The magic of Cosmos

[Janic]

Janic wrote:

It is ONE theory, not a fact. Once again it is a question of semantics and replacement of certain words by others, corresponding to the beliefs of each one, which does not change anything at the bottom and one turns again and always in circles like: Before the bing bang qu 'was there ? Can order come out of disorder?

A theory is worth a thousand times more than a belief.

All theory starts from a belief: " I believe that, it seems to me that, and if…. »

The said theory is supported by experiments, even if it is not possible for us to confirm 100%

This is the problem of experiments. They all start from pre-selected criteria and therefore generally lead to the objective set: the Miller example with its monomers supposed to be the basic building blocks of life and which have remained at this stage.

such a theory remains that it remains much more solid than a simple belief based on a literalist interpretation of religious texts ...

I have already asked you: drop religions if you rely on scientific elements or drop scientific elements if you rely on religious texts. But we must stop this permanent mixture between the two.

Quote:
Before the bing bang what was there? Can order come out of disorder? etc ...

Opinions are divided, but for the moment, and the theory of quantum gravity advancing one can "allow oneself to think" that the Big bang would not be the "beginning of the beginning", but a phase of rebound of another. universe (big bounce), from this point of view there would be neither beginning nor end ...

To consider the material world without beginning or end would oppose the laws of termodynamics, as far as I know!

and by the same more "why?"

on the contrary ! This pushes back the response to a beyond or elsewhere DIMENSIONED. As a creationist, this intelligent design is beyond… not within…! It's let's say a theory which suggests that ... !

Quote:
On the one hand chance, on the other an intelligent design with the same result! In the “believing” discourse, the creator effectively explored all the possible lines of the Universe and fixed his choice on the one we know (badly by the way)

It is not just a matter of chance, and this is precisely where some scientists come up against, hence the interest of P. Guillemant's theory.

Except that Guillemant is "cat porridge" which lacks clarity in its mode of expression, excluding aficionados.

For Stephen Hawking theuniverse to generate all the physically possible scenarios, which means that there exist jointly with ours trillions of trillions of parallel universes populated or not with life forms.

You see the difficulty of language saying that the universe to ... It is to give it a decision-making power, therefore a demiurge like god! (or it's the same thing)

In this model all destinies are played out in a deterministic way, which excludes free will, we would all be predestined to live a life all traced in advance ... this scenarios and more and more called into question.

Indeed, it disturbs humans to have to be considered as a programmed machine opening the door to everything and anything especially with regard to so-called moral values: what good then! »And yet!

Now if we introduce the notion of consciousness - which still rejects many materialist scientists - it is possible to see things in completely different ways:

1) The Singular Universe (Big Bang) has deployed by quantum superimposition all the lines of Universe physically possible.
2) With the appearance of consciousness, the parallel universes have been reduced by the phenomenon of collapse of the wave function of the universes, causing the trillions of trillions of possibilities initially generated to pass ... to one, ours.

hypotheses, assumptions!

Quote:
indeed this universe is well RULE which implies a trimmer!

The adjuster is not looking for I don't know where,he is in us ...

So it's an animist belief, not a fact!

this totally diverse vision of creationism, because it denies the existence of a demiurge, some will want to see it as a form of intelligent design, but this is not the case no more.

It cannot be said that this is not the case without evidence, either. So it is philosophical and open to all possible opinions, that is its role!

In such a case the Universe is not the work of a demiurge, but of a process like Eternal Inflation.

Another formulation of the same discourse: what is called demiurge or eternal inflation.

This also joins the Kabbalist and Upanishadic vision.
Creationism meanwhile is only an anthropomorphized interpretation aimed at simplifying for the average person esoteric teachings outside the intellectual reach of many people, and unfortunately still peddled today!

I would say that this is also a simplifying vision. Anthropomorphization is a means, not a goal, it serves to "imagine" the unimaginable to make it concrete in everyday life and not to get lost in intellectual abstractions or pseudo-intellectual-metaphysical.


Quote:
Wow! the boat formula!
Human achievements only serve to grasp the dimension that escapes us from creator, from intelligent design

I really feel like you're getting your sentences from a proselytizing manual!

The hospital that laughs at charity, in short!

Quote:
The appearance of life through evolutionism, that's it! A supposed game of successive and repetitive chances which defy all the mathematical laws of probability, but which are better understood from an intelligent design.

It is false, the appearance of life by accident does not hold, on the other hand the appearance of life following the fine adjustments of physics is very coherent, fine adjustments which would result from the quantum processes at work in the initial singularity (see above).

So coherent that despite multiple attempts no one has succeeded in proving or demonstrating it. So belief for belief: where is the difference?

Quote:
give in your own definition then!
(from God)

The idea of ​​God refers to a multitude of conceptions: it can be for some a nice bearded man living in the clouds, for others a higher principle underlying all things in the Universe, finally, for the majority God refers to the idea of ​​an intelligent and eternal source of everything.

In the latter case the problem lies in the ideological conception of such an approach: no one having ever seen God, the religions and the believers who follow them quickly ended up projecting their unconscious into the void of ignorance, the echo in return is that of anthropomorphism: I make objects with my hands so God did the same with our universe etc ... his simplisms quickly degenerated over time, and a certain number quickly made to do tell God what they wanted to gain dominance.

You are right in the sense that EVERYTHING can be deviated WITHOUT EXCEPTION including with an abstract "quantum" discourse, it is made for that!

God comes from the Latin Deus reference to the god of Olympus having for Greco-Indian root Dei (to shine) (in India god is called "deva", same root!) Which refers to the stars of the heavens and therefore to astronomy ( Well!).
In Hinduism the universe comes from light (gao) and not from a sacred cow which is also written by gao (mystification), light which was the first thing to emerge from the opaque primordial universe 380000 after the Big Bang ...
Mix of science and belief!

