salyavin, ok everything is self assembling. But the world does seem to have become more complex. Since Big Bang, life has unfolded in more and more complex forms, from simple amoebas to humanity. So are we simply an amoebic self assemblage? I'm sort of playing but also asking truly. And is scientific sense the best? And what is pushing what into the ineffable if not that self assembling thingamajiggie? Just thinking out loud and enjoying that but any answers also very welcome.
Actually the idea of self assemblage seems very Vedic to me (-: ________________________________ From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 1:51 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: 20 Big Questions. "I'd say it makes perfect sense that people *get religious* about the pre universe. That perfect sense, I'd speculate, is derived from the nature of the brain itself. Surely there's a part of the physical brain that is associated with thoughts about, belief in, disbelief in God, etc." Ah yes, of course it makes sense for us to speculate in such ways but what I'm getting at is that it makes no *scientific* sense to speculate. Scientific meaning an actual attempt to understand in a real, provable way that a theory about something is correct rather than pushing the explanation onto something ineffable. Creating creators is definitely a brain function, it seems so obvious - something complex must have been created by something more complex. What science has conclusively shown is that everything is self-assembling. Plenty of mysteries to be sure (hence the article) but it isn't looking good for traditional models of theology. --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: "Actually there are religious answers to that specific question, Why is there something rather than nothing? that make a lot of sense, but you wouldn't know that unless you engaged with them. Hint: Those answers don't conflict with science." There aren't any that make any sense. Not if you understand that our universe and everything in it started at the point of the big-bang. Anything from before then wouldn't have survived it, or if you think it did you're going to need a pretty damn good explanation as to how. This why they conflict with science, it's all special pleading "our sort of theological matter *might* have survived" until you can point to it and explain how it works it can only be hopeful and unnecessary speculation. Or is it? that sort of behaviour just might be the preserve of the almighty.... By "engage" do you mean "believe" because I have yet to come across anything convincing about creators. Probably just some theological philosopher. Lot of that sort of thing about these days. --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Not so! --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote: Apparently you can't post to this group without showing your email address. On 9/1/2013 12:06 PM, j_alexander_stanley wrote: >Curious to see what shows up if I hide my email address... > > >--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote: > > >When posting from the website, it appears like the only way to have a moniker >show up instead of an email address is to use the "hide email address" option. > > >--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > >Ah, I've got my name back and paragraphs work. > > >That's something. > > >--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > >Yes, I often ponder such things. A question they missed is "why is there >something rather than nothing" probably because that isn't about to be >answered any time soon, if it even can be. > > >Number 17 (what is at the bottom of a black hole) is an odd way of phrasing it >as there is no bottom as they aren't actually holes, they probably mean "what >is beyond the event horizon" but wanted it to appear snappy. Black holes are >collapsed stars, we don't know what's inside in the same way we can't answer >the question they missed, the laws of nature break down at these points and >from where we are we can only guess, no way of testing and therefore not >science. > > >--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > >Oh, wonderful article, thanks for posting salyavin and I was pleased that I >already knew about #11 and the Reimann hypothesis even though that knowledge >came from a Numb3rs episode on same! > > > > >________________________________ > From: "fintlewoodlewix@..." <fintlewoodlewix@...> >To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Sunday, September 1, 2013 10:07 AM >Subject: [FairfieldLife] 20 Big Questions. > > > > >1 What is the universe made of? > >Astronomers face an embarrassing conundrum: they don't know what 95% of the >universe is made of. Atoms, which form everything we see around us, only >account for a measly 5%. Over the past 80 years it has become clear that the >substantial remainder is comprised of two shadowy entities – dark matter >anddark energy. The former, first discovered in 1933, acts as an invisible >glue, binding galaxies and galaxy clusters together. Unveiled in 1998, the >latter is pushing the universe's expansion to ever greater speeds. Astronomers >are closing in on the true identities of these unseen interlopers. >The rest: >http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/01/20-big-questions-in-science > >Just a test to see if everything works the same as it did under the old >system... > >
