Thank you David. I Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Thursday, August 31, 2017, 17:03 (2640 days ago) @ David Turell

Thank you, David. I think ambivalent best describes your religious belief. I won’t quarrel over your answers because by now you will have heard it all before.

What surprised me is your willingness to imagine limitations to God’s powers. This means you are not bound by any particular formal theism but are your ‘own man’ on these matters. I applaud your judgment.

Perhaps you can advise me as to why you have such a reserved view of His powers. At one point you say, “All matter is a form of energy. They are interchangeable and eternal.”
If that means that, post God’s work, the universe can ‘do’ everything, we are in agreement except perhaps in defining the nature of matter. So the term ‘Energy’ is perfectly acceptable to me. It also allows that - under His supervision - nature has been granted the ability to generate life!

This implies that the finished state of the universe is as good as He could make it. Not much point in creating an imperfect universe that is eternal!

How can you see a limit to an intelligence that created an entire Universe complete with its phenomenal integral powers and ‘built in’ evolution?

As you know, I most adamantly believe that the universe is absolutely perfect. This automatically rules in the propagation of life and rejects unnecessary (and impossible) revision.

My own conviction is reinforced by a list of published mathematical, observational and experimental works which show why this is so. All are on the net (eg: The Electric Universe etc.)

I see an increasing flood of agreement that (as I maintain) awareness is ‘there’ from the kick-off, but no process is suggested. Here I remain ahead of the field!

It appears in our discussion of biology and atoms that my view may not be quite understood. My premise is that - initially – the process of building any entity can be achieved by only the very simplest of steps, literally one at a time. The initial formation seems likely to take a relatively long time, the 'rules of engagement' being quite primitive at that point.

The paths open will be virtually endless in number and will remain so, even after allowing for the continuing automatic limitation of those paths by new 'rules of engagement' created when accepting more conjoining atoms (later, molecules etc.) This development will allow a huge and slightly more complex range of ‘home made’ acceptable possibilities to become available.

Only very limited 'rules of engagement' will exist at first, consequently, nothing very complex can arise at an early stage of development. When a sufficient complexity is achieved then the 'rules of engagement' will foster a measure of parallel development by parts of the structure. That means that together with the main structural control, there are semi independent 'rules of engagement' that allow the (now) organism to grow its structures in parallel.

This will allow molecules, then cells to gain in function but each will still require access to additional atoms in erecting ‘improvements’ – they don’t come complete. How these ‘additions’ are added is probably by extraction from food and other forces that are capable of penetrating the body. Either way, it is not a ‘closed shop’.

Eventually, a true complexity is formed and the path of an evolution is laid.

My principal purpose is to show that the myriad possibilities of evolution live within the compass afforded to 'Mother Nature' by the structure and nature of the material Universe.

It is as if the Universe is an encyclopedia. Under every heading is a list of atoms that - strung together - make a particular structure that when completed may be not simply a fish, but a particular type. Other pages would list the needs for other fish, animals and so on – a rather big book!

What I am saying is that there is available, a potential route for the evolution of a successful organism. Once entered upon, whether for good or ill, life or death, the process must proceed along paths set by the conjunctions of underlying atomic processes. One way to think of this is a very long, very winding road with endless turnings at each side. These side roads also harbour endless side roads ad-Infinitum!

So - in understanding my proposition - the true mechanics of what does what and when it does it, is I think, intensely interesting, but immaterial here.

My purpose is basic. I wish to bridge the yawning gap between Dawkins pathetic and silly idea that pure luck, in the face of absolutely incredible odds, has fathered (along with 'Mother Nature'!) our wonderful Universe and contrast it with my own simple and logical tale of an automatic, but not quite blind, driven evolution.

It is, to me, obvious that just because we cannot ‘explain’ life yet, casting 'Mother Nature' as having been ‘lucky’ is, to say the least, improbable as she doesn’t do chance or arithmetic. The Universe has produced the idea of arithmetic, but arithmetic cannot produce, alter or negate the Universe.

'Mother Nature' works with what is, not what might be.