TED Conversations

Aaron Lea

This conversation is closed.

God/creation vs. big bang/evolution = no conflict!?!?!

Grand Unifying Theory
By Aaron Lea

The following is not written by a scientist, but a philosopher. Many of the conclusions herein are not researched, as human technology has not reached a sufficient level to prove or disprove most of these ideas. This is a piecing together of various puzzle pieces from the scientific and religious worlds with, admittedly, a good deal of assumption on the part of the writer when it came to connecting things and filling in the blanks.
The first thing that the reader must solidify in their mind in order to grasp the concepts addressed here is that there is no such thing as “matter”. The entire “Physical Universe” as you have perceived it through your 5 acknowledged senses contains absolutely NO matter. This does not mean that everything is an illusion. On the contrary- the atomic groupings we refer to as “Matter” are very real and firmly bound by many laws of physics. Not necessarily the limited and often incorrect “laws” that humans teach. Just recently, Albert Einstein’s accepted “law” that the speed of light was a universal constant and that nothing can travel faster than light, which had been believed by the scientific community for about 70 years was disproven on two counts- particles faster than light have been found and inconsistencies in the speed of light have been found. As our technology increases, so will our understanding of the true laws of the universe. The span of intelligent human existence in the Universal time scale is so brief, though, that it would be absolutely arrogantly foolish to ever claim to understand all of the laws governing our perceived “matter” here, let alone those governing celestial bodies millions of light years away.
(continued below)

Share:
  • thumb
    Dec 8 2011: Hi Aaron,
    You write a couple things that jump right out at me:>)

    1. "The first thing that the reader must solidify in their mind in order to grasp the concepts addressed here is that there is no such thing as "matter". The entire "Physical Universe" as you have perceived it through your 5 senses contains absolutely NO matter"
    2. "As our technology increases, so will our understanding of the true laws of the universe. The span of intelligent human existence in the Universal time scale is so brief, though, that it would be absolutely arrogantly foolish to ever claim to understand all of the laws governing our perceived “matter” here, let alone those governing celestial bodies millions of light years away".

    When we "solidify" something in our mind, we are basically saying "I know this to be true", are we not? So, why do you say we "must" solidify this piece of information? Once we "solidify" something in the mind or think we "know", the exploration generally stops for us. For me, solidifying something in my mind is the worse thing I can do to myself because then I have stopped being open to possibilities.

    You then say "as technology increases, so will our understanding... it would be absolutely arrogantly foolish to ever claim to understand all of the laws governing our perceived “matter” here, let alone those governing celestial bodies millions of light years away".

    I agree with this statement...it is arrogent and foolish to claim to understand all the laws that govern us here, or govern energies that may be light years away.

    So, why do we continue this debate..."God/creation vs. big bang/evolution = no conflict!?!?!"
    My perception is that many people have "solidified" their answer in their minds, will not budge from what they claim to "know", and that seems foolish. I do not see a conflict with the possibility of a god AND evolution. If there is a god who created everything, it seems logical that he/she/it would have created the process of evolution as well.
    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Nov 30 2011: I feel that I must comment on what I am seeing to be an increasing misunderstanding in the results reported recently by the Opera group. The Opera group is the collection of particle physicists that have reported they detected neutrinos arriving 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light would predict. The media, which is often woefully ignorant of the science behind a topic or what the reporting scientists are trying to communicate, latched onto the 'faster than the speed of light' portion of the scientific journal article, and neglected to mention that the scientists performing the experiment did no believe the results themselves and were asking the larger scientific world to aid them in finding the systematic error in their original experiment design. Many conjectures were put forth, one of which was easily testable at CERN, but turned out not being the source of the error in the experiment. Several other solutions exist, but it is mostly looking like error from General Relativisitic time dilation experienced by moving objects and the two location points of the particle accelerator and detector. I am not saying that this is the reason that account for the 60ns time delay, but if you plug through the equations (beyond my capability and speciality as I am not a particle physicist, but an astrophysicist), the expected correction comes out to be right around 60 ns.

    Also, it is important to point out that if the speed of light were not absolute, then the entire GPS network would have rapidly fallen apart as it relies upon principles of general and special relativity, which would not hold if the speed of light were not an upper limit. As GPS has been in operation for quite some time, I am suspect of any claims of particles (with mass at that) traveling at the speed of light.