From the point of view of Tradition (Esoteric Biblical, Hinduist,) God is information (logos), the absolute,

This is what I have already said and said again.

Everything that exists and can exist: past, present future of our universe (and others),

There: difference with the animist side. Philosophically: the creator cannot be IN his creation, which would make him dependent on his product.
The watchmaker has no need to know the time, his product is for the use of the user, not himself.

for the most that can be said, it is neither a person, nor an entity, nor a great watchmaker or architect, it is an inconceivable thing that cannot bear any comparison. .

Indeed it is not CONCRETELY comparable since it would require an element called equivalent comparison. As for the “controlled” appellations, it doesn't matter. It is not a question of saying: " it is "Which would be vanity, but" it's like With the very limits of language which is only a codification with its own conceptual limits. These are therefore approximations, analogies.
But it goes without saying that for the average citizen, each conception automatically has an impact on the experience of individuals. Which gave rise, precisely, to questions about free will, determinism, faith or works and faith and works, etc ...

[sen-no-sen]

This is the problem of experiments. They all start from pre-selected criteria and therefore generally lead to the objective set: the Miller example with its monomers supposed to be the basic building blocks of life and which have remained at this stage.

You endlessly bring out this story of experiments that should stick to beliefs, except it's the complete opposite of the history of quantum physics!
At the beginning of the 20th century the scientific model was based on the deterministic materialist paradigm, all the experiments carried out had to stick with the vision of the moment, experimentation proved exactly the opposite!

I have already asked you: drop religions if you rely on scientific elements or drop scientific elements if you rely on religious texts. But we must stop this permanent mixture between the two.

The mixture of the two is called critical historical exegesis, that is to say to confront religion with history and science, and indeed this is what has always worried the different currents of thought, because for them it sounds the death knell for their activities.

To consider the material world without beginning or end would oppose the laws of termodynamics, as far as I know!

Really?
Why?
Demonstrate it?

on the contrary ! This pushes back the response to a beyond or elsewhere DIMENSIONED. As a creationist, this intelligent design is beyond… not within…! This is let's say a theory which suggests that ...!

If we postulate the idea of ​​the infinite, the sacrosanct "why" loses all its value.
Indeed the questions, why? Why ? What purpose? Introduce the idea of ​​destination, and therefore of limitation, out of the infinite its notions have no value ...

You see the difficulty of language saying that the universe to ... It is to give it a decision-making power, therefore a demiurge like god! (or it's the same thing)

I do not see where the problem is, it is rather your obsession with wanting to introduce creationism everywhere that is causing concern.
When we say that an electron revolves around the atomic nucleus, there is no "decision-making power" involved.
Ditto when we say that this "covers" ubiquitous states.

hypotheses, assumptions!

(concerning the singularity, the big bang etc ...)

Hypothesis based on experiments, observations (see the works of E. Hubble on expansion, and not at all simple eccentric hypotheses!
The expansion of the Universe is a fact, as is the collapse of the wave function, quantum decoherence etc ... Research it!

So it's an animist belief, not a fact!

The human being acts and it is his action which has consequences on the biosphere for example, no god as far as I know?
Saying that we are the master of our own destiny is not an animist belief, is it?

Another formulation of the same discourse: what is called demiurge or eternal inflation.

If for you a cat and a toaster it's the same, ok, I bow!

I would say that this is also a simplifying vision. Anthropomorphization is a means, not a goal, it serves to "imagine" the unimaginable to make it concrete in everyday life and not to get lost in intellectual abstractions or pseudo-intellectual-metaphysical.

The means end up becoming goals, this is the case in religions as in the economy, with regard to anthropomorphism it must be understood that comparisons of this kind were aimed at introducing advanced concepts to populations for the most of them illiterate and with very limited knowledge.
This is no longer the case these days, so why continue on this path?

So coherent that despite multiple attempts no one has succeeded in proving or demonstrating it. So belief for belief: where is the difference?

Science has demonstrated a large number of physical processes in a short time, life being the most complex of them, so it still needs a little time before it can be demonstrated and experienced.
The Greeks postulated the existence of the atom more than 2 millennia ago!
Experience has only shown this in the last centuries!

This is what I have already said and said again.

(concerning logos)

What you said and said again is that the universe was created by a demiurge, I never saw you speak of logos ....?
Regarding the mixture of religion and science, which seem not to please you I must announce that the two converges, on condition of weeding religions of their simplisms.
If so many people do not want there to be rapprochement, it is simply so as not to fall from their pedestals!

In fact, it is not CONCRETELY comparable since it would require a so-called equivalent element of comparison. As for the “controlled” appellations, it doesn't matter.

In this case, why continue to use such naive comparisons?

[Janic]

Janic wrote:

This is the problem of experiments. They all start from pre-selected criteria and therefore generally lead to the objective set: the Miller example with its monomers supposed to be the basic building blocks of life and which have remained at this stage.

You endlessly bring out this story of experiments that should stick to beliefs, except it's the complete opposite of the history of quantum physics!

The world is not limited to quantum physics: luckily, by the way! It is the quoted physicist who affirms that quantum mechanics did not agree with the macro, not me!

At the beginning of the 20th century the scientific model was based on the deterministic materialist paradigm, all the experiments carried out had to stick with the vision of the moment, the experiment proved exactly the opposite!

Reread what I wrote above; the preselected criteria in fact guide the conclusions, no relation to a global determinism.

Quote:
I have already asked you: drop religions if you rely on scientific elements or drop scientific elements if you rely on religious texts. But we must stop this permanent mixture between the two.

The mixture of the two is called critical historical exegesis, that is to say to confront religion with history and science, and indeed this is what has always worried the different currents of thought, because for for them it sounds the death knell for their activities.

