The Watchmaker Revisited

[Thief]

That's like saying that if diamonds were the norm then we would find them everywhere, therefore God must create diamonds.

diamonds are not complex
and the comparison to my post doesn't work

would a simple stone contain a spirit?

I've seen a movie where such an idea was the fulcrum point
maybe you saw the same movie?

 

[Thief]

I tend to lean towards natural processes.

and God created nature

nice lean

 

[godnotgod]

and God created nature

nice lean

Adding a God to nature would be a supernatural condition.

You continue to force Reality to fit your conceptual models. But at least you're peristent....er...uh...I mean...consistent....doggedly so.

 

[Moishe3rd]

A Primitive Alien?
Cool.
The Science Folk vs. the Religious Folk sure seem to get all het up about humorous assumptions.
And y'all completely ignore the Alien (probably because he has no legal right to be here...).

So? Nu?
Why assume the dude is "primitive?"
It takes a very discerning mind to posit a Creator when all your Ugh and Ughette friends are mumbling "pretty rock" and ridiculing you when you try and explain it is obviously much more than a rock and must have been Created by Something Else!
They would probably tell you what a moron you were to believe that there was Something Else in This World besides the materially obvious.

"Prove it!" they'd say.

"WTF!?" you'd reply.

You want me to prove that this alien object which looks like nothing else we've ever seen; that functions in a way that is unlike anything we've ever seen, has a Creator and is not just some kind of rock!??
Oy.
Who's the freakin' moron, Ugh?
Fine.
It's just a rock... I'll stop bothering y'all with this obviously annoying idea of "Something Else" if y'all let me alone, stop tring to stone me, and don't make my investigations of this watch illegal!

 

[Thief]

Adding a God to nature would be a supernatural condition.

You continue to force Reality to fit your conceptual models. But at least you're peristent....er...uh...I mean...consistent....doggedly so.

yeah well.....God seems persistant

 

[BilliardsBall]

so maybe we could agree....
eternity is found in spirit

It is, one must choose IMO where that spirit will be!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which do a I think is more likely: natural processes or magical poofing. I tend to lean towards natural processes.

Logical fallacy here: "A more likely" argument, given as evidence. Perhaps we can take a vote at the forum and make this a full-on ad populum for you.

For your encore, prove natural process have no root Creator without infinite regression or taking a "most likely" view of pre-Planck time!

You've further made NO argument, since every person on Earth, including the born agains I know who walk in miracles, agree, MOST things are natural processes, and the rare supernatural event is . . . super.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is unknown by the present evidence of physics and cosmology whether our physical existence is finite and temporal or infinite and eternal.



Steady state universe was rejected long ago.



recycling? odd terminology. The models for a cyclic universe are still proposed by cosmologists based on the same knowledge other models are using including the various BB models and multiverse models.

More explanation available from this website.
From: https://physicsworld.com/a/cyclic-universe-could-explain-cosmological-constant/
:
Cyclic universe could explain cosmological constant

Two theoretical physicists have developed a model that could explain why the cosmological constant takes the small, positive value that it does in today's universe. The value of the constant is responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. However, the new model, developed by Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University in the US and Neil Turok at Cambridge University in the UK, will be controversial. It requires that time existed before the Big Bang, assumes that the universe is older than the 14 billion years we think it is, and says that the universe regularly undergoes repeating "cycles" of big bangs and big crunches (Sciencexpress 1126231).

Multiverse models of our physical existence are still possible, and based on models proposed by many physicists and cosmologists.



No offense, and in all humility, but neither of us mortal fallible humans can define nor describe the nature of God's relationship and Creation of our physical existence.

Yet a fallible human told us exactly what happened, from the horse's mouth, in Genesis 1. Start there.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Logical fallacy here: "A more likely" argument, given as evidence. Perhaps we can take a vote at the forum and make this a full-on ad populum for you.

I was just giving my opinion, not a logical argument. In my opinion, natural explanations tend to be a better route for investigation than magical poofing. If you think my opinion is wrong, then please show me all of the discoveries we have made about the universe where magical poofing has been the verified cause.

For your encore, prove natural process have no root Creator without infinite regression or taking a "most likely" view of pre-Planck time!

A creator is your claim. It is up to you to supply the evidence for this claim.

You've further made NO argument, since every person on Earth, including the born agains I know who walk in miracles, agree, MOST things are natural processes, and the rare supernatural event is . . . super.

