Entropy, Rebellion, and Thought

[Greylorn Ell]

Well, one of my attributes is an open mind. Unlike Hexhammer.

This is a philosophy forum, not a supersticion forum, please go elsewhere if you want to waste time on supersticion.

Philosophy = love of wisdom ..wisdom is refined knowledge, this nonsense and babble isn't wisdom, not even knowledge.

What dreadful Bullshit!

You might consider joining a Spelling Forum, or garner up enough curiosity to wonder what the red squiggly lines beneath words are trying to tell you.

[HexHammer]

Well, one of my attributes is an open mind. Unlike Hexhammer.

This is a philosophy forum, not a supersticion forum, please go elsewhere if you want to waste time on supersticion.

Philosophy = love of wisdom ..wisdom is refined knowledge, this nonsense and babble isn't wisdom, not even knowledge.

What dreadful Bullshit!

You might consider joining a Spelling Forum, or garner up enough curiosity to wonder what the red squiggly lines beneath words are trying to tell you.

LOL? ..what exactly has spelling to do with wisdom? ..any reasonable intelligent person should know the meaning of my words, apparently you are not very bright then.

[Greylorn Ell]

...
Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

And then he might consider how such an answer answers nothing as this 'consortium' would then need an explanation ad infinitum. Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?' all over again.

AUK,
I don't recall if I replied to this or merely formulated a reply before a late bedtime, but I feel like doing it now, redundant or not.

You pose an honest and fundamental question, but it contains the same flaw as when I first considered it back in 2nd or 3rd Grade. You wrote, "Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?'" and I added the accents.

You've gotten sucked into the religionist trap of questioning their beliefs on their terms. What makes you think that, if God was created, another intelligent entity that deserved the "who" pronoun was God's creator? Why not a "what" instead?

Beon Theory declares that at least three "whats" were involved--

1. A space containing raw, or dark energy, a substance defined by the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

2. Aeon space (my invention) containing stuff that can interact with dark energy and freely reverse the Second Law.

3. A superspace that contains both of them.

This scheme is, of course, detailed in my book. It eliminates your argument.

The notion that if God was created, he had to be created by another God, etc., is identical to the latest convolutions that cosmologists (religionists with Ph.Ds) have found necessary to introduce into Big Bang theory. They cannot explain how their exploding "physical singularity" came into existence, so they blame it upon a fictional "multiverse." Of course they cannot explain how a multiverse came into existence either, so you can expect more ongoing babble about multi-multiverses.

The problem arises only because of the old religious belief that the universe began at Entropy 0, a state of complete, perhaps compressed order. Originally this took the form of an omnipotent God, and in the 20th century science substituted a cosmic micro-pea/singularity in God's place. Same thing, functionally.

Beon Theory begins with a contrary hypothesis, that the universe began with the interaction of a pair of disconnected spaces, each at absolute Entropy 1-- what we would mistakenly call a state of complete disorder-- without either an Almighty God or his cosmological equivalent.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

What processes made the raw materials for the spring?

It's not certain that there is a spring. I haven't said it for a while, but I still think the most likely cause

What formed the basic spring?
What compressed it, providing the energy stored in the spring?
What event released that stored energy?
Greylorn

All of which are very interesting questions, but for now at least, so far beyond the range of detection that any proposed answers are necessarily speculative. Not only that, but as I say in Philosophy's Roots and Branches, we will never know that the model we use to understand the universe will not be superceded. That is true even of beon theory.

Uwot,
From the history of science it is clear that the hallmark of a good theory is that it opens up avenues for the expansion of its own principles. The work of Galileo, Descartes, and Newton gave us a functional understanding of mechanics and the mathematical tools to explore other non-mechanical things such as heat and light. When these were explained, we discovered quantum physics. None of these discoveries invalidated the work of Galileo et.al; they simply shifted perspective.

Beon Theory is engineered accordingly. It is powerful enough to explain dark energy and consciousness, but it has been designed by someone whose lack of advanced theoretical math skills precludes him from taking the ideas as far as needed, without assistance. I've tried working with a mathematician friend, but his skills are also insufficient.

If I am compelled to return to this horseshit planet for another lifetime and discover that Beon Theory has not progressed beyond my formative concepts, I will know that I've failed.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

I have gotten a large part of what I know about these topics from Hawking's books.

That's too bad.

