Gyroscopic Investing

Desert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: http://steveheller.org/universe.htm

I'm in complete agreement with the last two sentences.

But not anything else?

But yes, whoever this Steve Heller guy is, is verrry close to the money shot.  And no religion was involved.  Fancy that, huh!

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: http://steveheller.org/universe.htm

I'm in complete agreement with the last two sentences.

But not anything else?

But yes, whoever this Steve Heller guy is, is verrry close to the money shot.  And no religion was involved.  Fancy that, huh!

Of course religion is involved....

I. There are an infinite number of parallel earths

And God said, "Let there be an infinite number of parallel earths".

Case closed.

Fred wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Desert wrote: I'm in complete agreement with the last two sentences.

But not anything else?

But yes, whoever this Steve Heller guy is, is verrry close to the money shot.  And no religion was involved.  Fancy that, huh!

Of course religion is involved....

I. There are an infinite number of parallel earths

And God said, "Let there be an infinite number of parallel earths".

Case closed.

Sorry, you've lost me. Religion is no more necessary for there to be an infinite number of universes than for there to be one universe.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Fred wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: But not anything else?

But yes, whoever this Steve Heller guy is, is verrry close to the money shot.  And no religion was involved.  Fancy that, huh!

Of course religion is involved....

I. There are an infinite number of parallel earths

And God said, "Let there be an infinite number of parallel earths".

Case closed.

Sorry, you've lost me. Religion is no more necessary for there to be an infinite number of universes than for there to be one universe.

I can't see how this theory addresses the basic question of why there is something instead of nothing. Seems to me as long as this question remains unanswered, and I can't conceive of how science will ever answer it, religion will always be standing by to fill in the gap.

Fred wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Fred wrote: Of course religion is involved....

I. There are an infinite number of parallel earths

And God said, "Let there be an infinite number of parallel earths".

Case closed.

Sorry, you've lost me. Religion is no more necessary for there to be an infinite number of universes than for there to be one universe.

I can't see how this theory addresses the basic question of why there is something instead of nothing. Seems to me as long as this question remains unanswered, and I can't conceive of how science will ever answer it, religion will always be standing by to fill in the gap.

If God created everything, who created God?

In other words, that "answer" just pushes the question back one level.

What do you folks think about the possibility that the universe created itself?

Desert wrote: I think at first it can be useful to think of an intelligence; some source of intelligence capable of coming up with the universe and all its order.  And I know "Intelligent Design" is just a euphemism for creationism, but I think it's worth pushing that out of one's mind for long enough to at least ponder the sort of intelligence capable of creating/causing/initiating what we observe around us.

So "God" is indstinguishable from a very technologically advanced extraterrestrial race, i.e. magic?  Wouldn't the realization of the latter be rather mundane for True Believers when it turned out not to be an not omniscient being by virture of existence but rather grew into the power?  At what point exactly does a "God" become the "God"?  AFAIK, all of the "God"s in the top mainstream religions are rather primitive anthropomorphic fantasies that are about as likely to describe an actual "God" as those blind men are describing an elephant.  And even then, they still may be extraterrestrials since there were obviously multiple "God"s before doctrine declared there was only one.

I don't know much about Islam other than it is a sadistic religion for masochists (actually they all are to one degree or another, but I digress), but if Muslims all view Mohammaed and Jesus only as prophets and not "God", what the heck is their perception of Allah?

Tortoise wrote: What do you folks think about the possibility that the universe created itself?

I think when we succeed in creating life in a flask tube with amino acids, etc. it'll become more than just conjecture.  So far no one has succeeded, so that currently implies the answer comes from without the universe.  Life does not always have to be matter based.  It could be purely energy.  Of course, the line between life and consciousness is verrry fuzzzy.  Is a rock aware of itself or its surroundings?  Its purpose of being?  It is composed of energy that is as alive as everything else is.  The self-awareness that humans inhabit isn't a necessary condition for consciousness as many physical life forms display no concept of self-awareness at all.  If life and/or consciousness is for the express purpose of experiencing, whom is processing all the data?

Besides, there is obviously a starting point that was traced back to find the origin of the Big Bang.  A start from nothing implies a pre-conditional reality before the start.

I'm a proud "cosmological atheist" for sure!  Truth is stranger than any religious fiction.

MachineGhost wrote:

Tortoise wrote: What do you folks think about the possibility that the universe created itself?

I think when we succeed in creating life in a flask tube with amino acids, etc. it'll become more than just conjecture.  So far no one has succeeded, so that currently implies the answer comes from without the universe.  Life does not always have to be matter based.  It could be purely energy.  Of course, the line between life and consciousness is verrry fuzzzy.  Is a rock aware of itself or its surroundings?  Its purpose of being?  It is composed of energy that is as alive as everything else is.  The self-awareness that humans inhabit isn't a necessary condition for consciousness as many physical life forms display no concept of self-awareness at all.  If life and/or consciousness is for the express purpose of experiencing, whom is processing all the data?

Besides, there is obviously a starting point that was traced back to find the origin of the Big Bang.  A start from nothing implies a pre-conditional reality before the start.

I'm a proud "cosmological atheist" for sure!  Truth is stranger than any religious fiction.

There was a good episode of Rick and Morty about this with how Rick powers his quantum battery for his car.

http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/The_ ... t_Be_Crazy

Also showed in that episode that to truly know who created you, they need to reveal themselves to you. That's what Rick did to his created world.

And while this would be possible according to this to start a new universe, it still would need a Universe #0 that was started by a true "God", not a "god" like Rick. The main God that created smalled "gods" like Rick.

From MG: "Besides, there is obviously a starting point that was traced back to find the origin of the Big Bang.  A start from nothing implies a pre-conditional reality before the start." - could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

Greg wrote: From MG: "Besides, there is obviously a starting point that was traced back to find the origin of the Big Bang.  A start from nothing implies a pre-conditional reality before the start." - could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5m4j ... verse_tech

MachineGhost wrote:

Greg wrote: From MG: "Besides, there is obviously a starting point that was traced back to find the origin of the Big Bang.  A start from nothing implies a pre-conditional reality before the start." - could you elaborate more on this? Thanks.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xw5m4j ... verse_tech

It seems like we can boil the origin of reality down to three possibilities:

• Reality is caused by something external to it
• Reality has no cause
• Reality causes itself

The first possibility, determinism, leads to an infinite regress because the origin of reality's external cause must be explained for the same reason that the origin of reality itself must be explained. If reality contains all and only that which is real, then anything "real enough" to create reality--or to interact with it in any way--must be considered part of reality itself. Merely pushing the explanation of reality's origin back one level doesn't ultimately explain anything; it just passes the buck.

The second possibility, acausality, also lacks explanatory power insofar as a primary goal in science is to explain cause-and-effect relationships.

That leaves self-determinism. Bootstrapping. If reality creates itself, there is no passing of the explanatory buck, and thus no infinite regress. You just have to use a model of reality that allows you to describe the self-containment and self-creation of reality in a logically consistent way.

Greg wrote: There was a good episode of Rick and Morty about this with how Rick powers his quantum battery for his car.

http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/The_ ... t_Be_Crazy

Also showed in that episode that to truly know who created you, they need to reveal themselves to you. That's what Rick did to his created world.

I've heard good things about Rick and Morty, so I'll be sure to check out the show and particularly that episode. Sounds like a good one!

Tortoise wrote: I've heard good things about Rick and Morty, so I'll be sure to check out the show and particularly that episode. Sounds like a good one!

It is an AMAZING show. And on IMDB it has done very well for itself.