some questions regarding FREE WILL?

[Woody]

Gee.. Never thought I'd see the day Woody of all people argued for good science.

*Snicker*

I never thought I'd see the day you could utter more than two intelligible sentences, and I'm still waiting. :bugeye:


Yeah, I know -- yer just plain lazy

 

[§outh§tar]

I never thought I'd see the day you could utter more than two intelligible sentences, and I'm still waiting. :bugeye:


Yeah, I know -- yer just plain lazy

Aww.. still sour?

Don't worry son. 'Yer' is not an intelligble word either. But don't worry, I learn from your example. Now why don't you go back to sticking your head up your buttocks.

Thank you.

 

[audible]

So you are saying it happened before. When? Where? The last time it happened -- what is that like now?
In "nothing" time doesn't exist anymore. How does something happen "from time to time" when time is meaningless. This statement is self-fulfilling like: "I assume therefore it is." Well of course!

I am extremely honoured the you would think of me as Physicist Edward Tryon,
or even to atribute the essay to me, but that was Sten Odenwald.

incidently This process has been described by the physicist Frank Wilczyk at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

I'm not as clever as they, so you need to take it up with them.

so could you please give credit where credit due thank you.

"Metaphysics" is physics that excede our own natural laws. This seems more credible. You should be debating Athelwulf on this subject. I will sit back and enjoy the show.

I am sure athelwulf knows the meaning of metaphysical, so I dont see the need for a debate.

Metaphysical
1 Of or relating to metaphysics.(Metaphysics:1. metaphysics. 2. A system of metaphysics. 3. An underlying philosophical or theoretical principle: a belief in luck, the metaphysic of the gambler.)
2 Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
3 Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
4 1. Immaterial; incorporeal. 2. Supernatural.
does that help.

 

[Woody]

SS said,

'Yer' is not an intelligble word either.

Oh you nitpicker! While you are correcting others why don't you correct yourself? Oh well, I'll just have to do it for you:

intelligble should be intelligible. There, does that help my little two §entence §impleton?

No wonder you can't say much! I will leave you on my ignore list where you belong.

I am rapidly loosing interest in this forum. It's a waste of time, and I have better things to do than bicker with small-minded people about spelling. If I can't be casual, then I'd rather go somewhere else where I can be casual and enjoy an environment of warmth and friendliness.

I'd never make a good athiest anyway because it's just plain boring, irritable, pettiness from what I've seen of it.

Music forum here I come!

Outta this noise!

 

[Woody]

Audible,

I am extremely honoured the you would think of me as Physicist Edward Tryon,
or even to atribute the essay to me, but that was Sten Odenwald.

incidently This process has been described by the physicist Frank Wilczyk at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

I'm not as clever as they, so you need to take it up with them.

so could you please give credit where credit due thank you.

I am glad you are honored about your ranking with these people I never heard of. They came up with yet another theory of the universe. I can name others that come up with opposite conclusions to the "something from nothing" argument. Nature abhors a vacuum, so let's build an entire theory on it. OK, if that brings you to a better truth and a happier life -- go for it! Maybe someday after you die, you will come back from nothing -- yes I can agree with that. It works for me.

 

[cole grey]

I'm not as clever as they, so you need to take it up with them.

So, basically what you are saying, in this particular sentence, is that you are taking their word for it, i.e., you kind of comprehend how this can occur, and you kind of don't. Just admit it. It is ok... No, really, it isn't a crime to not have a perfect evidence-based model for everything, and it is ok to base your ideas on something someone else says, once in a while.
Just admit that there is no evidence for this, other than some extrapolations from our current universe (which wouldn't apply at all to anything that happened "before" it), and some nice math that 98% of everyone can't understand.

 

[audible]

I'm not as clever as they, so you need to take it up with them.

So, basically what you are saying, in this particular sentence, is that you are taking their word for it, i.e., you kind of comprehend how this can occur, and you kind of don't.

yes of course, as it's much much more feasible, than saying god did it.

Just admit it. It is ok... No, really, it isn't a crime to not have a perfect evidence-based model for everything, and it is ok to base your ideas on something someone else says, once in a while.

especially if it makes more sense, than god did it.

Just admit that there is no evidence for this, other than some extrapolations from our current universe (which wouldn't apply at all to anything that happened "before" it), and some nice math that 98% of everyone can't understand.

it a theory, that says it all, but a more feasible, and much more intelligently reasoned theory, than god did it.

 

[cole grey]

Ha ha.
I liked your response.
I agree that there are other necessary things to know about the universe in addition to, "god did it". I was just pointing out that we all use other people's ideas and "beliefs" to inform our lives, not just people who believe in god.
I think I understand your position and of course it is very reasonable.
I myself am trying to figure out which spiritual ideas contradict reality, and which merely have the illusion of contradicting it. I believe the denouement is coming, at least for the masses. It might take another few hundred years...

 

[Athelwulf]

Audible quoted,

" Our universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time".

So you are saying it happened before. When? Where? The last time it happened -- what is that like now?

In "nothing" time doesn't exist anymore. How does something happen "from time to time" when time is meaningless. This statement is self-fulfilling like: "I assume therefore it is." Well of course!

Something from nothing, that is not the predominant line of thinking in the science community.

"Metaphysics" is physics that excede our own natural laws. This seems more credible. You should be debating Athelwulf on this subject. I will sit back and enjoy the show.

After reading the post (whose context you took that quote out of) posted by Audible, I interpret it to mean that there's a bang/crunch cycle going on. First, a big bang happens, then rapid expansion; then expansion slows down and stops; then contration starts, then speeds up; then there's a big crunch. One cycle complete, then another cycle begins with another big bang.

This is one of the many theories of the universe. He could be right. But as far as I know, there's no way to know for sure whether or not it's true.