While Hawking produced some interesting insights into the theoretical properties of black holes, his metaphysical underpinnings are those of staid atheists who refuse to look at the larger picture, or to examine all the evidence about human consciousness provided by sciences that work outside his narrow specialty. Perhaps this is the consequence of his illness, but I'm disinclined to give him the benefit of that doubt. There are people who cater to him, feed him, and wipe his ass. Surely there are those who could read to him.

I think that Hawking's focus is too narrow to be philosophically or metaphysically interesting. This is unfortunate. He has the quality of mind that could have made an awesome philosopher.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Hex,

Although this was not directed to me, I'm inclined to wonder, in light of your general input on this forum, exactly what "scientific understanding" do you know of, and from what sources is it derived. University degree, or television documentaries?

Science articles around the internet. TV documentaries, newspaper articles, etc.

Hex,
Got it. You read the dogma and don't do the math. You're a science camp-follower, the equivalent of those who watch religious channels and read the Bible by way of mental input. Either way, GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This explains the dogmatic quality of your posts. Nonetheless, thank you for your honesty.

Greylorn

[Ginkgo]

...
Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

And then he might consider how such an answer answers nothing as this 'consortium' would then need an explanation ad infinitum. Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?' all over again.

AUK,
I don't recall if I replied to this or merely formulated a reply before a late bedtime, but I feel like doing it now, redundant or not.

You pose an honest and fundamental question, but it contains the same flaw as when I first considered it back in 2nd or 3rd Grade. You wrote, "Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?'" and I added the accents.

You've gotten sucked into the religionist trap of questioning their beliefs on their terms. What makes you think that, if God was created, another intelligent entity that deserved the "who" pronoun was God's creator? Why not a "what" instead?

Beon Theory declares that at least three "whats" were involved--

1. A space containing raw, or dark energy, a substance defined by the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.

2. Aeon space (my invention) containing stuff that can interact with dark energy and freely reverse the Second Law.

3. A superspace that contains both of them.

This scheme is, of course, detailed in my book. It eliminates your argument.

The notion that if God was created, he had to be created by another God, etc., is identical to the latest convolutions that cosmologists (religionists with Ph.Ds) have found necessary to introduce into Big Bang theory. They cannot explain how their exploding "physical singularity" came into existence, so they blame it upon a fictional "multiverse." Of course they cannot explain how a multiverse came into existence either, so you can expect more ongoing babble about multi-multiverses.

The problem arises only because of the old religious belief that the universe began at Entropy 0, a state of complete, perhaps compressed order. Originally this took the form of an omnipotent God, and in the 20th century science substituted a cosmic micro-pea/singularity in God's place. Same thing, functionally.

Beon Theory begins with a contrary hypothesis, that the universe began with the interaction of a pair of disconnected spaces, each at absolute Entropy 1-- what we would mistakenly call a state of complete disorder-- without either an Almighty God or his cosmological equivalent.

Greylorn

Perhaps you might be focusing too much on causation as a explanation for the universe coming into existence. It seems to me that you are actually talking about two different types causation here. Once we bring in the concept of entropy we automatically bring in an arrow of time. Perhaps a way around this might be to examine time as a separate entity rather than an emergent property.

Just a suggestion.

[uwot]

If I am compelled to return to this horseshit planet for another lifetime and discover that Beon Theory has not progressed beyond my formative concepts, I will know that I've failed.

One way or another, I hope you are spared that. What makes a theory successful is not whether it is true, but whether it is useful. Cartesian coordinates are useful in that you can locate anything using them, it doesn't follow that x, y and z therefore exist; a point that seems lost on String theorists. You must have seen me bang on about Newton's hypotheses non fingo. His inverse square law is very useful for predicting the tides and the motion of planets, but there is no metaphysical speculation attached, it is simply a mathematical description of what demonstrably happens. It has been superseded by General Relativity, not because there is a substance called spacetime, but because modelling the universe as if there were gives a more accurate description of observations that Newton cannot account for. It is more useful in some circumstances. If Beon theory isn't 'useful', it is of no interest to science, even, paradoxically, if it is true.

[HexHammer]

Hex,
Got it. You read the dogma and don't do the math. You're a science camp-follower, the equivalent of those who watch religious channels and read the Bible by way of mental input. Either way, GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This explains the dogmatic quality of your posts. Nonetheless, thank you for your honesty.

Could you try explain where I have failed other than just making up groundless accusations?