The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theory of Everything  (Read 2870 times)

Offline Zowie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Theory of Everything
« on: 18/10/2014 20:36:50 »
We live in a predetermined universe. It is a self contained, closed system. It is not necessary to require a creator to set it in motion nor does it depend on external influences such as those suggested by multiverse theories.

According to Einstein, time flows at different speeds according to the energy states of two separate observers. It should be apparent then that time could not have existed before the big bang. Instead, the past, present and future already exist. It is the behaviour of particles to travel forwards and backwards freely across time and space which can be accessibly visualized by reversing the arrows in Feynman's diagrams.

As biological machines, our understanding of the universe is based on the biomechanical input of external stimuli into the brain. Our complex nervous sytem lets us paint a subjective picture of reality. For example, our perception of colour is a measurement of electromagnetic radiation, which may in turn be a representation of something else (undefined particle).

Similarly, the following are also interpretations belonging to the mind: Temperature, spatial awareness, perception of time, emotions, creativity, sound, mathematics. While some of these things may exist in reality, it is our personal ceonceptualizations that concern us as living creatures. It may be that mathematics only exists because our universe represents a whole, or the number 1. From the existence of the number 1 it is subsequently possible to derive addition (1+1) and every other number and mathematical function. Furthermore, it is worth noting that our application of mathematics to define phenomenon in the natural world may not be inclusive of forces and symbolisms outside our scope of perception (for example string-like particles that span the entire universe in time and space, connecting every force and matter together, a conclusion that logically follows from an interpretation of predetermination).

For us and all biological organisms, time perception is the product of evolution. According to entropy, energy has a tendency to become more and more disordered over time. Evolution has thus designed biological organisms to collect energy from states where it is more available in order to be able to survive the future states. We must consciously view the present in order to survive the future. Our common sense expectations of time are an artifact of evolution. In reality, we are traveling both backwards and forwards in time. Perhaps it is possible for an organism to think backwards in time just as we think forwards in time but such an organism would probably need to be massless and might resemble something like a constructed body of mechanical light.

Virtual particles and the double slit experiment:

The double slit experiment concerns itself with firing an electron through a slit and recording the trajectory end-point of the electron on a photoelectric screen behind the slit. When a series of single electrons are fired over time, a straight vertical (or spherical) strip of landing points appear on the screen. The electron appears to be traveling in a straight line as a particle. When a second slit is opened, the single electron appears to travel through both slits at the same time and interfere with itself, creating a wave like pattern of bright and dark vertical (or spherical) strips uniformly about the screen and so the electron has logistically behaved like a wave. When we introduce a which-way detector (low atomic number) and try to measure which slit the electron is passing through, the interference is broken and two vertical (or spherical) lines appear again, telling us that electrons behave differently when observed.

Feynman's double slit experiment is a longstanding challenge of Quantum Mechanics which Feynman himself described as being "the only mystery".

Predeterminism at its core assumes that the future already exists. So, we are no longer limited to the present relying on the past. Instead, the past relies on the present which relies on the future and everything is connected in a very fundamental way.

To make QM compatible with predeterminism we must consider the following:

Reverse the image by picturing that the electron is traveling from its finished state on the screen backwards through time towards the electron emitter. Its trajectory is thus already decided. If there is only one slit open, it appears to travel in a straight line (perhaps it behaves as a wave bouncing inwards onto itself in perfect uniform. The theory makes the humble assumption that light may be made up of larger, or smaller, 'particles'). If two slits are open, the electron, again knowing which pathways are open to it, expands like a wave. If there is a low atomic number detector in place at one of the slits, the electron must interact with it thus affecting the route that the photon is allowed to take to reach the emitter.

It is only unintuitive to biological organisms that have evolved under strict laws of thermodynamics that virtual particles should seemingly appear as if by magic. "God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein


 

Offline Hrvoje5

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #1 on: 27/10/2014 21:50:19 »
Any Theory without a God is not possible, there are 100 proves for that and It have to stay a fact.
We have to ask ourselves , how did become a 1. universe ever. There are 2 answers, God made it, or by coincidence.

Let me do a math.

Chances of finding a fuctional protein by change = 1/10 on 164(maybe you will realise that number now)

10 on 80 elementary particles in the universe

10 on 16 seconds since the Big Bang

10 on 139 events since the beginning of the universe

And that are results only for PROTEIN

So maybe now you see why is impossible that universe are maked without the God, same thing is for Darwinian evolution
At this time, from the data what we have as a humans, there is no other solution..
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #2 on: 27/10/2014 23:46:28 »
Never mind the theory, let's look at the experimental values

Chance of finding a functional protein on earth = 1

Probability of life evolving on earth = 1

Why? Because we are always looking backwards from the status quo. The probability of any two cars colliding is negligible, but the wreckage is clearly visible. Events are only significant when they occur.