Except when this choice is made on a particular religious system by concealing, voluntarily or not, its origin. In the same way if we were to reject a system (religious in this case) for its abuses, we would also have to reject any civil power which over the centuries has recorded more suffering and death than all religious systems together.

Quote:
on the contrary ! This pushes back the response to a beyond or elsewhere DIMENSIONED. As a creationist, this intelligent design is beyond… not within…! This is let's say a theory which suggests that ...!

If we postulate the idea of ​​the infinite, the sacrosanct "why" loses all its value.
Indeed the questions, why? Why ? What purpose? Introduce the idea of ​​destination,

It is exact and even predestined

outside in the infinite its notions have no value ...

However, it would be necessary to know what infinity is… (which is only an abstraction as for time!) Which is no easier than knowing what would be god himself. But here, again, it is in consideration that this infinity is infinite by itself (which it is impossible to demonstrate). The other option is to consider that this infinity (therefore dimensionable) is only limited and therefore also a product, not a cause.

Quote:
You see the difficulty of language saying that the universe to ... It is to give it a decision-making power, therefore a demiurge like god! (or it's the same thing)

I do not see where the problem is, it is rather your obsession with wanting to introduce creationism everywhere that is causing concern.

Which is well worth this mania for hiding it in principle!

When we say that an electron revolves around the atomic nucleus, there is no "decision-making power" involved.

Of course not, since gravitation is determined by precise laws which are not linked to the decision of each of the elements by themselves and therefore therefore determined by an exterior mastering all these parameters. So a demiurge deciding on the functioning of this universe and its components and that Guillemant calls information outside of space / time.

Quote:
So it's an animist belief, not a fact!

The human being acts and it is his action which has consequences on the biosphere for example, no god as far as I know?

Rather the human being se persuades that its action depends on itself whereas it does nothing but fulfill its destiny like all that composes the universe. It would be chaos if everyone decided to modify the laws of the universe as they pleased.

Saying that we are the master of our own destiny is not an animist belief, is it?

The main thing is to define what underpins master of his destiny! The living being is the perfect example of absolute determinism where everything is fine as long as each of its parts fulfills its role and therefore its destiny. To deviate from this path means sickness, disorder and ultimately death: cancer is out! if to be master of one's destiny is to have the power to destroy, then it would have been better for him if he had had no freedom of choice. Because for the rest it cannot be healthier than being healthy.

Quote:
Another formulation of the same discourse: what is called demiurge or eternal inflation.

If for you a cat and a toaster it's the same, ok, I bow!

If you consider that everyone is someone's product: indeed it's the same! Same atomic structure, same mineral composition.
In addition (in the eyes of the law, ours) animals are furniture!

Quote:
I would say that this is also a simplifying vision. Anthropomorphization is a means, not a goal, it serves to "imagine" the unimaginable to make it concrete in everyday life and not to get lost in intellectual abstractions or pseudo-intellectual-metaphysical.

The means end up becoming goals, this is the case in religions as in the economy, with regard to anthropomorphism it must be understood that comparisons of this kind were aimed at introducing advanced concepts to populations for the most of them illiterate and with very limited knowledge.

because we believe that our knowledge beginnings are acceptable references ?! for a discovery, there are a thousand (and even infinitely more), which we ignore and will always ignore

This is no longer the case these days, so why continue on this path?

Because things are more understandable in a language accessible to everyone, the wise as well as the ignorant. If the form changes by the language used (more technical, more sophisticated) it in fact only expresses identical things: sweeper = surface technician!

Quote:
So coherent that despite multiple attempts no one has succeeded in proving or demonstrating it. So belief for belief: where is the difference?

Science has demonstrated a large number of physical processes in a short time, life being the most complex of them, so it still needs a little time before it can be demonstrated and experienced.

This is where human pride and vanity is found. Whenever men believed or pretended to do better than God, (nature for non-deists), it always resulted in a less, even a disaster and more particularly concerning life. One of the roles of ecology is precisely to demonstrate it.

The Greeks postulated the existence of the atom more than 2 millennia ago!
Experience has only shown this in the last centuries!

There is a major difference between discovering a reality and playing the sorcerer's apprentice. Demonstrate that life exists it has been for a long time with the cell, then DNA, etc.… but to play with pretext to reconstruct a complexity not even possible, there is a huge gap.

Quote:
This is what I have already said and said again.
(concerning logos)

What you said and said again is that the universe was created by a demiurge, I never saw you speak of logos ....?

We must then re-read " in the beginning was the verb, the verb was with god, the verb was god and they did not know him … ”Jeans 1

Regarding the mixture of religion and science, which seem not to please you I must announce that the two converges, on condition of weeding religions of their simplisms.

Disagree! one should not mix science and faith, one concerns the how, the other the why!
Above all, I want this permanent back and forth between the two to cease by referring to periods in history that are not to the positive credit of these (all confused) by concealing what they have brought of positive also. For my part, I do not differentiate between civil and religious power because their common point is precisely the race for power as does atheism in turn: one-eyed for the blind or vice versa ?!

If so many people do not want there to be rapprochement, it is simply so as not to fall from their pedestals!

Again this is a confusion! All systems, whatever they may have had their heyday and their decline (this is the great lesson of history) and religious systems are no exception. But as " nature abhors a vacuum A vacant power is immediately replaced by another system as eager for domination. Now what seeks to replace religious power? and in the name of what new god? However, a tree can be recognized by its fruits and not by its claim to be or not to be such.



Quote:
In fact, it is not CONCRETELY comparable since it would require a so-called equivalent element of comparison. As for the “controlled” appellations, it doesn't matter.


In this case, why continue to use such naive comparisons?
Naive in the eyes of some only. Can we consider that representing the space / time deformation by a mattress deforming under a load is a naive representation? Inevitably, but it is a simple means of popularizing the concept that few are able to disassemble mathematically. However, the image, as simple as it is, is sufficient to be explicit.

