On Apr 17, 3:06 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > For the sake of debate----in the beginning there was time and then space and > energy followed. The rest is history.
And what is history? "one fucking thing after another" Allan Bennett > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > > Obviously, the universe is organized. From quarks, to subatomic > > particles, to atoms and molecules, to dust and planets and stars and > > galaxies, we can trace a hierarchy of structure. > > > We can also see that the universe is organized into four contextual > > components: space, time, energy and mass. These four components are > > so strongly inter-related as to be considered a single thing, space- > > time and energy-mass, or space-time-energy-mass. > > > Time seems to consist of three components in continual flux--- past, > > present and future. Although in some cosmological models, all three of > > these are really the same thing, and our perception of the passage of > > time is an illusion. > > > However little we understand the structure of the universe, it becomes > > clear to us that there is, in fact, a structure, an organization of > > the universe into discernible "parts," so to speak. > > > This brings us to the question: what principle organizes the universe > > into the way we see it organized? > > > Remember that prior to the big bang, the universe was (theoretically) > > a point particle, homogenized, with neither discrete components nor > > passage of time. Nevertheless, in order for the universe to organize > > itself afterward, there had to be inherent in that primordial point- > > particle, the principle which eventually gave rise to what we see. > > > This is a crucial idea: that there should be some fundamental > > governing principle which gives rise to observed phenomena. > > > Such an idea is itself axiomatic, defying definition. And as with all > > axioms, the best proof of its truth is to examine what would be the > > case if the axiom were not true. > > > Gravity is a subordinate of the central organizing principle. Gravity > > explains our observation of falling objects (among other > > observations). If there were no gravity, we would not see objects > > falling. > > > In like manner, if there were no organizing principle of the universe, > > we should expect there to be no organization observed. > > > Then the question proceeds to infinite sequences of principles. By > > what principle is the principle brought into being? > > > As always in such cases, we must settle on the idea of an ultimate, > > self-existent absolute. It simply is. Nothing brings it into being, > > but rather, it is the final principle upon which all else is founded. > > > Some thinkers deny that there is any final principle, but only an > > infinite progression of them. But even that begs the question, since > > by what principle is there an infinite progression of principles? > > > It is axiomatic that there is a final, underlying reality upon which > > all else is founded. Denial of the axiom brings us only to an endless > > sequence of useless conclusions. > > > But when we admit of a final, ultimate absolute, we are confronted > > with the question of an inherent life force, an inherent > > consciousness, intelligence, and supreme being overarching all of > > nature, all of reality. > > > We, finite and transient mortals, can never hope to know anything > > whatsoever about this ultimate absolute except for two possibilities: > > it reveals itself to us, and it endows us with the capacity to > > understand what it reveals. > > > We could never reason our way to God. On the contrary, we are utterly > > dependent upon Him to show Himself, and to give us eyes with which to > > see Him. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google > > groups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > > nubiaafrika.blogspot.com > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
