Saturday, December 12, 2009

Hubble Church of Futilitarianism

Related: Let's put our futility in perspective.

We are nothing more than a dust mote floating in a vast cosmos. The vast numbers involved in the universe we happen to find ourselves in suggest that life should be commonplace. Alternatively, the anthropic principle is, by it's nature, the only other explanation, Either way, we are humbled by the mystery of it all. I have added in my own personal music background to this popular gif file. There is more here for those that are interested.

13 Opinion(s):

Anonymous said...

Makes one realise how insignificant we are and how silly it is for countries to fight and try to control each other and ultimately control the world.

Anonymous said...

It is like a gigantic dice roll, with the bare minimum ingredients, to ensure life on at least 1 of the 1,000,000,000,000 stars multiplied by the 1,000,000,000,000 galaxies gets created.

Life is very complicated to create because so many variables are involved.
Some have likened the odds of creating life, to throwing letters into the air and to have them randomly fall together as one of Shakespear's works, or the encyclopaedia of Britain.

Fact is that the vast universe is measurable evidence of the creator's efforts to ensure that life would be created on at least one planet. We measure his efforts by what we refer to, in human terms, as science.

If the odds of life being created are trillions and trillions to one, then you better create trillions and trillions of planets.

We call it EVENING the odds. If the number of planets created, equals the odds of trillions to one required, then you definitely will end up with one planet with life.

Fact is that the big bang theory proves the existence of the creator.

The scientists amongst you would know that immediately after the big bang, matter etc. interacted with each to each other according to the rules of science and physics. All interaction, of matter was carefully governed by the laws of physics. Vast volumes of knowledge that prescribed how events would unfold, like for instance that if a body of matter would impact another body then certain measurable variables would change, These could be anything relating to the sciences like for instance velocity, pressure, temperature, momentum etc. etc.

This is pure information and information does not evolve. Information needs a higher level of information to exist. At that point there was no sentient life.

Creation happened at the big bang, the rest that followed is mere evolution, as governed by the same laws that applied immediately after creation right up till the present time.

This whole process implies that massive front loading occurred.

It is the same thing when you write a computer program. Nothing happens until you press the big bang button(enter)


Exzanian said...

Thanks Anon 13/12/2009 10:25. Exactly. However you said "Fact is that the big bang theory proves the existence of the creator"
Don't agree, it only proves there is a Universe :)
Secondly, you are postulating a "creator" that is far more complex than what it attempts to explain. Who created the creator? If you say "The Creator JUST IS" Then it is far more economical to say "Well, the Universe/ Big Bang JUST IS"
The teleogical/ cosmological arguments are flawed from a purely logical point, they have a-priori (built in) assumptions.

Anonymous said...


Perhaps, but the point I am making is that from the beginning there was the presence of information in our universe, like for example quantum physics and it's laws etc. etc. etc.

Every single action (and reaction) is governed by the laws of physics. From stars going supernova, to someone farting. Every single possible action can be abstractally presented by a formulae. Your computer screen display currently can be presented by a formulae etc.

What goes up must come down they say?????????

Who are they????? hahaha

The scientists, but what about before there was any sentient life forms? What went up still came down. Or before the earth existed the planets and stars' gravity wells affected each other exactly like the still do today, according to the pre-determined laws of science. These laws cannot have evolved, as they are not sentient. They have an origin, but try to imagine where information can come from, because the interaction of matter is the visible manifestations of the laws of physics governing what is possible and what is not.

You say:
"Then it is far more economical to say "Well, the Universe/ Big Bang JUST IS"

Which is exactly what I am saying as well, with the difference that I accept the string theory and it's implication of the ten dimensions.

Thus I agree when you say that the big bang or the universe "JUST IS", but only in the 4 dimensions that make up our visible/observable universe. The big bang is the initialising event that kick started our 4 dimensional reality.

We are products of these four dimensions through evolution and thus we are unable to experience any higher dimensions, although we can proof their existence through theories.

Much like a computer program cannot be aware of the programmer that wrote it.