[sen-no-sen]

The world is not limited to quantum physics: luckily, by the way! It is the quoted physicist who affirms that quantum mechanics did not agree with the macro, not me!

Attention it is not quantum reality which does not agree with macro reality are the theoretical formalisms that don't stick together, astronomical nuance!

Reread what I wrote above; the preselected criteria in fact guide the conclusions, no relation to a global determinism.

You noted above that in a number of experiments the scientists oriented the results so that it is in agreement with their certainties, except as I mentioned quantum physics is THE bad example to quote, because at the origin the researchers wanted - on the contrary - to demonstrate the deterministic character prevailing in the atomic world, except it is quite the opposite which is produced!
Proof that the desire to direct research is not as significant as you seem to say.

The other option is to consider that this infinity (therefore dimensionable) is only limited and therefore also a product, not a cause.

A limited infinity is not infinite.
The surface of the earth can be traveled indefinitely, it is often presented as an infinite-finite ... but this is a pirouette of geometry, for the following reasons:
1) The circumference of a sphere (eg the earth) can be measured.
2) The earth is not eternal and therefore it is not possible to travel it indefinitely ...
It is therefore not about the Infinite in the sense that we understand it:a space that can be crossed for an eternity.
Infinity is not physics it is metaphysics, but some researchers like Andre linde likes to make incursions there.

Rather, the human being is persuaded that his action depends on himself while he is only fulfilling his destiny like everything that makes up the universe.

The notion of free will does not introduce the idea of ​​absolute freedom, but simply the exploration of possibilities, nu-ance!

If you consider that everyone is someone's product: indeed it's the same! Same atomic structure, same mineral composition.
In addition (in the eyes of the law, ours) animals are furniture!

I hope you don't say the same thing to your wife or your children!

because we believe that our knowledge beginnings are acceptable references ?!

For most of the phenomena surrounding us the answer is clearly and twice yes!
Between making a sacrifice in front of a statue to make the rain fall and understanding the meteorological mechanisms we can say that there is a world.
We can certainly put our knowledge into perspective, but it would be false to say that we know nothing, this type of talk simply allows certain people to continue to propagate their beliefs ...

If the form changes by the language used (more technical, more sophisticated) it in fact only expresses identical things: sweeper = surface technician!

We must not confuse "Newspeak" and analogies.
Furthermore, the subjects of its analogies should not be confused with each other.
To say that the soil liquefies following an earthquake as would a rise of coffee in a sugar dipped in a cup is a good analogy, because it is two comparable and measurable facts.
Ditto with the space-time comparison and deformed mattress, both are measurable.


Now to say that God (what is it?) To make the universe (for what purpose?) In the same way as a watchmaker makes a clock, it's just ... anything ...

There is a major difference between discovering a reality and playing the sorcerer's apprentice. Demonstrate that life exists that has long been with the cell, then DNA, etc.

My answer was not about GMOs and living modifications, but was about the idea that we will soon be able to prove that life is a logical physical process and not "luck".

We must then re-read "in the beginning was the verb, the verb was with god, the verb was god and they did not know him ..." jean 1

... it was precisely following my reference to the logos mentioned above ...

Disagree! one should not mix science and faith, one concerns the how, the other the why!

The famous separation of the magisteriums!
And under what laws would it be prohibited?
It is a typically Western and particularly Catholic vision.
While in India taught methods to access the absolute, the church prohibited any practice of meditation, considering it as satanic!
There are many teaching mixing science and religion, there is nothing wrong with that.
The idea is not to reduce faith to a science, but to build bridges between the two, nuance !!!

Now what seeks to replace religious power? and in the name of what new god? However, a tree can be recognized by its fruits and not by its claim to be or not to be such.

The new god is money, and growth and his messiah, but what does this have to do with what I mentioned?
If tomorrow we officially revealed the true scope of the biblical texts, the Pope would only have to point to unemployment!

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Janic wrote:
The world is not limited to quantum physics: luckily, by the way! It is the quoted physicist who affirms that quantum mechanics did not agree with the macro, not me!

Attention it is not the quantum reality which does not agree with the macro-reality are the theoretical formalisms which do not stick between them, astronomical nuance!

If Guillemant actually says that physicists rarely agree with each other, the quoted physicist emphasizes that it is the inadequacy of the micro quantum world with the macro, not of the forms used.

Quote:
Reread what I wrote above; the preselected criteria in fact guide the conclusions, no relation to a global determinism.

You noted above that in a number of experiments the scientists oriented the results so that it is in agreement with their certainties, except as I mentioned quantum physics is THE bad example to quote, because at the origin the researchers wanted - on the contrary - to demonstrate the deterministic character prevailing in the atomic world, except it is quite the opposite which is produced!
Proof that the desire to direct research is not as significant as you seem to affirm

.
This is called the exception that proves the rule. Not being a fan of quantum mechanics, I have no intention of trying it out, I only know classic industrial mechanics and, apart from a few exceptional cases, it is the general rule that apply it.

Quote:
The other option is to consider that this infinity (therefore dimensionable) is only limited and therefore also a product, not a cause.

A limited infinity is not infinite.

It is a view of the mind like infinity itself. We cannot define with accuracy which what is measurable, the rest is only an abstraction like the absolute, the eternal, time, god, etc.

It is therefore not a matter of Infinity in the sense that we understand it: a space that can be crossed by means of an eternity.
Infinity is not physics, it is metaphysics, but certain researchers like André Linde like to make incursions there.

Totally agree, therefore! What must be done: eliminate the term and what it implies is false in itself? Or use it despite everything despite its insufficient clarity?

The notion of free will does not introduce the idea of ​​absolute freedom, but simply of exploring possibilities, nuance!

