameter of the big circle !  

 

Yes, I am presuming regular shape for simplicity either a circle or a line , the principle is still the same. 

 

The center is midway between the edges. ( yes I know the universe has an amorphous shape right now , that just makes it more complicated , it can still be calculated though,, like the nominal center of the US. )

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Draw and cut out two circles , one bigger than the other , each on a sheet of paper fold each twice so you can find the center of each , put a dot at each place where a fold is at the edge of the paper. Then ,as long as you keep the axes of the folds aligned, you can shift the small circle around anywhere within the large circle , and the trajectories of the dots at say 12oclock , 9 oclock and three oclock ,, always cross at SOME point - (the theoretical center of the universe based on trajectories)  but the center of the big circle is still midway across the diameter of the big circle !  

 

Yes, I am presuming regular shape for simplicity either a circle or a line , the principle is still the same. 

 

The center is midway between the edges. ( yes I know the universe has an amorphous shape right now , that just makes it more complicated , it can still be calculated though,, like the nominal center of the US. )

 

Well I'm happy enough with that explanation as an interpretation of 'nominal centre', but you really can't have a precise geometric centre in anything other than a regular, uniform geometric shape. As I didn't see the program I can't really argue the point and really wouldn't anyway. No doubt there is a gravitational centre made up of diverse gravitational points as well. However, in any argument we must define the terms, so 'nominal' can mean many things. We can say centre of gravity, centre of mass, centre of balance centre of population etc.

[Marblehead]

Evolved in a same way?

The process is the same.  The path differs according to the species.

 

Consider that the most we can assign to the evolution of man is 4 million years.  The crocodile pretty much stopped evolving about 150 million years ago.

 

We humans are new-comers in the processes of life on the planet.  Yes, we evolved rather quickly and I dare say we are still evolving.  Mostly our brain but that's still evolution.  Our body has been pretty stable over the past one million years.

 

So really, the answer to your question is:  No.  But this is because of the path different species take.  The process is the same though.

 

And remember, there have been many species that have become extinct because their evolution path didn't work out in their best interest.  I don't remember the exact percentage but it is suggested that something like 95% of all species that ever evolved on Earth have become extinct. 

[Stosh]

Well I'm happy enough with that explanation as an interpretation of 'nominal centre', but you really can't have a precise geometric centre in anything other than a regular, uniform geometric shape. As I didn't see the program I can't really argue the point and really wouldn't anyway. No doubt there is a gravitational centre made up of diverse gravitational points as well. However, in any argument we must define the terms, so 'nominal' can mean many things. We can say centre of gravity, centre of mass, centre of balance centre of population etc.

That's entirely true, no argument here,, I just think its sensationalism to say that the universe HAS NO CENTER ,and is finite , but it all expanded from one singularity ,, just to confuse the casual person interested,, , make them think their puny minds cannot comprehend such mysteries ,, Steves premise is that his lackeys figured it out themselves that way , and so its all self evident that the conclusions are true. When the truth is ,IMO, that they have been predisposed to come to certain conclusions.

[Marblehead]

I would love to sit down with you over a cold beer and chat face to face. You have two ends of a ball of twine which end in two ends but looks like you have the complete thread. You have two philosophies wedged together in a way that you think makes perfect sense, but you did not answer my previous question. Instead you have put a 'remainder' or 'balancer' in place to avoid answering it. I don't think you are aware of it, I think it just suits your viewpoint. It's something all philosophers encounter when they embark on a treaties and discover they haven't correctly defined a term. It's very easy for the brain to just intuit some connection, just gloss over the unknown term as if it cannot matter in the overall philosophy.

I don't drink beer but a soda would be fine.

 

So exactly what was your question I didn't answer?  Exactly.

 

I have many philosophies intertwined.  But I am.  I am the beginning and the end and everything between the two.

 

So ask your freakin' question.  Okay?

 

So, firstly I wasn't suggesting there was a God. Going back to Plato reveals that his view was of our universe being a pale imitation of the real universe- one of perfect forms. This for Plato was the origin of the universe. A place no man could know, but could only perceive by the weaker corrupted projections that he perceived in this universe.

I do not accept what you suggest Plato said.  This universe is the real one we know.  It's not a mirror image of some other universe.

 

You see the sprouting of the glossing beginning here. Plato didn't know and so he just added a fudge factor like we often do with aether or dark matter. That there must be something that created the universe we perceive, but we can't know it.

Best evidence is that the Bang of Singularity was the beginning of this current universe.  Can't go back prior to that.

 

Then the religious Mystics got a hold of this philosophy and substituted heaven and God for Platos perfect forms.

I have already trashed all religious explanations of the creation of the universe.  No need to talk about them.

 

Finally the modern sophist (Kant/Hegel/Dewey/Descartes) has imparted the fully scientific universe in which many scientists have found themselves emulating philosophers and many economists also. This is the philosophy that man never steps in the same stream twice-which is essentially the Dao and why you are so attracted to it. If you get chance look up the works of the very earliest philosopher Heraclitus and you will see Daoism staring at you. Unfortunately scientist seem to be readily abandoning reason on which all science is based and are heading off into nebulous sophistry.

If those I read present no logic in their discussion I stop listening to them.  I don't have time to listen to too many people think.  I can think for myself.  Present me some logic then I'll ask for proof.  Failing to present either is bottom line total failure.

