Jump to content

Pip Threlfall

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Pip Threlfall

  • Rank
  1. Regarding Mr Comfort’s opinions on question 2 – in his reply he says, “There are only two perspectives in the issue of human origins. Either we believe (as does Richard Dawkins and many others) that nothing created everything, which is a scientific impossibility, or we believe that something created everything……….” As a Bible believing Christian there is a third perspective in the issue of human origin and that is that no-thing created everything. The Bible speaks of ‘The Holy Spirit’, which I would understand as wholly spirit, that is nothing but spirit, (no additives). Now although we cannot define spirit we can say what it is not. It has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no position in space and time, simply put, it is a no-thing. However it is not nothing because it is the creator of things.
  2. I am not sure I see the difference between science and ‘hard science’. As I understand science it is all to do with measurement, that is quantity, whereas philosophy and religion are primarily about quality. If by ‘hard science’ is meant quality science, then the line between science-philosophy-religion becomes blurred. However if my quest is considered not scientific, I will gladly change forums. Unfortunately I see that I cannot post on Philosophy and Religion until I have made 50 posts (presumably elsewhere on the forum) so not sure what to do.
  3. In the beginning.....it exploded".... .this was not meant to be taken seriously,hence, the grin. It's a quote from the author Terry Pratchett that I thought illustrated the absurdity of effect without cause in a humorous and concise way. Spyman has pointed out how close we are to the event of the BB in terms of what happened...before that point people can only speculate. I would imagine scientists will eventually extrapolate from experiments and observations of other astronomical phenomena what events preceded the BB moment As you say before the creation of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE and TIME “people can only speculate”. We cannot even be sure that the universe started with a big bang. It could have been started by a being. I know of no hard science that says that beings are the result of this universe, so the idea that they preceded the universe remains a possibility. Certainly nothing has ever been discovered without an observer to discover it, which makes the observer at least as important as that which is observed. On your last point, only scientists with the relevant expertise can really make any meaningful statements on the origins and nature of the physical universe...we all have our ideas but the testable ones and the ones built on what is already experimentally confirmed are the only ideas that matter in the long run. The one group of people that cannot “make meaningful statements on the origins of the physical universe” are scientists, because science only begins after the universe has been established. So we must look else where for the origin of the physical universe. There are legitimate experiments in the field of humanities and religion that can shed light on origins. From what I've learnt on this forum, the Singularity is a mathematically created artefact predicted by Relativity that is not believed to actually exist in reality. I think to most scientists it indicates the point where that theory breaks down as an accurate description of reality...below that scale Quantum Physics is a better description I believe. The differences between the two disciplines (Quantum and Relativity) predictions at around this scale point is something they are striving to reconcile but, as yet, have not succeeded. The singularity may well not exist in reality but all of reality points to it. The whole of reality is relative because every thing is in motion. A singularity would have no motion, no mass, no position in space or time. It would be that which gives everything its meaning. It would be or rather is, THE TRUE STATIC. In the true static all things are reconciled.
  4. Quote (originally by Spyman – April 12th) "Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang will likely remain pure speculation." End quote If what was before the big bang is to “remain pure speculation” then to speculate that “awareness of awareness” preceded the big bang must have equal validity as any other speculation. No one doubts that awareness is the very bedrock of scientific investigation for without it there would be no way of knowing that anything existed. I would affirm that behind that awareness is the “awareness of awareness” which is a no-thing, but has the ability to say a thing is and have it be. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedQuote (originally posted by StringJunky – April 13th) “In the beginning there was nothing… then it exploded.” End quote ‘Nothing’ cannot explode – this is a scientific impossibility! Quote “There must have been preconditions that initiated the BB but are not known as yet. It’s best to leave its initial state as ‘unknown’ until scientists have some evidence or tangible clues I think”. End quote I agree “there must have been preconditions that initiated the BB” but how can you be sure they are not known. There are many people that would maintain that the preconditions for matter, energy, space and time can be known. Surely any individual can only say “I personally do not know them”. And why should it be scientists that have the sole responsibility of discovering the unknown. If we are looking at ‘the singularity’ every viewpoint has a part to play. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedQuote (originally posted by Airbrush – April 13th) “………. Even though we cannot see or detect something does not mean there is nothing there” End quote Even if there is ‘nothing there’ it does not invalidate the observer who is doing the observing, and just because the observer is not a thing does not mean they are nothing. Hence I would maintain the observer is a no-thing, the creator of things. This is backed up by the very latest realisations with regards to quantum mechanics where the observer appears to have an effect on that which is being observed.
  5. For space to exist there needs to be dimension point and a viewpoint to view the dimension points. If no matter existed before the big bang then no space could have existed. “Space” before the big bang was not space but nothing. So I am ok for there to have been nothing before the big bang, but there would have had to be awareness of awareness preceding the big bang, to be aware of the nothing. That that is aware of nothing is a NO-THING. It is the concept of NO-THING that is missing in the big bang theory. See http://www.buddhanet.net/bt_52.htm
  6. It seems to me that there are two types of space. What I would call real space and imaginary space. For ‘real’ space to exist it needs dimension points, and is therefore finite. ‘Imaginary’ space does not need dimension points so it can be as vast as the mind that is conceiving it. When we look up to the stars we are aware of real space because the stars define it. Once we think there must be something beyond the stars we have changed from real space to imaginary space. The same thing is happening with time. There is real time, which is the moment of now, and all other time is in the mind, both past and future. Space-time I don’t understand, but from the diagram it would appear to involve gravity, which I understand cannot exist without mass, which has a direct relationship to energy. These four, matter, energy, space and time, are the basic building blocks of the physical universe, so perhaps what appears to be the physical universe isn’t actually true.
  7. It seems to me that if we are to have a meaningful discussion on "Where does space end? It must end somewhere!" it is necessary to first define what space is. I would be interested in hearing others definition of space.
  8. It seems to me that if we are to have a meaningful discussion on "where is the end of space" it is necessary to first define what space is. Any takers!
  9. I joined this forum after typing in "where is the end of space" a question that has fascinated me for the past 50 years. Some would say it is a question without a satisfactory answer - but is it? I am hoping to hear what others have to say on this pivitol question. By the way I'm in Portsmouth, Hampshire, England.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.