Therein lies the difficulty because this notion of free will is purely abstract, intellectual since, except for ourselves, we believe that everything else must be determined to be functional, whether in pure mechanics or in biology. But for us it would be otherwise by a simple dogmatic assertion! A religious relic on the special status that humanity would have compared to the rest of the living world?

Quote:
If you consider that everyone is someone's product: indeed it's the same! Same atomic structure, same mineral composition.
In addition (in the eyes of the law, ours) animals are furniture!

I hope you don't say the same thing to your wife or your children!

They know me well enough to sort through.
It is not me who takes spare parts from a dead man to patch up a living in poor condition as is done with any mechanical machine. which highlights that human SE think of it as a machine.

Quote:
because we believe that our knowledge beginnings are acceptable references ?!

For most of the phenomena surrounding us the answer is clearly and twice yes!

When humans discovered the use of fire or the wheel, they probably had the same reaction!

Between making a sacrifice in front of a statue to make the rain fall and understanding the meteorological mechanisms we can say that there is a world.

And here we are again, the religious superstitions put forward! Believing scientists are the source of most of the scientific discoveries, which probably did not prevent them from practicing customs that surprised or disturbed today's strong minds; marriage, a religious institution; rest at the weekend: religious institution; the week itself; religious institution, etc… whereas it was the same individuals who yesterday were in charge of religious systems which are now in charge of current scientific knowledge and practices, they simply changed their hats.
Vaccination is the most striking example, it suffices to make a few incantations intended to frighten (illness, infection, death) and then reassure (protection, immunization, life) so that superstitious subjects believe in this a new way of exempting oneself from following healthy lifestyle rules that are sufficient in themselves; exactly as under the previous religious domination which also knew how to handle the carrot and the stick with art. And as if by chance this also involves bloody sacrifices on the altar of science and therefore a certain number of consecutive human deaths as well: Where is the difference?

We can certainly put our knowledge into perspective, but it would be false to say that we know nothing, this type of talk simply allows certain people to continue to propagate their beliefs ...

I did not say that we know nothing but that our knowledge is heartache compared to the immeasurable real knowledge that far exceeds our current skills, and that should encourage humility in the face of all our ignorance.

Quote:
If the form changes by the language used (more technical, more sophisticated) it in fact only expresses identical things: sweeper = surface technician!

We must not confuse "Newspeak" and analogies.
Furthermore, the subjects of its analogies should not be confused with each other.
Ditto with the space-time comparison and deformed mattress, both are measurable.

and who decides on the reliability of the analogies used?

Now to say that God (what is it?) To make the universe (for what purpose?) In the same way as a watchmaker makes a clock, it's just ... anything ...

You take the subject upside down, this is not to say that god made, which would be a way of claiming to have knowledge of it. It's the contrary ! A product implies a producer (however we describe the process in question). It is therefore the observation which induces the idea that ..! We recognize the reality of a worker only in the work he trained, not the reverse.
Then call that god, chance or any other term is semantics. When we don't want to say a cabbage, we say a crucifer and even decline it in all the languages ​​of this earth: it will remain a cabbage.

Quote:
There is a major difference between discovering a reality and playing the sorcerer's apprentice. Demonstrate that life exists that has long been with the cell, then DNA, etc.

My answer was not about GMOs and living modifications, but was about the idea that we will soon be able to prove that life is a logical physical process and not "luck".

Elementary my dear Watson ! Of course it follows a logical physical process! A computer also follows a logical physical process, and yet that remains only a heap of junk designed and produced by creators. Even if our researchers discovered through the menu the living that would remain a dead letter as long as life itself escaped them. An automobile as well designed as it may be would be nothing but a heap of scrap metal motionless along the sidewalk even if we would describe it through the menu the possible functionalities and science is and will remain incompetent to explain why it leaves its immobility.

Quote:
We must then re-read "in the beginning was the verb, the verb was with god, the verb was god and they did not know him ..." jean 1

... it was precisely following my reference to the logos mentioned above ...

No, of course ! reread what's distant now
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://for ... 0-IhFuW--g
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://for ... jhu5ZKbXfg
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://for ... Hiy5a-MECA
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://for ... vU0i7VRUJg

Quote:
Disagree! one should not mix science and faith, one concerns the how, the other the why!

And under what laws would it be prohibited?

It is not forbidden, but confusion to avoid! The believing scientists cited are an example of the cohabitation of the two, but not of their mixture.

While in India taught methods to access the absolute, the church prohibited any practice of meditation, considering it as satanic!

Again the Catholic Church is not a reference in itself. It represents a certain type of beliefs, of practices which are specific to it, it is only to see the multitude of religions "Christian" or not which diverge widely from this religion.

There are many teaching mixing science and religion, there is nothing wrong with that.

It is not a question of evil or not (evil being an arbitrary concept moreover). To use an example previously cited; science explains how things are like any material, faith explains its use, its why!

The idea is not to reduce faith to a science, but to build bridges between the two, nuance !!!

Faith is precisely not an "objective" science but an intuition coupled with experiments far from retorts and more or less sophisticated devices of human achievements. (Read again what the believing scientists mentioned say) and this is not limited to religions or anti-religions but to individuals created whatever their beliefs or unbeliefs.

Quote:
Now what seeks to replace religious power? and in the name of what new god? However, a tree can be recognized by its fruits and not by its claim to be or not to be such.

The new god is money, and growth and his messiah, but what does this have to do with what I mentioned?

Money is only one god among many others and it is not specific to our time.
I was talking about replacing the religious power which was exercised over the populations, but also which conditioned individuals in universities to make them servile servants of dogma. Who are these universities currently responsible for? What do we teach in place of previous lessons, etc.?

If tomorrow we officially revealed the true scope of the biblical texts, the Pope would only have to point to unemployment!

