cnewq5

Atheism

2009-01-01T23:34:00.002Z

Post-string physics

2008-12-15T23:13:00.002Z

http://www.leesmolin.com

Mind

2008-09-06T21:19:00.003+01:00

What's a mind made of?
If mind or consciousness is fundamentally differernt to matter, nonmaterial or nonphysical, how could our thoughts have any effect on our actions, or vice versa? But if mind is a form of matter, what exactly does it consist of?

Matter

2008-09-05T22:45:00.002+01:00

A definition of matter
Given what's been said below, what would be an appropriate way to define matter?

Physics

2008-09-04T21:30:00.004+01:00

What is physics?

One definition of physics is the science of matter, dealing in concepts like mass, energy, force and charge. Here, terms like force have a precise definition, and the relationship between force, mass and energy are also defined. But the term matter is not used unambiguously.

Universe II

2008-09-03T21:04:00.004+01:00

Etymology
If you look up universe in the Online Etymology Dictionary you find

1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)).

Science

2008-09-02T20:57:00.005+01:00

What is science?
Science aims to investigate, describe and understand the world. The scientific method is based on observation and experiment, and the results of this are used to generate models, hypotheses and theories. By using these models, etc to make predictions, they can be tested through further observation. This relationship between experimental and theoretical science is obvoiusly a dynamic, two-way process.

A theory that survives many tests may gain the status of a law. But no matter how well-established it becomes, no theory, no law is ever proven for all time. If observation contradicts a theory, the latter must be either modified or discarded and replaced.

Cosmology is the science of the universe and its evolution, whereas cosmogeny (cosmogony) is concerned with the origin of the universe. But what have these sciences actually established? The best theory or model that we have is the big bang theory. In its most developed form, this model combines data from fields as diverse as astronomy and particle physics, general relativity theory and other branches of physics, and enables us to extrapolate back to a about 10⁻³⁵ second after the universe seems to begin. But science currently tells us nothing definite about what happened before that time, much less about the origin of the universe or what was prior to that origin.

Universe

2008-09-01T22:31:00.014+01:00

Where does the universe come from?

Before we can even consider this question, we need to be clear what is meant by universe. Let's define it as everything that physically exists. (We'll leave till later what is meant by existence in general and physical existence in particular.) Existence includes spacetime and all forms of matter - mass, energy, and anything else we encounter. One problem here is that matter is not precisely defined in physics. For the sake of clarity and precision, I will take matter to mean any form of mass and/or energy that occupies spacetime. Later, we will look at the relationship between spacetime and matter.

Regarding the origin of the universe, there seem to be three possibilites: eternal existence, a natural origin, or creation. The question any creationist has to answer is, If some agency (a god for example) created the universe, where did that agency come from? One creationist argument is that a complex universe must have a creator. If you ask who created the creator, you're told it (usually he, God) is eternal, uncreated. But God is presumably more complex still than his creation. So we have a contradiction: a complex univese requires a creator, but an even more complex creator does not. There are other arguments against a 'designer universe', but this is probably the most obvious.

But a natural origin poses problems too. Firstly, if something exists prior to the universe and from which the universe comes, that compromizes our original definition above, because the universe is supposed to include all existence. We can easily avoid this difficulty. If we maintain our definition of universe - so that it includes the prior reality - it just means that spacetime-matter or 'our universe' is only part of the whole. But we still have to explain how our universe arises. Even more problematic, what about the prior reality - how did it originate? It seems the only way to avoid that problem is to say that prior to the origin of our universe nothing exists. (Then spacetime-matter, our universe, again coincides with the universe.) But if nothing exists prior to the universe, how does the latter appear from nowhere?

Thus, whether we take a creationist or a natural-origin approach, either we end up facing the problem of origin all over again at some deeper level; or we face the apparent absurdity of getting something out of nothing. The only other possibility seems to be that the universe itself is eternal.

This is all pretty abstract. It takes no account of what we know of reality based on scientific investigation of the universe. So the next post takes a look at what science tells us.

Bastets in the garden

2008-08-31T14:15:00.005+01:00

Welcome to cnewq5 blog!

2008-08-31T13:04:00.001+01:00

Other cnewq5 websites

YouTube

cnewq5 channel

DoqtorQ channel

cnewq5tv channel

ShareNow

cnewq5 TV ~ family channel

Other cnewq5 blogs

ShareNow

cnewq5 family blog

Please look me up there too:)