 

I came up with sophistry myself almost completely by accident in a pub whilst working in Aberdeen. Seems funny to recount it because so much has happened since. I had an epiphany-or so I thought-that 0=1. You might see that I had already accelerated past Hawkins at that point. I had already discovered the erroneous theory that the universe was nothingness and nothingness was equal to somethingness.

I'm proud of you.  You might want to reconsider as you were likely drunk at the time.

 

You don't get something from nothing.  Never have, never will.  I did disagree with Hawking in that regard as he suggested that it was possible for the universe to be created from nothing, or rather self-reifying.  That happens only in fairy tales.

 

Atheism is not the denial of the supernatural. It is the denial of the spiritual supernatural. Atheism, in the sense you mean it, is the acceptance of the muscular supernatural. We have been bobbing along between these two mystic cults for so long we have created immense narratives of broadened fantasy. The supernatural muscular has nothing to do with science, it is pseudo science. It is science bereft of reason but like Aquinus did for religion, reason is tacked on in a supporting role for the inherent sophist mysticism that runs through it like raspberry ripple.

My Atheism includes the denial of anything supernatural.  I also deny miracles.  No such thing.  It's natural or it doesn't exist.

 

Until you wallow in the philosophies you can't grasp the significance. They are not just some dusty old folks that gave lectures and wrote their thoughts on faded parchment, their philosophies are alive in all of us, they shape our every thought and action. Science is totally inspired by philosophy, but it isn't philosophy, it's supposed to be reason and logic applied to observation. Once science began to believe it was philosophy it threw reason in the bin and fell into a religious self belief that it was the source of all knowledge. Our literature is filled with warnings about letting the tool become the artist.

I don't wallow.

 

And I still don't believe a particle can act like a wave.

[Junko]

There are many galaxy,not only Milky Way.....in the universe.

[Karl]

That's entirely true, no argument here,, I just think its sensationalism to say that the universe HAS NO CENTER ,and is finite , but it all expanded from one singularity ,, just to confuse the casual person interested,, , make them think their puny minds cannot comprehend such mysteries ,, Steves premise is that his lackeys figured it out themselves that way , and so its all self evident that the conclusions are true. When the truth is ,IMO, that they have been predisposed to come to certain conclusions.

 

It's definitely finite.

[Junko]

I just found out there is a waterfall in the universe.

[Marblehead]

There are many galaxy,not only Milky Way.....in the universe.

Yes.  About 200 billion of then.  But only one universe that we know of.  (I have not discounted the possibility of parallel universes.)

[Marblehead]

I just found out there is a waterfall in the universe.

 

Where it is?

[Stosh]

It's definitely finite.

I wasnt saying it isnt , just that its , counterintuitive to say its finite yet having no center... but Ive never heard exactly how it has been decided that it has an 'edge'. 

[Marblehead]

... but Ive never heard exactly how it has been decided that it has an 'edge'. 

Based on my understanding, there is no edge nor a outer boundary because if it is expanding faster than the speed of light the edge or boundary would no longer be the edge or boundary by the time it is seen.

 

Like looking at a star that is ten million light years away.  What we see is what the star looked like ten million years ago.  It might have gone "Boom!" five million years ago and no longer exists.

[Karl]

@MH

 

I can't tell if you are deliberately avoiding my question, being subtly evasive, or just not seeing it.

 

You said Dao was no-thing 'giving birth to' the one thing.

 

Then you said that the Dao was prior to the Big Bang, that Dao was not a thing.

 

You must see the logical issue with that premise bearing in mind your materialist views.

 

If the universe was created, given birth, the Dao prior to the singularity, then you are a creationist. Either the Dao was or it wasn't. If it was then you are giving an atheistic explanation but it's still mystic muscle. It deletes God and puts in place Dao.

 

Or the universe has always been- Big Bang or not-and therefore there was no creation event. If that's so then there is no Dao.

 

Unless your saying Dao is the universe, or Dao is causality within the universe.

 

As soon as you say the Dao cannot be known, surely you see the similarities that God can't be known. The Dao intrinsically imparts its 'way' as God intrinsically imparts the knowledge of 'him'. I cannot see a difference except in the practices that surround the base belief. No religious person these days describes God as a giant bearded character, it's described more as an ethereal kind of spirit in everything. That's what the Dao is.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

I wasnt saying it isnt , just that its , counterintuitive to say its finite yet having no center... but Ive never heard exactly how it has been decided that it has an 'edge'. 

 

Finite but boundless.

[Stosh]

Based on my understanding, there is no edge nor a outer boundary because if it is expanding faster than the speed of light the edge or boundary would no longer be the edge or boundary by the time it is seen.

 

Like looking at a star that is ten million light years away.  What we see is what the star looked like ten million years ago.  It might have gone "Boom!" five million years ago and no longer exists.

I'm not concerned whether one can see it , I cant see through the wall , but cars are still driving by.

Yes , we may still see light arriving from an exploded star long gone , and yes we may not see light arriving from the edge of the universe ,, both due a time lag. But negate the time lag , and either the universe does have an edge .. a maximum extent , or its not finite. If things are so far away , that light hasnt gotten to me yet from it , I cant know that its there, so , Im thinking an end to whats visible doesn't constitute a valid reason to say there isn't anything there. Another means by which one can determine the distribution of stuff ,, and how much stuff ,constitutes the universe, is required . 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Stosh