Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by Kenisaw]

Will, it is critical if this conversation is going to move forward that you understand and accept two important things:

I don't believe any conversation between you and I (and our subsequent positions, obviously) are ever going to 'move forward' Ken. Indeed I have stated more than once that we simply go around in circular argument.
I think what you probably mean is that 'in order for this conversation to veer toward your objective (which is for me to agree only with your position and convert to that) I am 'going to have to accept' two important (to you) things.

1) There is no data or evidence, and no good logical reason, to assume that this universe is created (meaning purposefully brought into existence). You really need to let that go. You are making a claim that cannot be justified, yet you use it as a pillar of your arguments.

You mean scientific evidence Ken? Is there really any point in reminding you again of the difference between philosophical insight and scientific evidence? I don't think that there is. Like I said already Ken;

You are most comfortable inclining towards science alone and leaving the 'we don't know' to itself. Personally I have absolutely no problems with anyone assuming such position. For me though it is akin to leaving the imagination basically inert, which fells very unnatural at that. I enjoy the philosophical idea of assuming a creator being and working things out from that perspective - while incorporating science into that.

It is important to note though that the universe, as the saying goes, is under no obligation to make sense to us.

Why is that 'important to note'?

Despite the valid logic that argues against eternal things, it could still be possible that an eternal thing (be it a universe, creator god, or anything else) can exist and can reach a point in its existence where this particular universe could begin. How that could be I don't know, but we can't rule it out, and we reason why we can't rule it out is because we have no idea about things pre-Big Bang. That void in our knowledge makes it impossible to rule anything out, even if it is not logical to humans at this time.

Yes. So it stays on the table.

No, I am consistently applying the same logic to everything labeled "eternal".

Then you have ignored my own explanation as to the differences between the created and the non created creator.

No, a creator being that has always existed cannot reach a point in it's existence where it gets around to creating a universe.

Lets see your explanation then...

If a creator being has always existed, it would have to have an infinite amount of existence before it reaches the moment that it creates the universe.

Why would you think that?

It could never get to that moment of its existence because of the infinite existing it would have to do before then.

You are speaking in terms of time, and apparently linear at that. Obviously such a thing only comes into play when there is a beginning Ken.

When there is no beginning, then being eternal is not subject to those notions of time in which something which has a beginning is subject to.

A creator entity who has never had a beginning can indeed create at any point in Its existence. The reason for that is that the 'any point' isn't about time. It is about an action of creation.
The potential to create this universe has always existed. The actuality comes into play when the universe had been set into motion at its beginning - the potential was thus actualized at some point. Not a point in 'time' just at the point of doing so.

It could never get to that moment of its existence because of the infinite existing it would have to do before then. It's no different than an always existing universe reaching the point just before the Big Bang.

This is where you conflate the two ideas.

Consciousness as something which has always existed, does not have the same properties as the physical universe. The physical is created within the mind of the creator (as per my theology) and in that, (from the perspective of being within the universe) it appears to have come from nowhere - based on the data we have which we gathered well after the BB event.

One can argue that the whole universe was a thought the creator had and just from that thought, it 'began' and unfolded and dissipated all within the blink of an eye - so to speak.
In other words, it 'already happened' and we are simply experiencing it in 'real time' as it were. We are the aspect of GOD consciousness which went into Its creation to experience it - not simply as a momentary blink of an eye thought - but as something to experience in absolute detail. A product of that thought.

This type of process could be going on in countless variety of other thoughts of the creator, each one bringing forth a universe which can be explored in every conceivable detail within the leisurely confines of their own 'space-times'.

Now of course, I take liberties in being very extreme in relation to a type of process, but do so to at least get the gist of the capabilities of mind and creativity of First Source by taking all the infinite potential universes and having each and every one of them simultaneously begin (come into being) and in that one splendid moment of infinity, all potential becomes real as an infinite process which has always been going on and will always go on - in an eternal moment, as it were.

Point being, we cannot simply say the universe came from nowhere and neither can we assume that just because this universe had a beginning does not mean it wasn't created.

