Quantum weirdness; no Big Bang (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, February 13, 2015, 13:56 (3572 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please look at my entry yesterday about the imbalance of mesons (2/11, 14:08) Energy made matter under strict meson guidance. I don't believe energy and matter interacted independently of all the 200 factors in fine tuning. Your idea implies chance blundering forward.-dhw: I did read it, and noted that they still don't know why there is a “preponderance of matter in the universe today”. I also noted their talk of “incontrovertible evidence” for the Big Bang, which clearly runs against the theory we are dealing with here. As I keep saying, the concept of an eternal, ever-changing universe, or an eternity of universes, gives chance an infinite number of opportunities to “blunder” into one form of life or another. No, I don't believe it, but as with your God hypothesis, I don't disbelieve it either.-DAVID: The pi-mason imbalance theory has been around and generally accepted for many years. I saw the comment you mention about "they still don't know why" and ignored it, as not being on the same page with most material published. I have a good sense of majority opinion, not that it is infallible, but currently accepted. You just see bits and pieces I put here, and you clamp on what really is just one aspect of current views. The same with sentient cells.-There seem to be new theories coming out practically every day, and I'm surprised that you of all people should think you are obliged to follow opinions that are “currently accepted”. Do you think your opinion that God created the universe and started life so that it would lead to humans, which he did by preprogramming the first cells and/or dabbling, conforms to majority opinion and is currently accepted? Of course you don't. You question current opinions when they don't fit in with your own, and you accept them when they do. It's only natural. And what you call “one aspect of current view” is no different from one opinion as opposed to another. The bits and pieces you post here are a wonderful source of information, for which I am immensely grateful, but what they teach us time and again is that nobody knows the truth about origins, all the theories are speculation, and any conclusion will ultimately demand a leap of faith that is emphatically not based on reason or observation.
 
I think this reply covers our posts under “Balance” and “Mind of God”, which have probably run their course.