As far as our knowledge takes us so far there are at least 3 of them. Two of them weâ€™ve identified in extreme detail. There is another one but it is still hiding deeper behind our ignorance. We'll find it.
Right now of the two we've identified, one gave us an operating universe with energy and entropy, the other gave us particle physics and chemistry.
The one creator we know is hidden behind these two known creators will tell us how to unite both of the other two and thus look beyond this spacetime â€¦ maybe.
I'm having a moment. Mind blown by the thought of monkeys having figured this stuff out. We be real majik! Curiosity and technology.
The fact that Man has had such a poor quality of life ( 60 percent of children died before the age of 5 thousands of years ago) shows that the Creators did not care about Man as he was just an intermediate step to some other goal.
or, it means we are just another organism produced by blind mindless evolution in a universe that lacks any capacity to know or care anything whatsoever.
Since the group of mechanisms that we call evolution are not goal oriented or planned, and depend on thousands of disparate data points from environment and genetics, the future course of evolution cannot be determined for a species.
Hot button, here, Phat.
At this point in the history of H. sapiens there is an increasing likelihood that our future evolution involves not having one. Species don't evolve when they are extinct.
Creators exist because something had to create spacetime from nothing.
"Creator", in the idiom, denotes some kind of entity with will in control.
The process that created this universe may be just that - a process. Some set of circumstances that may have had no choice but to manifest in this glorious spacetime without purpose or reason or meaning.
You started a nice thread with a good opening and feedback.
A lot take exception to what you say then you take exception to what they say, mild insults ensue and we all have a good time throwing salt at each other.
Yeah, OK, we're kinda loaded up with those science types (guilty as charged, your honor) who tell you you're nuts and here's why, but you can defend your stand, or at least die trying, and then go on to the next topic like nothing happened. Great fun.
I hope you have looked over the rest of the topics and have seen the breadth of talent, opinion and philosophy represented in this community. Some off the wall stuff comes in here with their off the wall advocates and we love it. We may not show it, many prefer not to, but there is a reason we are all here; To laugh at the crazies and throw salt at 'em. And the 'em is each of us at some time or other since we all get a wee bit nuts about something or other. 'Cept me. I'm the sane one of the bunch.
There are rules to keep things from getting too far out of hand but a good bout of verbal fisticuffs is a wondrous thing to behold and, well, to be a part of.
Come back. Give us your best shots. We'll all jump up and down, sling insults and salt all over the internet then go fume and chuckle at the dinner table afterwords.
Set a spell. Take your shoes off. Join us ... again.
This guy is full of shit. He is using his own (willful) misunderstanding of the word â€œchanceâ€ as a straw man to push his majik philosophy of ignorance.
All we do is see the natural reality that occurred from the complex indeterminate setup of the universe prior to the moment we make an observation.
Repeat. That is the â€œchance occurrenceâ€ of a reality manifest from the set of complex indeterminate probabilities in the setup up of a system.
Prior to the observation we assess the probabilities of what we may observe. Then we acknowledge that upon observation one of those probabilities came to fruition. That is the â€œchanceâ€ we invoke; the outcome not the determining power.
Your majik man, in order to arrive at his pre-determined conclusion, ignorantly asserts that we are invoking some mysterious power we call â€œchanceâ€, some â€œdemon that jumps into the middleâ€ of the process and causes outcomes, as the determinator of the observation. When in fact all that we have done is look at the probabilities of some outcome and then look at the outcome itself and answerâ€¦
â€œsince we do not know the complete mechanism, the observation that ultimately resulted occurred by â€œchanceâ€; occurred as one of the natural members in the set of probabilities.â€
No one is invoking â€œchanceâ€ as some power to assert its will upon the universe and determine an outcome. Only that one of the natural probabilities that could result was ultimately what we see in our observation. That is the only outcome of â€œchanceâ€.
He asserts that physics are saying â€œchanceâ€ has some ontological reality, some power to affect the outcome of observation, instead of simply acknowledging that an outcome we observed was one of the myriad of natural probabilities that could have resulted.
I think your majik man embellished (to say it politely) his apocryphal story of the physicist from Harvard banging is forehead in recognition of an error no Harvard physicist would have ever accepted in the first place. Not unless he was a very poor physicist who doesnâ€™t understand his own discipline.
No physicist would say the universe arose by â€œchanceâ€ without a whole lot of underlying explanation of what that means. And what that means, in this case, is that we donâ€™t know how the universe arose but there was some unknown complex indeterminate setup of the pre-universe that resulted in the observation of the universeâ€™s existence. "Chance" as a determining power did not create the universe and no one, except the cunning diabolical religionist, would argue we say otherwise.
He goes on the say that since â€œchanceâ€ is NOT a power, has no ontological reality, that it is actually not a thing, that it is no thing, therefor that physicists, asserting that the universe was created by chance, are saying that the universe was created by no--thing, (faster) no-thing, (faster) nothing.
Because of the very nature of this universe the more precise we try to measure one of each pair the less precise we can measure the other. These are not limits to our technology but limits in the properties of canonically conjugate variables themselves. Bohr's principle of complementarity.
And AZPaul3, igf you are watching, explain to me if you still think Sprouls argument is deceitful and why.
Remember the last time he embellished (to say it politely) his apocryphal story of the physicist from Harvard banging is forehead in recognition of an error no Harvard physicist would have ever accepted in the first place.
That is all it takes for me to discount to zero anything else this charlatan cares to spew forth.