Again this reduction to the Catholic Church and its official representative! The world does not stop at this sect!
The pope is the bearer of the specific message of a system like Guillemant (or anyone else, whatever the names) is the bearer of another message referring to another system and this is fortunate because it expresses diversity of beliefs and the ability to compare them. Unfortunately this is rarely the case since each system self-references.

[sen-no-sen]

Attention it is not the quantum reality which does not agree with the macro-reality are the theoretical formalisms which do not stick between them, astronomical nuance!

Do not confuse the subject of study and the study of the subject!
When we say that general relativity is not compatible with quantum physics, it is a figure of speech, in fact no scientists have yet managed to harmonize the two theories, that's all.
Nature is fortunately compatible in its global micro and macro!

Not being a fan of quantum mechanics, I have no intention of trying it out, I only know classic industrial mechanics and, apart from a few exceptional cases, it is the general rule that apply it.

What general rule? ... the "surprises" of the discovery are, on the contrary, very often in contradiction with current beliefs: eg with general relativity, cosmological inflation, the "Big Bang" etc ...

It is a view of the mind like infinity itself. We can only accurately define what is measurable, the rest is only an abstraction like the absolute, the eternal, time, god, etc.

Absolutely, hence the idea of ​​wanting to abandon a demiurgic or scientific explanation of the appearance of the Universe.

Totally agree, therefore! What must be done: eliminate the term and what it implies is false in itself? Or use it despite everything despite its insufficient clarity?

For many physicists, infinity is a bad word!
In physics it is clear that this term must be evacuated, in fact introducing the notion of infinity means that everything is realized and therefore that everything can exist, that is to say that there would be infinities of ourselves identical elsewhere. .or is the science in there?
The idea is not false, since it is precisely unprovable, but it simply goes beyond the framework of science!

A religious relic on the special status that humanity would have compared to the rest of the living world?

Remainder or observation?
Who has the most freedom, a earthworm or a human?

I did not say that we know nothing but that our knowledge is skin of sorrow compared to the immeasurable of the real knowledge which exceeds, and by far, our current competences. And that should incite humility in the face of our ignorance.

I obviously agree with you, however, and by remaining on a limiting scale, we are however able to explain a lot of things and silence many superstitions.

and who decides on the reliability of the analogies used?

Facts!

You take the subject upside down, this is not to say that god made, which would be a way of claiming to have knowledge of it. It's the contrary ! A product implies a producer (however we describe the process in question). It is therefore the observation which induces the idea that ..!

Yes this is analogous deduction reasoning, but is it so correct?
One should not confuse a principle and an analogical belief.
Our conception of reality is based on the activity of the mind.
This activity is based on the idea that everything has an origin, due to our situation in time space: we come from our parents, who themselves were theirs etc ... until the origin of humanity ..
Where does a tree come from? From a seed! Where does the seed come from? From a tree previously appeared ...
We can obviously hold the same (just) speech for an object, a machine etc ...
However, all of its things are complex, and strangely it is affable with a simplistic comparison.

Now let's take the example of the water cycle which is quite relevant: where does water come from? from a source ... where does the source come from? Rain..And rain? From a cloud ... and the cloud? Evaporation from the sea (for example), and the sea where does it come from? From a river? And the river? ... From the source!
Any question related to the origin of water is found - whatever its form (solid or gaseous liquid) contained in a global process located everywhere. (the whole)
If we limit ourselves to the water cycle, this has no origin.
Of course we know that water is a chemical combination which comes from other elements, but the water cycle introduces a notion of origin which changes from the classical vision.
We can hold the same reasoning of a human being, composed of water and carbon ...

What if the same was true of the Universe?
By what right should there be no references other than the simplistic notion of anticipation?

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Janic wrote:
Attention it is not the quantum reality which does not agree with the macro-reality are the theoretical formalisms which do not stick between them, astronomical nuance!

Do not confuse the subject of study and the study of the subject!
When we say that general relativity is not compatible with quantum physics, it is a figure of speech, in fact no scientists have yet succeeded to harmonize the two theories, that's all.

Just as no scientist has succeeded in harmonizing the synthesis of certain molecules and life. So, you who are in the permanent demand for proofs, they are missing as terribly as those on evolution, apart from some abstractions or assumptions. So, in the immediate future, we must stick to physical, very material evidence.

Nature is fortunately compatible in its global micro and macro!

Nature: yes! because its complexity undermines our theories and assumptions as Darwin noted

Quote:
Not being a fan of quantum mechanics, I have no intention of trying it out, I only know classic industrial mechanics and, apart from a few exceptional cases, it is the general rule that apply it.

What general rule? ... the "surprises" of the discovery are, on the contrary, very often in contradiction with current beliefs: eg with general relativity, cosmological inflation, the "Big Bang" etc ...

A ratio must be made between a few rare discoveries ... by chance (having regard to the number of researchers in ALL fields) and the overall research which is subject to directives and money, honors, etc ... the exception thus confirming the rule!

Quote:
It is a view of the mind like infinity itself. We can only accurately define what is measurable, the rest is only an abstraction like the absolute, the eternal, time, god, etc.

Absolutely, hence the idea of ​​wanting to abandon a demiurgic or scientific explanation of the appearance of the Universe.

Simplistic and simplifying vision once again!
Amazing! Should we abandon an unverifiable formula (materially) in favor of other equally unverifiable formulas? On what criteria? Does it bother us so much that we are not free to do what we want to be wayward kids? Look around and see the results!

Quote:
Totally agree, therefore! What must be done: eliminate the term and what it implies is false in itself? Or use it despite everything despite its insufficient clarity?

For many physicists, infinity is a bad word!
In physics it is clear that this term must be evacuated, indeed introducing the notion of infinity means that everything is realized and therefore that everything can exist, that is to say that there would exist infinities of ourselves identical elsewhere ... where is the science inside?
The idea is not false, since it is precisely unprovable, but it simply goes beyond the framework of science!

for example using the word infinity refers to this big word in question!
And at the same time to express the same idea, each has recourse to bulky substitution formulas such as: beyond the cosmic horizon or information outside of space time, etc ... this is called drowning the fish!

