Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20854)	7/3/2005 4:52:36 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Are you suggesting some great incomprehensible force beyond, but containing and governing, the physical universe such as what some might refer to as God" NO. I was only suggesting what I said: That the Big Bank might be a part of some unknowable process. I suspect that most processes will remain unknowable to humankind from the present until we die out. But who knows? That is why I said "might". You just need to listen a little more closely--or perhaps determine to stop your silly obfuscation...

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20854)	7/3/2005 1:19:39 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 28931

a Big Bang as part of some other unknowable process It is as valid to speculate that a god caused the big bang as it is to speculate about any other cause. In the scientific method things don't stop with the tossing out of a hypothesis. An untested hypothesis is no more than a WAG . I don't know how to test an event that happened precisely at the beginning of time and space, but there are implications that can be tested that are relevent to the hypothesis. For example: A god hypothesis is at least periferally related to whether the god had a plan and whether a plan could be set into motion at the time of the big bang and retain fidelity up to our present time. Fortunately you don't need atomic smashers or space flights or even test tubes to devise an experiment to test this hypothesis. All that is needed is some mathmatic theorums from information theory and chaos theory. As it turns out there are two answers to the question and they hinge on an underlying question. Is the universe deterministic or is the future not yet written? If the future is not set, then the effects of chaos and residual uncertainly mean that the information in any goal would be swamped by the normal quantum flux of our universe's interactions. The only way there could be an acheivable goal through that time scale is if the future is exactly predicted by past events (More or less the Newton model of physics). Of course in such a universe everything is pre-destined to be exactly what they are even if we aren't aware of that predestiny - in effect this posting was already written at the time of the big bang and just took a while to materialize. All the indications point to our universe being a random unfolding with an open future, but I know of no way to prove that it isn't instead a simulation of such a universe (The nhylistic option). TP