Great. Now, where is the evidence for these events?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet a fallible human told us exactly what happened, from the horse's mouth, in Genesis 1. Start there.

Religious assertion of belief, and you are neglecting the objective verifiable evidence of science and the history of the Bible.

A horse did not write Genesis nor the Pentateuch, neither did one human. It is a compilation beginning with Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite cuneiform tablets and compiled and edited after 1,000 BCE by the evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Religious assertion of belief, and you are neglecting the objective verifiable evidence of science and the history of the Bible.

A horse did not write Genesis nor the Pentateuch, neither did one human. It is a compilation beginning with Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite cuneiform tablets and compiled and edited after 1,000 BCE by the evidence.

Oh! The "how did the OT come to be" discussion can end now. Thanks!

 

[Tiapan]

To me the watch maker idea of religious thinkers is what I call a "Top Down approach", intelligent design.
The grand designer makes a cozy little world and puts his windup toys on it, scatters some stars about, grabs some popcorn, and sits back and watches with humor as the little toys beat the hell out of themselves. (This logic begs the question who created God?).
Science on the other hand has shown that in our universe, a "Bottom Up approach" has actually vastly more evidence. "From little things, big things grow." (Quarks>>>Universe>>>Prokaryotic bacteria>>>Humans>>>?).
So there is a definite antithesis between the 2 concepts if one is right the other is wrong.
Cheers

 

[godnotgod]

To me the watch maker idea of religious thinkers is what I call a "Top Down approach", intelligent design.
The grand designer makes a cozy little world and puts his windup toys on it, scatters some stars about, grabs some popcorn, and sits back and watches with humor as the little toys beat the hell out of themselves. (This logic begs the question who created God?).
Science on the other hand has shown that in our universe, a "Bottom Up approach" has actually vastly more evidence. "From little things, big things grow." (Quarks>>>Universe>>>Prokaryotic bacteria>>>Humans>>>?).
So there is a definite antithesis between the 2 concepts if one is right the other is wrong.
Cheers

As regards the 'Bottom Up' approach, the hard question is how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious, while the 'Top Down' approach says that consciousness has always been the case, and what we think of as 'material reality' is simply a manifestation, but not a creation of that very consciousness. Now Quantum Physics comes along and finds that all particles in the Universe possess no actual 'materiality'; that all such 'particles' are none other than standing waves of energy, created by their surrounding fields.

 

[Tiapan]

As regards the 'Bottom Up' approach, the hard question is how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious, while the 'Top Down' approach says that consciousness has always been the case, and what we think of as 'material reality' is simply a manifestation, but not a creation of that very consciousness. Now Quantum Physics comes along and finds that all particles in the Universe possess no actual 'materiality'; that all such 'particles' are none other than standing waves of energy, created by their surrounding fields.

Again the top down approach ie consciousness then matter.I still hold to bottom up. matter then consciousness, but its a cute concept.
Also, yes we are 99.9% vacant space with arrays of tiny spinning standing waves of energy holding us together, but you forgot to mention most of these standing waves also have a property called mass with its implications, spin and charge also become relevant, and don't you love Heisenberg and Schrodinger.
The individual atoms quantum world can be in amazingly variable and often unpredictable states, but as the entire state of a substance is the sum average of its constituent atoms, as the aggregate size increase, the substances behavior is averaged to a very predictable consistent form, we are now in the newtonian universe we are familiar with.
Finally if "how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious" is a hard question, I find the counter question even harder.
Cheers

 

[exchemist]

As regards the 'Bottom Up' approach, the hard question is how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious, while the 'Top Down' approach says that consciousness has always been the case, and what we think of as 'material reality' is simply a manifestation, but not a creation of that very consciousness. Now Quantum Physics comes along and finds that all particles in the Universe possess no actual 'materiality'; that all such 'particles' are none other than standing waves of energy, created by their surrounding fields.

I don't see why you bring "consciousness" into this. It seems to me that consciousness is the activity of a living brain, that's all. I see no reason to treat "consciousness" as a thing, an entity, when it refers to an activity of a physical structure. That is making a category error, in my view.

It is not accurate to say that QM treats matter as "standing waves of energy". It treats matter as having both a particle-like aspect and a wave-like aspect. That is rather different.