Quote:
A religious relic on the special status that humanity would have compared to the rest of the living world?

Remainder or observation?

Observation of a balance!

Who has the most freedom, a earthworm or a human?

Neither ! Their status as living places them on the same plane. But we often confuse state and function!

Quote:
I did not say that we know nothing but that our knowledge is skin of sorrow compared to the immeasurable of the real knowledge which exceeds, and by far, our current competences. And that should incite humility in the face of our ignorance.

I obviously agree with you, however, and by remaining on a limiting scale, we are however able to explain a lot of things and silence many superstitions.

What is a superstition? you must be reserved with this term which implies a deviation of ...! But for that we need a reference of what is not deviated and there .....! it is more difficult than it seems since humanly everyone, who does not share the opinion of others, tends to use this term wrongly!
superstition: Deviation of religious feeling, based on fear or ignorance and which lends sanctity to certain practices, obligations.
Guillemant attributes the term religion to materialist science ... like what!

Quote:
and who decides on the reliability of the analogies used?

Facts!

Rebelotte, the facts in themselves are insufficient, they must be the object of interpretation and there everyone can have his own and that does not solve anything however.

Quote:
You take the subject upside down, this is not to say that god made, which would be a way of claiming to have knowledge of it. It's the contrary ! A product implies a producer (however we describe the process in question). It is therefore the observation which induces the idea that ..!

Yes this is analogous deduction reasoning, but is it so correct?

It is fair ... depending on the facts!

However, all of its things are complex, and strangely it is affable with a simplistic comparison.

You have to differentiate between a simplistic comparison and a simplifying comparison. E = MC2 is it a simple or simplistic reduction (simple in the extreme) of a whole complex demonstration?

By what right should there be no references other than the simplistic notion of anticipation?

Of course you need other references than the notion of prior art and place them on the same equivalence plan with the prior art. Without element of comparison: no comparison possible and therefore totalitarian dogmatism. Afterwards, as in politics, everyone appropriates what suits him best.

Where does a tree come from? From a seed! Where does the seed come from? From a tree previously appeared ...
We can obviously hold the same (just) speech for an object, a machine etc ...

This is also where Darwin and his successors came up against what did not fit the evolutionary discourse. Robots making robots would pose the same problem: where do these robots come from? Other robots! And where these robots come from: other robots, etc ...
But we know (because we are not taking the train in motion but at its departure station) that these robots were designed by humans with an "intelligent design". Same logical thing for the hen or the egg: making the first hen (like the first robot) allows you to start the whole process of reproduction (or self-organization according to your formula).

[sen-no-sen]

Amazing! Should we abandon an unverifiable formula (materially) in favor of other equally unverifiable formulas? On what criteria?

What criteria? Well those of science, since this is a scientific question, if any discourse as far-fetched as it was was placed on the same level of equality as the others we would quickly arrive at a society of anything! ... Fortunately natural selection favors the most demonstrative and effective theses and the others are abandoned ...

And at the same time to express the same idea, each has recourse to bulky substitution formulas such as: beyond the cosmic horizon or information outside of space time, etc ... this is called drowning the fish!

This is called scientific rigor.
If you told someone that the address they are looking for is somewhere in France you will not really help them, now if you correctly inform this person using a specific address their search will be refined, hence the need for employee specific terms.

Neither ! Their status as living places them on the same plane. But we often confuse state and function!

It's quite funny to see that you answer next to the plate just to be in contradiction with my words!
Man and earthworms are animals and are part of a biotope, my question is not about the idea that one is superior to the other, but that one has a horizontal evolution and the other vertical.
Man is endowed with an ability to act which allows him to direct his destiny, which is hardly the case with a earthworm which is exclusively driven by genetic determinism and natural selection.
When mentioned in the TA: And Elohim said: "let us make man in our image" it means that humans have the capacity to be able to create (actualize) a potential in the same way as the universe has actualize our reality.
I don't think a worm is this ability.

What is a superstition? you must be reserved with this term which implies a deviation of ...! But for that we need a reference of what is not deviated and there .....! it is more difficult than it seems since humanly everyone, who does not share the opinion of others, tends to use this term wrongly!

You quibble!
I am referring to history, this one shows us that through the ages many superstitious beliefs without foundations have served to terrify populations.

Rebelotte, the facts in themselves are insufficient, they must be the object of interpretation and there everyone can have his own and that does not solve anything however.

You fall back into your faults: the facts are never the facts.
If the deep nature of reality escapes us it is possible for us to explain a certain number of phenomena, but as I have already said this type of discourse is particularly opportune to allow some to peddle arguments without foundations!

Same logical thing for the chicken or the egg: making the first chicken (like the first robot) allows to start the whole process of reproduction (or self-organization according to your formula).

Only in causal vision ...

"Man always attaches an effect to a cause, and since the cause itself must have a cause, this argument becomes interminable. By attaching an effect to a cause, man is forced to think. Finally, he is led. to find out who he is himself.When he knows the Self, he reaches perfect peace. It is only to achieve this perfection that man must evolve. "
Ramana Maharshi

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Janic wrote:

Amazing! Should we abandon an unverifiable formula (materially) in favor of other equally unverifiable formulas? On what criteria?

What criteria? Well those of science, since this is a scientific question, if any discourse as far-fetched as it was was placed on the same level of equality as the others we would quickly arrive at a society of anything! ... Fortunately natural selection favors the most demonstrative and effective theses and the others are abandoned ...

There is science and science then as for HIV where certain scientists are persuaded of its existence and other scientists persuaded of its nonexistence: where is the eccentric discourse?