Now can you explain to me wherein the above philosophical insight, science has any part to play? Certainly it is not in stating that the philosophy is not sound and logical enough.

The part science plays is in investigating the reality this universe offers to the consciousnesses experiencing it from inside of it.

That is where science must always stay. It is pointless and remiss for anyone to try and use science to dismiss sound logical physiological ideas about how the the universe may well have come into existence. Conflating can only result from such a practice, as has been evident in your replies so far.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Kenisaw]

I agree with most of this, although I would state that I don't think it is possible to say that science can never do anything in due time.

'Due time' may be relative to various situations. It may be that there is the generally known science and then there is privately funded science which might even be ahead in terms of knowledge.

But from what I gather of the nature of this universe, species related science will be varied depending on the evolutionary position of each particular species - which is also what prompted me to start this thread in the members chat forum;
The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally
The explanation which involves science rather than magic

As long as there is consciousness within this universe, science will naturally accompany that and logical conclusions related to this will be drawn ahead of time.

As long as there is a way to investigate it, science can test it. One day we may be able to test and verify theories about how the maze started and where it came from. We certainly can't do that now of course, but I would not deem to totally exclude that possibility from occurring in the future.

It may have already been accomplished by a more ancient species even.

The only reason science favors the Big Bang is because that theory explains the data and evidence the best. If it didn't offer the best explanation, it would not be favored. To be honest, I think once someone figures out how quantum mechanics, relativity, and gravity go together, the BB will be replaced by a new theory.

If that is to be the case, it would have to involve something other than it is the evidence of the universes beginning.

And that is your right to do that. The problem from my perspective is that you are building something with a foundation that is purely speculative. I don't see that as an efficient use of resources or time.

Well that is simply a judgment call on your part. What would YOU have me do with my time and why would that be any better than what i already do with my time and how can you make such a call when you do not even know what it is that I do with my time?
All you are really doing there is implying that to bother thinking in philosophical terms is a waste of anyone's time.

A judgmental opinion rather than anything substantially relevant.

To me the effort is only worth it if I know I have something to build off of.

Would the world be a far better place if everyone was like you then? What say when you die, you discover you aren't dead at all but just in another type of reality experience? Will you kick yourself for believing there was no such possibility because you believed that you were just a product of a brain? Will you wonder then as to the validity of building off of only that which you could use in regard to this present experience alone?

Please understand that I agree that it is my problem.

Please understand that i don't see why it has to be a problem at all. your's or anyone else's.

A lot of people read these threads as "visitors" to this website, which means there could be people out there who are unsure about various things, looking for information and views. So my effort is just as much to help them see a scientific point of view and why I think it is a more logical starting point compared to theistic ones.

Whereas I don't see the problem in incorporating both positions into a singular idea. I don't want people thinking either/or as if there were an actual competition going on, as that is the completely wrong way to approach the complexity of our collective reality.

I sincerely believe the more logical and rational people are, the better off the human race is. Religions and theisms are not logical and rational, and I think people are better off without them.

Thus you are combative in your approach and general mannerisms. Some will be attracted to that, others repulsed. Me, it has no affect either way, and those are the kinds of people my approach will be attracted to.

I fail to see any threat you perceive in my particular theology. Certainly it appears to be that you see a threat because your approach seems to paint all theologies with the same brush.

I don't ever expect to change anyone's mind at any of the forums I visit. The only person that can change a mind is the owner of the mind. All I do is plant seeds, and let their subconscious chew on the information I've written.

Certainly we are no different in that regard.

Your way of thinking may very well be expanded, but that doesn't make it worthwhile, accurate, or plausible. Please don't think, by the way, that because I don't agree with your theism that equates to the idea that I haven't thought about it, or explored it in any way. I don't find fault in things because they don't agree with my worldview, I find fault in them because I've examined them and found them to be faulty.

By all means, if you find fault in my theology, do point it out.

Sure it is limited. The physical environment of the brain is what limits it. There's no reason to think consciousness is not tied to the physical.