If life hadn't evolved on earth, we wouldn't be asking the question, but it has, and we do. So the next question is why doesn't it seem to have evolved elsewhere? If there was a creator, it is inconceivable that she only made one rather pathetic copy of something so interesting, so the calculated improbability of life elsewhere in the universe surely indicates the nonexistence of a creator. 
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3911
  • Thanked: 52 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #3 on: 28/10/2014 00:56:51 »
Interestingly there are proponents out there of a theory that we are living in a simulation created by a far advanced civilization. In which case there would be an intelligent creator which to all intents and purposes would be indistinguishable from god. The other interesting point is that this creator could have programmed god into the simulation in order to test the evolution of the system. I do not hold to this view but thought it useful to point out this possibility.
 

Offline Hrvoje5

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #4 on: 28/10/2014 09:14:01 »
In Theory maybe God made just a first protein which have started the progress and then he gone on "vacation"...
With all data what peoples have now that is most realistic....Why?
Because all other theories without a God are not complete , they have 100 holes...
I dont say that God create the Earth before 10 000 years, maybe he create before 6000 or 600000000 years, we cant find out when Earth have been created, but we only know that somebody create it...
Everything need have a answer, why? what is the cause that Earth was created, after we found out that we have ask why is the cause that was started that process which created a Earth and so on.. We can do that infinity number times, and on end we will came to, that anything cant be proven..
Just one thing in theory dont need have cause and that is perfect being with boundless energy we humans calls this being God..
I cant prove that God punish evil and reward good( I have some very very logical explains but I cant prove it) I cant also prove if we are the only civilization in space and so on, I even cant prove that God after creating 1. protein did not "go on vacation".

We have to understand rules what God mades, rules of time, rules of life, rules of Earth, rules on universe..

We know only a few rules, which made us life better..

Look Human DNA.. It is the best "software" which we know, it is amazing, with Human DNA you can write over 1 000 000 pages and we dont know even one word of it.
We have as soon is possible crack the alfabet of Human DNA, because I believe there are important messages,
If we took a Biblle, there is writen that God write on our heart a rules of his Law, now this made good sense, because maybe he wrote in DNA alfabet...

I believe that in DNA are important messages for our life, and there are keys for better understanding God, This can or dont have be true, because I cant prove it..

But honestly, do you really think that is possible that God did not made at least 1. protein..
I cant believe that God dont exist , because of science.. Look just at facts, not theories , and after you look only at facts answer if you really believe that it is possible that God did not made  at least  1. protein
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #5 on: 28/10/2014 11:04:41 »
Let me do a math ...

That's a version of the "junkyard tornado" flawed argument against evolution.

Evolution doesn't operate like that : the progress is by minute increments over billions of generations, not all once.

Look Human DNA.. It is the best "software" which we know, it is amazing

It's very inefficient bloatware : 98% of it is junk.  So not evidence of an intelligent designer ,
 ( why do whales need the code to make legs ? , or some people have the code to produce a tail ).


... do you really think that is possible that God did not made at least 1. protein ...

That's "god in the gaps" nonsense : that if science cannot currently explain exactly how something came into being then it must be the work of a god.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 11:39:36 by RD »
 

Offline Hrvoje5

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #6 on: 28/10/2014 12:14:13 »
Let me do a math ...

That's a version of the " newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado#Details [nonactive]" flawed argument against evolution.

Evolution doesn't operate like that : the progress is by minute increments over billions of generations, not all once.

Darwinian evolution have too much mistakes... If I am right Darwin said that are possible that from no-living things(like a food) came a living being(like flies) and that did been asnwer on 1. question, from where came 1. bacteria(living being) but we saw it is not a correct, only a living thing can create a living being..Anyway.. Let me ask you the 1. question , from where came the first bacteria..??

Btw, Darwinian theory of evolution was been changed because it was been refute..

Look Human DNA.. It is the best "software" which we know, it is amazing

It's very inefficient newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat#Bloatware [nonactive] : newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA [nonactive].  So not evidence of an newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer [nonactive] ,
 ( newbielink:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1 [nonactive] , or newbielink:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2 [nonactive] ).

If we dont understand the function that dont mean it dont have a function..
Example: appendix appendicitis, 99% of atheist said that is prove of evolution, we dont need that, it dont have any function.. And miracle happend it have realy realy important function..


... do you really think that is possible that God did not made at least 1. protein ...

That's " newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_the_gaps [nonactive]" nonsense : that if science cannot currently explain exactly how something came into being then it must be the work of a god.