    As another example, the speed of neutrinos has been measured to much, much higher accuracy by timing the arrival of neutrinos from Supernova 1987A, and they were not faster than c.
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: explain trap
  • thumb
    Dec 10 2011: This was a 4 part post, and as newer comments push down older ones, I fear many of you are only reading the first 1/4. http://www.facebook.com/notes/aaron-lea/grand-unifying-theory/294366060582302 you can read the whole thing on my facebook page, and leave comments here or there. PLEASE read the whole thing before commenting! To read the rest on here, go to the 3 oldest comments after reading the first part above! It was too long to post as one piece. Thanks! - Aaron
  • thumb
    Dec 9 2011: Hello! I have a sense that Humanity will never be able to answer whether or not there is a God...because Infinity is infinite. The only things we can investigate are the 4 Forces.(I think they are all the same force) If we find God, who is God's God?
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Dec 5 2011: when you mention that matter does not exist, does this have to do with thoeories relating to quantum mechanics? if so, then I think you may be on to something..

    anyhow I am interested as to why you do not think there is no conflict between in this case, scientific claims and religious claims?
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: Words are expression of thoughts.
    How old are thoughts? How old is a word? How old is that emotion which has been expressed by that word?
    Point 1.Words can’t express the truth that we are looking for
    Point2.Every listeners carry his/her perception and his own idea of whatever around his head. The word that some one triggered has been perceived by the other differently. So truth can’t be communicated
    Point3. Our senses give as information that they are limited. So we experience something and think according to it and get into false conclusions and make terminologies on truth.
    Point4.focussing and concentrating the mind on an unknown idea won’t do much, it’s just
    Becomes the exercise of brain.
    Point5.Can trick the brain and mind by meditation and reaches a silence; this also won’t give the ultimate truth
    Point6.All human anxiousness are not meant for finding an answer which will be logically correct by the limited senses
    Point7.fruits and roots: do like a fruit if we are fruit or do like a root if we are root
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Dec 5 2011: Point2-
        3+2=5
        03+02=5
        30+20=50
        explain 0
      • thumb
        Dec 7 2011: OK , now go back to my posting again to understand what you asked
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 2)
    What we perceive as “matter” is, as science and religion agree, made of atoms. These atoms orbit each other, creating a type of magnetic field which keeps the neighboring atoms from invading their space, giving them a perceived “size”. Therefore, there is no contending the fact that there is no matter bigger than an atom. Atoms are made up of swirling (and sometimes dimension-jumping) electrons, neutrons, and protons. Many other types of “sub-atomic” particles are also known to science. That’s as small as our science currently allows us to see. Does that mean that electrons, neutrons, and protons are matter? Absolutely not! As we develop better microscopes, we will discover what these sub-atomic particles are made of. And then what those particles are made of. And so on and so forth with every significant technological step in that direction.
    • Dec 7 2011: "...Does that mean that electrons, neutrons, and protons are matter? Absolutely not! As we develop better microscopes, we will discover what these sub-atomic particles are made of."