Indeed, for the duration of one's life-time, this is largely the case. Brains may look the same, but like everything in this universe, they are all unique. However, we are not necessarily bound to the physical in that we are unable to experience other types of realities. These types of experiences are regarded by many to be precursors to what is generically referred to as 'afterlife'.
While the limitation of consciousness in relation to its direct environment (in our case, the human instrument) is a major factor, consciousness can and does find ways around such limitations. This involves WILL, which is a fundamental element of consciousness. A handy tool when used correctly.

Thanks for the info.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry Will, but that is just pure nonsense. In 2011 alone there were 25,000 papers published with the word "neuron" in the title. If you include "neural" or "neuronal" or "brain" that number triples to 75,000. If just 13% of those were related to the working of the brain, that makes 10,000 different research papers being published for review and critique. "Woefully lacking in scientific data"? That's a ludicrous statement.

What I said was;

Woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

If you are now claiming that all these papers do in fact show without shadow of a doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe, then I stand corrected.

Otherwise, my statement stands.

What none of these papers finds from the data and evidence is that conscious exists separately from the brain, as you like to claim. There is no support for such conjecture.

There it is then you see. Those papers don't say any such thing. The reason for this has already been mentioned numerous times. You are conflating science with philosophical conjecture. You are expect the reader to side with scientific conclusions which naturally enough exclude philosophical conjecture as part of scientific studies, BECAUSE scientific method is simply UNABLE to go there.

There is no known scientific way of measuring philosophical conjecture, but this does not equate to philosophical conjecture being irrelevant! Except obviously to you and those of your ilk.

Thus my statement stands, and for good measure, I will quote it again.

As far as the brain and consciousness goes, we are woefully lacking in scientific data which can show us without any doubt that consciousness is emergent of the brain rather than that which uses the brain (and body) as a vehicle or suit - as an instrument which enables experience and discovery at the infinitesimal levels we are at within this universe.

Thus, the notion (that consciousness is NOT emergent of the brain) is still very much on the table.

That we have just scratched the surface of brain research doesn't make it logical to insert a god of the gaps style negative evidence claim that consciousness is not tied to the brain. Instead of focusing on a supposed woeful lack of evidence that removes all doubt, you might want to focus on the COMPLETE ABSENCE of data that supports consciousness as a stand alone thing outside the physical body.

Only...well... your claim that there is a "COMPLETE ABSENCE of data that supports consciousness as a stand alone thing outside the physical body" is only applicable to scientific method, which involves itself primarily with objectively testable measuring.

In reality many individuals have and continue to have subjective experience which they consider to be DATA and just as relevant as any scientific based data, and no amount of criticism will have any affect on their knowing what they have experienced is REAL.

Not even accusations of mental illness, or advice on seeing doctors and taking pills or being belittled in forums etc et al is ever going to convince them that their experiences are just 'products of the brain'.

Sorry mate, it just isn't going to happen. And certainly if I have any task to fulfill, it is to give the reader the opportunity to learn to understand why such things happen to them which don't involve hand-waving away their subjective experiences as mere brain induced delusions which they need to seek 'professional help' for. I wouldn't want that on my rap-sheet carrying over into any afterlife experience.

All said and done, scientist should stick to saying what they observe and leaving out their personal interpretations of what they think the observations must actually have to be.

Well naturally you would argue that. When in doubt, create another speculative unsupported characteristic about baseless claims of design that explain away objections to previous claims. When one operates outside of the realm of the verifiable, there is no limit to the things that can be said...

And naturally you would respond with such a factious reply.
But regardless of that, my statement regarding dreams is relevant. You claimed it was not possible, and I pointed out that it is. You moaning about that in the manner you have done here, in no way changes that.

We can't assume that nothing doesn't exist.

Explain to me what you think 'nothing' is and we can examine the notion together.

I see no reason to assume that death is going to lead to further information.

Just because it's on the table doesn't mean it belongs there, Will.

It is on the table, because it is not known one way or the other if that will be the case. That you see no reason to assume that death is going to lead to further information Ken, does't mean it won't be the case and it doesn't belong on the table.