Science can explain(partfully) , and the biggest scientists did explain, of Einstein Over Mark Twain to Newton....
Ok, I cant say that we are not created from aliens, but for sure God create them..
If you cant find the creator of your computer, that dont mean he dont exist, It would be silly to say that nobody did not create your computer..

Btw. I hope you understand that Theory of evolution is not a fact... Peoples which believe in Darwinian evolution are believer, It is a faith, and if I may, blind faith for now.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 12:18:28 by Hrvoje5 »
 

Offline Zowie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #7 on: 28/10/2014 21:36:30 »
Quote
Science can explain(partfully) , and the biggest scientists did explain, of Einstein Over Mark Twain to Newton....
Ok, I cant say that we are not created from aliens, but for sure God create them..
If you cant find the creator of your computer, that dont mean he dont exist, It would be silly to say that nobody did not create your computer..

Btw. I hope you understand that Theory of evolution is not a fact... Peoples which believe in Darwinian evolution are believer, It is a faith, and if I may, blind faith for now.

You have to be a troll right?

If you don't believe in evolution, just look at parents around the world. Children resemble their parents in both looks and personality. If one child has a mutation for a certain 'talent' such as tallness or musicality, then their children will also have a high probability of carrying this gene.

We have carbon dated human remains as early as 200 000 years ago. Assuming that each generation before us lived 16-20 years before reproducing we get at least
200 000/18=11111.11 generations to have come before us.

Over time, small evolutionary advantages ultimately resulted in the modern human. For example, the gene for lactase production used to switch off in adult humans. About 8000 years ago in Turkey humans began domesticating animals and drinking their milk. Adults who did not switch off their lactase enzyme in adulthood could continue to drink milk and received an evolutionary advantage (stronger bones, more energy, nutrients). Nowadays, most people are able to digest lactase well into adulthood. Evolution is an ongoing process.

As rational beings we must consider the possibilities and produce theories which have strong internal symmetry and do not contradict scientific observations outright.

It is possible, for example, that we live in a simulated universe.

Do you know Conway's game of life? It is a zero player game that evolves based on the primary configuration of squares and a set of rules governing how the squares will behave on each round.

In a way, our universe is not all that much different.

The game still exists in our universe though and is ultimately governed by our laws. If our universe suddenly shut off, then Conway's game of life shuts off.

Basically when it comes to simulated universe theory it boils down to:

1)It is possible and logically explainable
2)It is possible and not logically explainable
3)It is not possible

Obviously given that I have written an entire conjecture based on an independent framework of our universe I am hedging towards #3.
« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 21:38:46 by Zowie »
 

Offline Hrvoje5

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #8 on: 28/10/2014 22:57:15 »
Quote
Science can explain(partfully) , and the biggest scientists did explain, of Einstein Over Mark Twain to Newton....
Ok, I cant say that we are not created from aliens, but for sure God create them..
If you cant find the creator of your computer, that dont mean he dont exist, It would be silly to say that nobody did not create your computer..

Btw. I hope you understand that Theory of evolution is not a fact... Peoples which believe in Darwinian evolution are believer, It is a faith, and if I may, blind faith for now.

You have to be a troll right?

If you don't believe in evolution, just look at parents around the world. Children resemble their parents in both looks and personality. If one child has a mutation for a certain 'talent' such as tallness or musicality, then their children will also have a high probability of carrying this gene.

We have carbon dated human remains as early as 200 000 years ago. Assuming that each generation before us lived 16-20 years before reproducing we get at least
200 000/18=11111.11 generations to have come before us.

Over time, small evolutionary advantages ultimately resulted in the modern human. For example, the gene for lactase production used to switch off in adult humans. About 8000 years ago in Turkey humans began domesticating animals and drinking their milk. Adults who did not switch off their lactase enzyme in adulthood could continue to drink milk and received an evolutionary advantage (stronger bones, more energy, nutrients). Nowadays, most people are able to digest lactase well into adulthood. Evolution is an ongoing process.

As rational beings we must consider the possibilities and produce theories which have strong internal symmetry and do not contradict scientific observations outright.

It is possible, for example, that we live in a simulated universe.

Do you know Conway's game of life? It is a zero player game that evolves based on the primary configuration of squares and a set of rules governing how the squares will behave on each round.

In a way, our universe is not all that much different.

The game still exists in our universe though and is ultimately governed by our laws. If our universe suddenly shut off, then Conway's game of life shuts off.

Basically when it comes to simulated universe theory it boils down to:

1)It is possible and logically explainable
2)It is possible and not logically explainable
3)It is not possible

Obviously given that I have written an entire conjecture based on an independent framework of our universe I am hedging towards #3.