Quote:
And at the same time to express the same idea, each has recourse to bulky substitution formulas such as: beyond the cosmic horizon or information outside of space time, etc ... this is called drowning the fish!

This is called scientific rigor.
If you told someone that the address they are looking for is somewhere in France you will not really help them, now if you correctly inform this person using a specific address their search will be refined, hence the need for employee specific terms.

Not quite since many formulas are used to designate one and the same thing (for these physicists mentioned) as an address should be. If the information was also nebulous for the average citizen, he would not find the place in question.

Quote:
Neither ! Their status as living places them on the same plane. But we often confuse state and function!

It's quite funny to see that you answer next to the plate just to be in contradiction with my words!
Man and earthworms are animals and are part of a biotope, my question is not about the idea that one is superior to the other, but that one has a horizontal evolution and the other vertical.

Only when we refer to the discourse on progressive evolution with the transition from horizontality to verticality. As a creationist, humans are created vertically, so no evolutionary passage!

Man is endowed with an ability to act which allows him to direct his destiny, which is hardly the case with a earthworm which is exclusively driven by genetic determinism and natural selection.

This is a typically “human” discourse: what do we know about the capacity of a earthworm compared to humans since the latter wants to be judged and gone? (As if humans were not genetically determined!) But earthworms did not invent roller skates or television, if that is the capacity to act: poor of us!

When it is mentioned in the OT: And Elohim says: "let us make man in our image" it means that the human has the capacity to be able to create (actualize) a potential in the same way as the universe has to actualize our reality.

Re bombastic speech; updated rather than create ! But let's move on! Nowhere is it mentioned that the human is endowed with a capacity to create in the manner of god, the let's make man in our image is completed by " and that it dominates over the fish of the sea, etc…. " Followed by : " Order all the animals that move on the earth, etc.… ”Thus emphasizing that god is the chief, the father, the demiurge of all his creation and the maintenance in condition and asks the human to do the same. (this particular dimension is repeated throughout the texts of both TA and NT)

Quote:
What is a superstition? you must be reserved with this term which implies a deviation of ...! But for that we need a reference of what is not deviated and there .....! it is more difficult than it seems since humanly everyone, who does not share the opinion of others, tends to use this term wrongly!

You quibble!
I am referring to history, this one shows us that through the ages many superstitious beliefs without foundations have served to terrify populations.
I especially try to keep the weight and meaning of the words, it's their role! But having said that, it is true that many beliefs have served and still serve to terrify and enslave humans. But no field escapes it: politics, finance, medicine, religion, etc. The problem is that none of the practitioners in these fields consider themselves to believe in superstitious doctrines. It is one of the faults of the human race! (I took the example of vaccines because it is characteristic of this kind of superstition and which is the most shared dogma in the medical community and it is the minorities who disagree with the dogma who are considered fanatic, extremists , etc… Hence: where is the real superstition!

Quote:
Rebelotte, the facts in themselves are insufficient, they must be the object of interpretation and there everyone can have his own and that does not solve anything however.

You fall back into your faults: the facts are never the facts.

For the Nth time!
it's not about the facts themselves but from the interpretation of these by those who are professionally and therefore scientifically able to provide another look at them. So we have to stop saying baseless.

Quote:
Same logical thing for the chicken or the egg: making the first chicken (like the first robot) allows to start the whole process of reproduction (or self-organization according to your formula).

Only in causal vision ...

Inevitably! It is concrete, verifiable biology!

"Man always attaches an effect to a cause, and since the cause itself must have a cause, this argument becomes interminable. By attaching an effect to a cause, man is forced to think. Finally, he is led. to discover who he is himself. When he knows the Self, he attains perfect peace. It is only to achieve this perfection that man must evolve. "
Ramana Maharshi

Nice philosophical discourse when one seeks to know if there is a primary cause or not.

[sen-no-sen]

Only when we refer to the discourse on progressive evolution with the transition from horizontality to verticality. As a creationist, humans are created vertically, so no evolutionary passage!

All humans are both horizontal (genetic determinism) and potentially vertical.
The latter is not acquired, hence the notion of an evolution (as mentioned by the Maharshi) of man towards something else, Nietzsche spoke of "superman".

Re bombastic speech; updated rather than created! But let's move on! Nowhere is it mentioned that humans have an ability to create in the manner of God,

Hence the term update rather than creation.
When you make a cake, you create absolutely nothing, you inform about the already existing material, it is the same for all our inventions.
What is quite funny is that you have been striving for around thirty messages to explain that God created the Universe just as man creates objects, except here you explain that this is not the case , so thank you for sharing my vision!

thus emphasizing that god is the chief, the father, the demiurge of all his creation and the maintenance in state and asks the human to do the same.

The literalist interpretation of passing from genesis has done a lot of harm to our animal friends ...
This reading of the texts is typically primate, God is the dominant, man is subject to God and animals are subject to men..hum hum!
Fortunately, the deeper meaning is more subtle!

Inevitably! It is concrete, verifiable biology!

(about the chicken and the egg).

The hen comes from the egg which is laid by another hen ... if we go back very far we come to a previous volatile species, itself laying eggs, then to a reptile ascendant, fish until the first forms of lives ... themselves resulting from biochemical, chemical and atomic constituents born in the stellar furnace and fruit of nucleosynthesis all this up to the initial singularity, "beyond" which neither space nor time have of significance ...in all cases the mental perception loses all reference, and no more referencing is then possible ...

Nice philosophical discourse when one seeks to know if there is a primary cause or not.

(about the quote from R.Maharshi).

Simple speech?
Whether one is an atheist or a theist, every step of authentic research of origins, whether scientific or empirical, leads humans irreparably to their deep nature.
In this sense, the sciences as well as the spiritualities will end sooner or later - if they are removed from their fundamentalist vision - towards the same Reality.