[Clownboat]

It is on the table, because it is not known one way or the other if that will be the case. That you see no reason to assume that death is going to lead to further information Ken, does't mean it won't be the case and it doesn't belong on the table.

Then any old idea that we don't know is also on the table.
William, with this criteria you posit, your table is so cluttered that there would be no table to behold. How would we even pick an idea to begin with?

Shouldn't there at least be a reason to put something on the table besides, "you don't know if that is the case or not"?
If the best you have for your proposition is, "you don't know, therefore I'm justified putting it forth", then perhaps the said idea doesn't belong on the table after all? Even if you really, really, really want it to be true.

With that said, is there anything beside "you don't know my claim is wrong" that you have to offer about obtaining information after we die?

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Clownboat]

Then any old idea that we don't know is also on the table.

Not really Clownboat, The expression 'on the table' was brought into the discussion by Ken and in that, the things we don't know for sure one way or another, are those things which are 'still on the table'.

'Any old idea' as you put it, can be indexed under the few headings which are left on the table.
For example, under the heading 'Afterlife' there can be a great number of 'any old ideas' but it is not until one studies those different ideas and through that examination forms a coherent picture of the most likely thing that occurs when someone exits their dead body and moves into the next phase of experience.

Even in Christian beliefs there are a number of ideas about afterlife which differ from group to group.

Off the top of my head, these include the most popular - heaven for the few faithful and hell for the rest...

But also, heaven for everyone;

Heaven for the few and annihilation for the rest;

An earthly paradise for the few who are resurrected from the dead and continued everlasting death for the rest...

etc...

But of course, there are more accounts to be had in other theist belief systems.

Even the atheist beliefs which claim that there is nothing more to be experience once the person dies can be filed under that heading.

One area which is often either overlooked or demonized by organised religion is the Astral, and stories from those who experience 'Astral Travel'.

So yes - all these ideas and stories etc do represent what you speak of as 'any old idea that we don't know' but they all can be classified under the same heading 'Afterlife' and that is still on the table.

William, with this criteria you posit, your table is so cluttered that there would be no table to behold. How would we even pick an idea to begin with?

Clownboat - the table is not cluttered. There are only a few 'files' - and those 'files' may contain a lot of information which can appear to be 'clutter' but the idea is to investigate said information to determine if there is anything which can be determined therein.
The argument in this, revolves around whether certain subjects on the table are unable to be allocated to scientific evaluation, and if not, are they useful. The answer is that they are or are not 'useful' depending on 'whatever rocks your boat' so to speak, which in itself is here nor there in establishing the 'right' way for an individual to proceed. Science can only go so far and when it comes to these philosophical questions which it cannot as yet answer - such questions remain off limit to scientific process, but certainly not 'off the table.'

Shouldn't there at least be a reason to put something on the table besides, "you don't know if that is the case or not"?

Not at all. that is precisely why they are also on the table. The individual can decide for their self which files to be interested in and which ones to avoid through lack of interest or because they are in the 'too hard basket' or whatever other reason the individual can come up with - hopefully which doesn't involve judgement calls based upon personal preferences with the thinking that everyone should follow suit, or if they don't then they are somehow inferior.

If the best you have for your proposition is, "you don't know, therefore I'm justified putting it forth", then perhaps the said idea doesn't belong on the table after all? Even if you really, really, really want it to be true.

What you are proposing is simply having two tables. One for 'science' and the other for 'philosophy' and no connection between the two.

If that seems sensible to you, then practice it - if indeed you can.

In the meantime, my theology connects the two in a manner which does not see these subjects as being separate at all. They are simply tools which are useful in the fields in which they are applicable, but the fields are related and cannot really be separated. Theology (a branch of the philosophical) cannot resist interacting with the skeptic who interprets the science to be saying 'there is no GOD, no Afterlife, no intelligent purpose to life, etc et al just as surely as the skeptic cannot resist said interaction either.