      First of all, it has been known for a long time that neutrons and protons are not elementary particles (elementary particle = particle not made of anyting else). This does not mean that they are not sub atomic or that they are not matter. A particle does not need to be elementary in order to be considerd a matter particle. And by the way, the experiments "disproving" the speed of light barrier are not definite. There are several theoretical, mathematical, and most importantly, experimental/observable reasons to believe that the relativity theories are at least a very close approximation to reality and therfore cannot be completley wrong.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 3)
    If you look at the evident patterns of the Universe, a galaxy is, in essence, the shape and function of a solar system but on a grander scale. This shape and function are also the attributes of an atom: “specks” of “matter” swirling around a gravitational (or magnetic) center, thus reserving for themselves an area far greater than what their perceived “matter” would need if it ceased to maintain orbital momentum and collapsed upon itself. The fact remains, and will one day be further proven by the scientific community, that the smallest sub-atomic building blocks we know of would, theoretically, also collapse upon themselves if their internal momentum ceased. And so on and so forth all the way down to absolute nothing. What keeps everything the way it is is only energy, causing sub-sub-atomic perpetual motion, which governs all atomic, planetary, and celestial movement. It has been long questioned in the religious and scientific worlds how a universe that contains more “matter” than humans can even estimate with our largest increments of measurement could be created from nothing. Whether you believe in a random, chance “Big Bang” or creation upon vocal command by an omnipotent creator, this would be impossible if there were “matter”. But since all that exists is shaped and governed energy, a universe could, given a sufficient energy source, theoretically be formed (or at least implemented) instantly.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 4)
    There was a scientist named Benoit Mandelbrot who is known as the father of “fractal geometry”. The technology to explore his formulas as geometric patterns didn’t come until decades after his discovery of fractal equations. You’ve probably seen the blacklight posters in the specialty shops with the intricate patterns and tye-dye coloration that seem chaotic and random, but are based on repeating resized variations of a common pattern. These variations are infinite, yet the same basic forms appear again and again as you increase or decrease magnification, much like the repeating patterns of solar systems and atoms. Mandelbrot’s infinite formulas (i.e.: x=x(2)+z) can be plotted as points on a 2 dimensional graph (or computer screen) and used to create an infinite (or as far as your technology allows you to calculate it) amount of varied yet visually similar complex forms. Any form seen in one of these fractal images, if calculated far enough, would be repeated infinitely, and while the basic form will remain recognizable, upon close examination, it will be found that no two instances of the patters are exactly the same.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 5)
    Two dimensional fractal geometry is a relatively new technological concept to humanity, and our best computers are still limited in their ability to graph them. Now, imagine with me, if you will, that there is an entity (be it physical, spiritual, or a collective) far more technologically advanced than humans. Suppose this entity developed a way to implement a form of 3 dimensional (4 if you accurately consider the fourth dimension to be time) fractal equations, plotted in energy fields rather than paper or display screens. You would end up with an “infinite” universe, where the largest cosmic formations and the smallest sub-atomic formations share a common basic structure and form. In this universe, there would exist a vast array of seemingly random and unrelated items. Each of these items (planets, stars, life forms, etc…) would, if explored, be found to have infinite variations among like items as well as some strikingly similar characteristics to many items we consider to be entirely different.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 6)
    These signs would lead some to believe that these items were derived from each other, when in reality, they merely were created by the same formula. This being the case, it would be scientifically absurd to believe that a major component of the fractal universe (such as life) would exist in one tiny place and not exist in every other part of the larger pattern. These life forms would vary from place to place and have infinite variations within their own place and species. They would, however, be governed by the same formula that created and sustains all other comparable life forms, regardless of where in the universe they were found.
    Whatever entity calculated and enacted this formula would then be considered “God”, and as an earthly human limited by the technology of my time, I will not speculate further in this writing as to what or whom “God” could be. Suffice to say that “God” would be an entity beyond my limited understanding. However, understanding a minute amount about the complexity of 2 dimensional fractal formulas, there can be no doubt that the enacting of a self-sustaining 4 dimensional fractal formula was not coincidental or accidental. Something with a much higher grasp on physics than humans are capable of would have had to intelligently and deliberately set things in motion.
  • thumb
    Nov 29 2011: (part 7)

    With these points established, a clearer picture of our Universe of 4-dimensional fractal energy forms can be seen. Religion and science do not need to be viewed as separate fields. Yes, there would have had to be a seemingly omnipotent creator; science is merely mankind’s way of attempting to understand what this creator did, and what possibilities are within our reach based upon our grossly inadequate understanding of the true laws of Universal Physics. Yes, with all life forms being generated by a common formula, thus being simply variations of each other, it would be easy to think (despite what Charles Darwin referred to as an “astounding lack of evidence”) that these beings “evolved” from each other. Yes, there would undoubtedly be life on other planets. Yes, all of this could have been enacted instantly from nothing but an energy source and the “go” command from the creator. And, yes, when enacted, had anyone been there to hear it, it could have sounded like a big “bang”.
    • thumb
      Nov 29 2011: Aaron?

      What do you think is nothing?

      It is what is undetectable by our senses.

      Are dreams nothing though our senses play no part?

      If matter is energy like we know it to be and energy exist as waves; different forms of energy differ in wave patterns.

      If wave patterns can be flattened by the opposite or complementing wave that we suspect to exist also every wave would collapse into nothing if they all meet at once.

      If consciousness makes a snapshot from the pattern of interference within all waves it would look as particles. If consciousness makes continuous snapshots it would look like time.

      The only thing that is nothing is consciousness and it creates the universe out of nothing.