TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Does everything have to come from something else?

The origin of life and the universe.

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 31 2012: The universe we live in is governed by the rules of causality imo. My reasoning was that a world without a cause can have no effect. In our universe, there MUST be a cause and an effect, and everything is a cause/effect in some way.

    However, I've also came to a weird conclusion that we also live in a world full of paradoxes. There have been paradoxes in many theories out there, but they still are useful and help us out for some odd reason. Like 0=0 but 0=/=0 at the same time. Makes absolutely no sense lol.

    If we're trying to make sense of something illogical like a paradox, and some how we found a logic to paradoxes, then the illogical wouldn't be illogical anymore, it'll be logical. And that in itself is kind of a paradox.

    I really don't know what to think about paradoxes to be honest
    • Aug 1 2012: I like you concept of cause and effect because it moves me to my next point, which is before time was time, didn’t cause and effect need a catalyst. I mean it too must come from something. Quantum Philosophy defines these rules like cause and effect as God’s Laws. They are part of the paradigm not above the paradigm.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: If there was an initial catalyst for Cause and Effect, wouldn't there be an initial catalyst for that initial catalyst?
      • Aug 2 2012: William,

        Then I think you have bought into some creationist propaganda. You have bought from a snake-oil salesman. Now I know that reading about quantum philosophy would be a waste of time. Like reading horoscopes or new age bullfeces.
        • Aug 2 2012: Those are passionate words. I see you have standards.

          Quantum Philosophy is a “model of existence” in the event that God did create the universe. In this model, Q.P. has found a huge missing element in current physics. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It does not try to prove the existence of God. Q.P. does not take faith into consideration. However from this viewpoint Q.P. has found a true paradigm-shifter for the concepts in physics especially pertaining to time, space, and consciousness.

          You can read the first chapter of the book by googling “look inside Quantum Philosophy meanings answers and promises” or we can continue to chat and I’ll explain it bit by bit.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2012: Oh dear. Here comes the god of the gaps.

          Seriously there is no evidence for any gods or goddesses. Just speculative guesses to try fill gaps in our understanding. Usually based on logical fallacies or to reinforce some cultural religious tradition.

          God made it. But god is made by an even greater god and so on until you get to the point where you realise we just don't know and there is no evidence for gods. Just a nifty little trick to plonk in something defined as eternal and outside time to fill a gap.
        • Aug 3 2012: I don’t believe in “God” that you speak of. I prefer to look at the universe through the lenses of logic not magic. You guys please try to stay focused. Don’t get your panties in a bunch just because you associate the title Gods Laws with faith based or religious beliefs. The Quantum world is a miraculous place for those with an open mind. No one tries to burn you at the stake for mentioning the God particle.
        • thumb
          Aug 3 2012: Hi William. The God label for a Bosun was a poor choice. It's linked something natural with something supernatural.

          Logic has its place but can lead you down all sorts of rabbit holes especially if your premise are bogus. If you are going to suppose a God is real some evidence would be more compelling that coming up with some logic musings.

          Quantum Philosophy is a “model of existence” in the event that God did create the universe. Sounds like you start of by assuming there is something called God that this created the universe and then play games with science.

          Why assume a god. Why assume one. Why not a whole team. And while you are at it why not assume a daddy and mummy god and goddess made the universe creator bunch of gods.

          Why do you assume I where panties and that they are in a twist. Sexist language doesn't help your argument.

          Resigned. Sighing rather than upset here.

          You don't need to mention panties just because the whole concept is built on bogus assumptions and works back from the answer you arbitrarily select when there are infinite other variations that you could play the same games with.

          Logic games like this do not prove anything. Have fun anyway.

          You seem like a smart guy. Are you just playing around with this or do you actually believe there is a creator god, just one, and that this is some profound understanding rather than metaphysical navel gazing? If so I'm curious why?
        • Aug 4 2012: I apologize for mentioning panties I thought it would get your attention because we were getting off track. It was offensive.

          I read God of the Gap. Q. P. talks about it and says they are morons. listen to what I am saying and disassociate other concepts I’m sure reason will prevail. Q.P. used a scientific logic to identify what is.

          These thought of God or many Gods, I never much took an interest in. was it one mass that started the big bang or many. I never really cared. I’m sure there is a reason to spend energy in finding the answer but that is not my purpose.

          The logic is clear and easily understandable by anyone who has no strong pre-concepts or strong mental associations. I would actually like to get into the meat of it. I promise no spiritual foolishness.
      • Aug 4 2012: Hi William,

        I went, searched, read a bit, and came back just as convinced that QP is new age snake-oil. Just as I expected from your words.

        Sorry and be well anyway.
        (Hum, had not checked the authorship. I stand by my evaluation nonetheless. Sorry again.)
        • Aug 4 2012: Being that I wrote the book I can assure you that it is not a snake oil. There is no deceptive essence or underlined intent. It is written in a way that man of faith can relate but I assure you it is pure the philosophy is logical from a scientific stand. If we actually focused on the concepts and not whatever it is we are currently talking about I’m sure you would agree with what it is that I am saying. There is way too much tension between science and religion. Once again, I am not into faith or religion my battlefield is logic. Let’s head to my arena.
      • Aug 4 2012: Agreed that snake-oil might not be the right word. I think you are sincere. Yet, I found no better words. Yours would be the kind of snake-oil people get to buy into, like those myths about rhinoceros horns being good for whatever ills. Sold by true believers even though it is a myth. In other words, you are not selling snake-oil as a quack, but quite convinced that it is good for your health.
        • Aug 4 2012: I take no offence to that last comment especially because you have not seen the logic in the philosophy. I do thank you for those semi kind words and I’m not being facetious.

          One stranger to another

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.