On the surface, this can be interpreted as ego-driven adolescent behavior - addictive and entertaining and tragically circular. But at deeper levels it represents the *collective consciousness of human evolution and while questions remain unsatisfactorily answered - or not answered at all, this interaction will remain, barring the unfortunate event of mass self destruction. War (fighting) has many levels of externalized expression. Certain types of theists and atheists have been engaged in such, for many centuries already.

But hey! If some semblance of peace can be achieved by having two tables and minding ones own business in relation to those tables, good luck with that ambition. I don't see it happening myself, for the reasons given above.

With that said, is there anything beside "you don't know my claim is wrong" that you have to offer about obtaining information after we die?

Certainly. I have mentioned avenues one can pursue. One has to be interested in doing so of course. I don't say "you don't know my claim is wrong" I have organised information in the Members Notes section of this site, with links connecting similar information.

Anyone is free go go there, examine that information, formulate questions and discover any 'leaks in the boat' which require attention, as they will.

♦ My thoughts on death.

* For more re this, see;

♦ Communication With The Vaster Aspect of My Self.


...specifically entry FOUR.

[Inigo Montoya]

Yeah, Clownboat. Get it straight. There's two tables, on top of which are ideas, indexed under headings, which belong to different files. It's not rocket surgery, bud.

William, it would mean a great deal to the people of Earth if you'd respond to the question: Upon what did the creator entity act to produce the universe? Was it material already in existence or did the creator entity just poof it into existence?

[Danmark]

There are many conundrums and contradictions we debate about various problems regarding God and the universe. They all disappear if we simply remove this imaginary 'god' from the equation. Everything makes more sense if there is no God.

[For_The_Kingdom]

To William and ForTheKingdom-

The two of you are contending that the big bang theory models the universe "beginning to exist."

Contending? We are just simply appealing to contemporary cosmology on this here issue. Or is appealing to science strictly a naturalist thing?

Are you understanding that to mean the universe just appeared?

Bingo, amigo.

Or are you understanding that to mean the inflation event was the catalyst for spacetime and thus marks the furthest rearward boundary we can coherently extrapolate to?

Bingo, amigo.

I get the impression you both take the first to be what's being conveyed.

?

[Inigo Montoya]

To William and ForTheKingdom-

The two of you are contending that the big bang theory models the universe "beginning to exist."

Contending? We are just simply appealing to contemporary cosmology on this here issue. Or is appealing to science strictly a naturalist thing?

Are you understanding that to mean the universe just appeared?

Bingo, amigo.

Or are you understanding that to mean the inflation event was the catalyst for spacetime and thus marks the furthest rearward boundary we can coherently extrapolate to?

Bingo, amigo.

I get the impression you both take the first to be what's being conveyed.

?

You seem confused the two interpretations aren't the same, yet have happily agreed to interpreting them both as such, amigo brah.

In scenario one, the universe just appears. Poof! Everything that underwent inflation just appears at the moment of inflation. That's the impression I'm getting when I hear this "begins to exist" phrasing from what you understand the big bang theory conveys. You're agreeing with this, by the way.

In scenario two, the big bang is an event in the universe's history; is, in fact, the furthest rearward boundary we can extrapolate to responsibly. It does not entail any poofing, only attempts to describe the transition of the mass/energy during inflation. You can, and should, infer the mass/energy to have been already available to undergo said event, and would therefore not match up with scenario number one. You have agreed to this interpretation as well, though.

So again I ask. Which scenario are you referring to when you use the language "began to exist?"

As there is no consensus in contemporary cosmology, telling me you appeal to it is not only unhelpful, but irrelevant until you pick who said what.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by Inigo Montoya]

They are still ascribing to the 14th century convention as creation of matter, being the same as the birth of a child.

It has been explained to them before, but, as it delivers a major blow to their belief system, I think it will be unlikely they can acknowledge it.

That the matter that a baby is made up of is as old as the stars themselves.

That statement and concept is almost magical, isn't it? Surely a miracle as profound as a creator, and yet, they prefer the lie of a miracle, to the reality of a miracle.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by Willum]

Post # 24 I gave my answer. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. Please refrain from speaking on my behalf.

Thanks.