It is aware of itself. It observes. It is power, it is information and even the void is thermal - the seemingly nothingness of empty space has a certain level of energy intrinsic to it. . . . seems to be the ultimate agent. — Benj96
Fundamental physics tells us energy is indestructible and that there is no single place in the universe where energy hasn’t got it’s fingernails dug in- it has a “finger in every pie” so to speak. It is every object that occupies the universe as well as all interactions between said objects. — Benj96
One class of solutions to the Boltzmann brain problem makes use of differing approaches to the measure problem in cosmology: in infinite multiverse theories, the ratio of normal observers to Boltzmann brains depends on how infinite limits are taken. Measures might be chosen to avoid appreciable fractions of Boltzmann brains.[20][21][22] Unlike the single-universe case, one challenge in finding a global solution in eternal inflation is that all possible string landscapes must be summed over; in some measures, having even a small fraction of universes infested with Boltzmann brains causes the measure of the multiverse as a whole to be dominated by Boltzmann brains.
Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything.
Yes. Although I am not religious, I would hope that scientists could come-up with something better than the Multiverse theory --- which doesn't attempt to answer the First Cause question, but simply assumes that "Energy & Laws" have always existed : a Forever Cause. That sounds like a generic description of the worldwide God-concept : the creative force and organizing principle of our world. So, I long-ago, gave-up trying to avoid the most common vernacular term for the philosophical "First Cause". In my personal thesis, I attempt to re-formulate traditional god-concepts (Logos ; Tao ; Brahma ; etc) in a way that could be useful as the philosophical foundation for a scientific Theory of Everything. :smile:Our best cosmologists can only come up with absurdities to avoid believing "God did it." Yet "God did it" is useless as a scientific theory or an explanation of anything. — fishfry
Why is "God did it" useless as an explanation? Doesn't it tell you why something happened? God did it! — RogueAI
Fishfry, if we discovered for sure that God did something, wouldn't it become of paramount importance to figure out the nature of this god? — RogueAI
And then try to communicate with it? — RogueAI
Of course. Let me give you an example: suppose one night the stars move around to spell out: "god is displeased with you all". Wouldn't the "god did it" explanation then be a heavy favorite? And wouldn't it succeed in explaining the phenomena? — RogueAI
I think you're conflating the difficulty of proving "god did it" with "god did it". Simulation theory and "god did it" are both very similar in that they're impossible to prove, but if true, have staggering implications. — RogueAI
I just see that you both come from different perspectives, and it is related to the wording of the question as 'Should..' I don't see the matter as being how we should see, because it is being prescriptive. — Jack Cummins
It may be a choice of language more than anything else. — Jack Cummins
If you knew for certain that god exists, that wouldn't change your life in any way? — RogueAI
once you know some god exists, it becomes pretty important to find out what its plans are for you and whether you're in its good graces. — RogueAI
So you're telling me Fish, that if you knew for certain that a god exists (and here I mean some powerful supernatural being capable of creating a universe like ours), you would have no follow-up questions? Really? You would just take it in stride? — RogueAI
How do you think the world and scientific community would react to definitive proof of theism? — RogueAI
I think people would completely lose their shit. Because once you know some god exists, it becomes pretty important to find out what its plans are for you and whether you're in its good graces. — RogueAI
I agree. Every time I was inclined to say "everything" I found myself put off by the suffix "thing." It implies too much concrete. — James Riley
“Everyness”might serve better haha :p — Benj96
I am glad that you can see the yes and no, because it seems that many people seem to be all one or the other. — Jack Cummins
despite Energy's Achilles Heel of Entropy, — Gnomon
My characterization of Entropy as Energy's weak point, was not concerned with Time. Instead, it was based on their opposite "reciprocal" roles in Evolution. Basically, Energy is construed as Constructive while Entropy is Destructive. Figuratively, Entropy tears-down what Energy builds-up.I find this interesting that you understand entropy to be energies Achilles heal. I actually believe it’s energies greatest feat. . . ,
“Entropy” in this case is the “rate at which energy is converted into time” - it’s reciprocal.. . .
It is the form of energy that comes together (negative entropy) as time dilates. — Benj96
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.