Energy is not a substance. You can't have a jug of "energy". Energy is just a property of a physical system (generally defined as the ability of the system to do work). The system has to exist first, in order for an amount of energy to be associated with it. You may perhaps have in mind the energy of electromagnetic radiation, like visible light or radio waves. But even then the energy is a property of the radiation (a physical system, comprising oscillating electric and magnetic fields). It is not correct to say the radiation "is" energy.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't see why you bring "consciousness" into this. It seems to me that consciousness is the activity of a living brain, that's all. I see no reason to treat "consciousness" as a thing, an entity, when it refers to an activity of a physical structure. That is making a category error, in my view.

It is not accurate to say that QM treats matter as "standing waves of energy". It treats matter as having both a particle-like aspect and a wave-like aspect. That is rather different.

Energy is not a substance. You can't have a jug of "energy". Energy is just a property of a physical system. The system has to exist first, in order for an amount of energy to be associated with it.

Is the TV signal the activity of a TV set, or does it exist independently of the hardware, being that which makes the TV set work?

A particle is not solid material; it is a standing wave, appearing as solid material.

Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave

Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:

Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.p.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.

Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C
Total internal energy E = Q2/C ... substitiuting for C, we get
Total internal energy E = Q2/(4.p.e0.r), Substitiuting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules
Using E=mc2, we get
Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.

This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.

The Particle: The new proposed atom model

Unknown to many of us, it is a fact that Einstein rejected the discrete point particle and stated that matter must be spherical entities extended in space. He writes:

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."

Erwin Schroedinger understood the requirements of particle structure when he wrote in 1937:

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just 'Schaumkronen'.

The Particle: The big flaws of the atom model

 

[exchemist]

Is the TV signal the activity of a TV set, or does it exist independently of the hardware, being that which makes the TV set work?

A particle is not solid material; it is a standing wave, appearing as solid material.

Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave

Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:

Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.p.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.

Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C
Total internal energy E = Q2/C ... substitiuting for C, we get
Total internal energy E = Q2/(4.p.e0.r), Substitiuting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules
Using E=mc2, we get
Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.

This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.

The Particle: The new proposed atom model

Unknown to many of us, it is a fact that Einstein rejected the discrete point particle and stated that matter must be spherical entities extended in space. He writes:

"Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high."

Erwin Schroedinger understood the requirements of particle structure when he wrote in 1937:

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just 'Schaumkronen'.

The Particle: The big flaws of the atom model

This is actually unintentionally hilarious. The author of the crank website has not realised that the classical electron radius is a calculated figure, based on exactly the derivation he uses! Here it is: Classical electron radius - Wikipedia

So this fool thinks he has made a discovery, using this so-called "classical radius" of the electron as an input, when in fact it is just the output number you get if you assume there is an electrostatic energy equivalent to its rest mass.

There is nothing about waves here at all, needless to say.

This is silly crank physics. Just goes to show how much rubbish is available nowadays on the internet.

Don't believe a word of it.

 

[Polymath257]

As regards the 'Bottom Up' approach, the hard question is how that which is of a material nature becomes conscious, while the 'Top Down' approach says that consciousness has always been the case, and what we think of as 'material reality' is simply a manifestation, but not a creation of that very consciousness. Now Quantum Physics comes along and finds that all particles in the Universe possess no actual 'materiality'; that all such 'particles' are none other than standing waves of energy, created by their surrounding fields.

Hmmm...what do you mean by the term 'materiality'? Also, particles are NOT created by their 'surrounding' fields. The particles are the modes of the fields.

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm...what do you mean by the term 'materiality'? Also, particles are NOT created by their 'surrounding' fields. The particles are the modes of the fields.

IOW, the particle mode is a function of it's respective field.

'materiality': solidity

 

[godnotgod]

This is actually unintentionally hilarious. The author of the crank website has not realised that the classical electron radius is a calculated figure, based on exactly the derivation he uses! Here it is: Classical electron radius - Wikipedia

So this fool thinks he has made a discovery, using this so-called "classical radius" of the electron as an input, when in fact it is just the output number you get if you assume there is an electrostatic energy equivalent to its rest mass.

There is nothing about waves here at all, needless to say.

This is silly crank physics. Just goes to show how much rubbish is available nowadays on the internet.

Don't believe a word of it.

This idea is on other sites as well. I have sent your response to Blaze Labs. We'll see what response we get, OK?