I know us humans are here because we evolved, but I also know that the information or program that governs our 4 dimensions, (laws of physics) cannot have evolved, BUT it had to have come from somewhere and the only logical pathway that remains, is that it came from higher up the dimensional scale.

Luckily science is in agreement that more dimensions are possible and that the going theory points to ten dimensions in total.

So what I am saying, is that the laws of physics,....the laws that guide our 4 dimensions,....the laws that determines what is possible and what is not possible, had to have come from somewhere and that the only place that remains, is a place that science has discovered and that this place is further up the dimensional scale.

Now your article was great and I am one of those people that truly like to reflect on our insignificant lives. In my roundabout way I am asking you to consider that we are even more insignificant than your article suggests, because you clearly pointed out the massive scale of our observable 4 dimensional universe, even though there are another 6 possible dimensions.

Feeling small??????



Anonymous said...

I will retract this statement I made:

"Fact is that the big bang theory proves the existence of the creator."

But I will maintain that the info(laws) that guides our universe was there from the big bang and that it had to have come from somewhere.

So I will change my statement to the following:

"Fact is that the big bang theory proves the existence of intelligence higher up the dimensional scale."


Anonymous said...

You said:

"The teleogical/ cosmological arguments are flawed from a purely logical point, they have a-priori (built in) assumptions."

I would love to hear more assumptions on where the information that governs our existence could possibly have originated from.

Information by it's very nature implies intelligence.



Exzanian said...

Anon, you and I have a lot more in common than you think....I can hardly delve into string theory as I have no mathematical training to deal with it at all. However, having read popularisations of the theory and the Braneworld scenarios, I am tantalised by the possibility that the observable universe is, in space time geometry, finite yet unbounded (wraps around itself) and that it is perhaps only a "bubble" in a larger (perhaps infinite) Multiverse. It's a staggering possibility that will take on proportions that will exceed even what Copernicus did for humanity.
Where it all came from (or to ask petulantly, like a child "But WHY is there something, rather than nothing?") Who cares? It's here, in whatever multi-dimensional form and it is staggeringly huge. We are NOTHING. A fleeting blip in a cosmic ocean of eternity...That we can be aware of it is even more amazing...Whatever your position, the existance of the universe (in whatever guise, however deep it may be {and I for one think we will never fully lift the veil} does not prove the existance of a creative force, it only proves itself...

Exzanian said...

"Information by it's very nature implies intelligence"
A$, that is a purely a-priori statement. It is not necessarily true, you assume too much. Trust me, there is no need to go that far! LOL

Exzanian said...

A4 said "Fact is that the big bang theory proves the existence of intelligence higher up the dimensional scale."

OK, please define intelligence higher up the dimensional scale"

What do you mean exactly? Do you mean the possibility of a Kaluza-Klein higher dimensional Multiverse? If so, bear in mind, that these theories are purely mathematical constructs. String theory? Braneworld? Maybe! I hope so. I hope the LHC can shed some light for us soon. I'm salivating LOL...But perhaps all you are doing is dressing up a "personal creative force" in scientific clothing, no?

Anonymous said...

Dressing up?

Yes actually you're right.

I'm putting a scientific spin on faith.

Atheists always demand that believers proof the existence of a creator.

Normally I in turn demand that they proof the non-existence of a creator. This they cannot do, although they remain firm in their belief and this in the absence of proof.

Only after a while do they realise that atheism is in itself a religion and that it also requires lots of faith.

That faith I do not have, although I admire the brave souls that walk that path.


Anonymous said...

The LHC is due for this December I think?

Exzanian said...

A4 - Thanks for being honest. Most theists try and "sneak in" their beliefs that way, then they try and deny it of course.
You said "Normally I in turn demand that they (atheists) proof the non-existence of a creator".

I never asserted any belief whatsoever, I have nothing to prove or disprove. Get it? I describe the Universe as it is, as I find it. Believers make the additional assertion of a creative force (a-priori) and then demand that atheists try knock it down...Newsflash! Nothing to knock down!
Anon 14 December 2009 5:24 AM - LHC has been operational for two weeks already after repairs but quite subdued due to the previous ballyhoo and failure that led to repairs.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.