Its already late now, so please just answer me on 2 questions:
1. question is the first question of Darwinian evolution and it goes: from where came the first living thing?
Before some peoples believes that from non-living things can be created a living thing, but that is WRONG. That is 1. question if we want to talk about evolution , micro or macro without a supreme Being
2. question is: Do you know that Darwinian evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory.

Let me quote Richard Dawkins:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins

"I believe, but cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection." - Richard Dawkins

"It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe." - Richard Dawkins


If Richard Dawkins admit , that this theory is blind faith, then you know whats time is :)

You have to understand that God is required in science for full picture, because he is in picture and picture without him cannot be full...
You should look at all facts equally and then you would understand....I know ,Einstein , Gallileo, Newton(all the biggest scientists ever did know about what talking )

Or maybe they was the fools?






« Last Edit: 28/10/2014 23:00:04 by Hrvoje5 »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #9 on: 29/10/2014 00:17:50 »
... from where came the first living thing? 

What is the definition of a "living thing" ? ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions

Is a self-replicating chemical-reaction a "living thing" ? , if it is it would be "the first living thing".
« Last Edit: 29/10/2014 00:21:02 by RD »
 

Offline Hrvoje5

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #10 on: 29/10/2014 19:35:25 »
A living thing(living being) is bacteria, or virus, or plants, animals, humans...
Chemical reaction is not a live being but amoeba is..
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8125
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #11 on: 29/10/2014 23:48:48 »
A living thing(living being) is bacteria, or virus, or plants, animals, humans...
Chemical reaction is not a live being but amoeba is..

Complex life forms did not instantaneously appear , they were preceded by something simpler , which were proceeded by something simpler , etc , etc , until you get back to simplest self-replicating chemical-reactions. 

A living thing ... is ... virus ...

Are you sure a virus is a living thing ? , some people would disagree.
« Last Edit: 30/10/2014 03:22:23 by RD »
 

Offline Zowie

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #12 on: 31/10/2014 08:19:17 »
Its already late now, so please just answer me on 2 questions:
1. question is the first question of Darwinian evolution and it goes: from where came the first living thing?
Before some peoples believes that from non-living things can be created a living thing, but that is WRONG. That is 1. question if we want to talk about evolution , micro or macro without a supreme Being
2. question is: Do you know that Darwinian evolution is not a fact, it is just a theory.

Let me quote Richard Dawkins:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins

"I believe, but cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection." - Richard Dawkins

"It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe." - Richard Dawkins


If Richard Dawkins admit , that this theory is blind faith, then you know whats time is :)

You have to understand that God is required in science for full picture, because he is in picture and picture without him cannot be full...
You should look at all facts equally and then you would understand....I know ,Einstein , Gallileo, Newton(all the biggest scientists ever did know about what talking )

Or maybe they was the fools?



Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen and Phosphorous from the primordial atmosphere combined to form nucleotides. These nucleotides combined with other nucleotides to create strings of RNA.

RNA began self replicating. Natural selection took over. A cell membrane evolved and out competed all of the 'naked RNA'. These were the first bacterium.

DNA, which is more stable than RNA, evolved and replaced RNA as the genetic material. DNA used proteins which are more efficient than RNA in promoting chemical reactions. RNA became the messenger transporting information from DNA to the protein-building centers. These new DNA based molecules easily out-competed the old RNA based molecules.

About 2 billion years ago, multicellularity arose. This happened when some cells stopped going their separate ways after replicating and developed a specialized function e.g. cells designed to attach to a substrate, cells designed for support, cells designed for movement.

We must qualitatively define 'living thing'.

Mainstream religion would have us believe that only things with souls go to heaven/hell. Does an animal have a soul? It has a nervous system. It can feel pain. Does a plant have a soul? The base cellular mechanisms are practically the same; multicellular, DNA based, sexually (some asexual) replicating organism; collects energy; responds to external stimuli and makes changes based on input.

Are base elements 'alive'? They are after all responsible for performing all the chemical reactions that occur within cells.

I would just like to add that Richard Dawkins, while being a fantastically competent speaker and popular figurehead of British science, is just a single person and probably doesn't have an (standardized) IQ above 135. This is the golden IQ for leader quality since it makes a person sufficiently enlightened without being too unapproachable. Basically put- try not to worship popular scientific figures of the day. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but he hasn't really invented anything- memes aside! I mean come on, the evolution of internet jokes? Anyone with half a brain can realize that some things are more popular than other things. Trying to follow in Darwin's footsteps much? He should have had his name changed)

« Last Edit: 31/10/2014 09:44:13 by Zowie »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theory of Everything
« Reply #12 on: 31/10/2014 08:19:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length