TED Conversations

Blake Ekelund

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How did the Universe come about?

I'm wanting answers that have proof and are to the point. You may state any way you believe that the Universe came about.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 29 2011: I don't fully grasp the "Theory" of the Big Bang only because some of it is a little beyond me, but... Once the whole thing gets started, my Chemistry education speaks volumes to me.

    Every element in the periodic table is produced in stars. These stars blow up and spread their treasures across the universe. The same iron (Fe) that is in asteroids is in our blood. The two most abundant elements in our world, hydrogen and oxygen, make up about 75% of what we are (H2O). Organic chemistry is such a huge field of study and basically revolves around just one element (carbon). It just makes sense to me that life forms would be carbon based.

    The idea of stars blowing up, creating gaseous clouds that are pulled together again by intermolecular forces and gravity to eventually form planets out of the elements from those clouds is beautiful to me. I have always found the Periodic Table of Elements beautiful on its own. I find beauty in the idea of just how lucky we are to here. To me, the "Goldilocks" conditions for life speak to a complete randomness of it all instead of a God creating all of it with "us" in mind.

    The argument that "GOD" has just been around forever and that the universe could not have been created from nothing has never worked for me. Why is the idea of "GOD" being around forever okay? Why is this the most believable answer for so many? Why isn't it easier to say that we just don't know for sure how it all began, but at least that the Big Bang Theory is the most educated guess we can come up with for now?
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 30 2011: QUOTE: "Yes, physically we are carbon-based, but we are also more than our physicality. Proof: Our psychology, emotions, thoughts are not carbon-based."

        The brain is carbon-based.

        No brain - no psychology.

        No brain - no emotions.

        No brain - no thoughts.
        • Nov 30 2011: When you say,"(Consciousness is processed through the physical body, not generated by it.)". What is an example of that? Like when a person is in a coma and cannot respond?
        • Dec 2 2011: Hi ! Kathy !!!
          Could you elaborate on "equilibrium" sense.
          In the 'extend version' of human senses / 21/ I found this,
          "The vestibular labyrinthine system (equilibrioception) works by sensing the motion of fluid in three canals in your inner ear, as well as sensing the weight of small crystals of calcium carbonite on tiny hair-like sensory receptors."
          But I am not sure you've meant that.

          Thank you !
        • Dec 3 2011: Thank you, Kathy ! It helps !
          "Equilibrium is a state of grace; harmony; balance; perfection."
          It's 'La Joconde '
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 30 2011: QUOTE: "Consciousness is varied in its energies; that which we experience as throught is from our MIND, not our BRAIN."

        Kathy,

        Yes, we know, you have an expanded view of the universe, consciousness, and everything but, I assure you, that thoughts, feelings, emotions, pattern-recognition and neurotransmitters require a brain. (Okay, maybe not pattern recognition.)

        For that matter (pun intended) the MIND requires a BRAIN.

        You may have noticed ... you actually have one. A brain, I mean.

        No brain - no whatever it is you think about the universe.
      • thumb
        Dec 2 2011: QUOTE: "As I understand it, the brain acts like a radio, both a receptor and transmitter of these waves of energy. This energy is consciousness and it is transmitted through varying waves or frequencies (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Theta) which we experience as vibrations, and identify as feelings, thoughts and movement - i.e. the 'senses'."

        So, Kathy, the brain is both the radio receiver and the radio transmitter?

        And if the brain is a useless piece of meat without consciousness (which I agree with, by the way) what does that make consciousness, if a simple impairment of that useless piece of meat "blocks" transmissions?

        No brain (or impaired brain) - no psychology (or "impaired" psychology.)

        No brain (or impaired brain) - no emotions (or impaired emotions.)

        No brain (or impaired brain) - no thoughts (or impaired thoughts.)



        QUOTE: "Modern science contends we have five senses. In fact, we have seven 'main' senses."

        Really? When was the last time you checked how many senses modern science says we have? [The last time I checked, modern science said we have upwards of twenty senses.]
      • thumb
        Dec 2 2011: Dear Kathy:

        There is a nice lecture from Yale University by Prof. Shelly Kagan ( http://academicearth.org/courses/death ), he specifically discusses the existence of the soul from a philosophical perspective, I think this could change your mind, or at least polish your arguments.

        I really hope you invest a few minutes, he is a fun and fast speaker and discusses Dualism (your perspective) in a very clear fashion.

        Regards!

        JB

        PS I personally dot think we need any supernatural entity nor a soul to be humans (emotions/reason, etc)
      • thumb
        Dec 2 2011: Dear Kathy:

        The lectures are very nice (I personally enjoyed listening to then while doing exorcise), I think you should try one and see if it makes sense to listen to the rest or not.

        I’m surprised, I’m always interested in changing my mind I find it extremely pleasurable and stimulating.

        I really don’t know what soul means (could quote a dictionary, but still makes no sense to me), as far as I understand, the soul you refer to is something immaterial that is not bound by physics. Depending on the philosophical perspective, it has more or less supernatural proprieties and is eternal.

        I’m sorry if my claim sound ridiculous, I would love to hear you provide and argument or proof that changed my mind.
        On the other hand my perspective is simpler, we both believe in physical reality right? But you also believe in what you call “spiritual reality”. One is self evident, the other requires you to believe, why do you do so?

        Regards!

        JB
        • thumb
          Dec 3 2011: Hi Julian,

          As you're interested in changing your mind that's good for that says you are questioning your believes or opinions but still opinions are what they are.
          If you know a thing, you know.
          You don't have an opinion about the chair you may be sitting on. You know it's a chair.
          If someone in that way knows what you don't know you may question it like you do your opinion but can at the same time respect the other by not implying that he or she may change their mind with new information.
          About matters like soul you can never be informed by anyone. For every individual, it has to be known from personal experience like that chair that holds you from the ground and would fail you if it only was an opinion.
      • thumb
        Dec 3 2011: QUOTE: "The soul is the subconscious level of the mind. What's so 'supernatural' about that? It is perfectly natural to me."

        There is nothing unnatural about the subconscious mind as it is generally defined. It is the cognitive functions that operate below the threshold of awareness. And it requires a brain.

        So if that' s what you are referring to, yes it's perfectly natural.

        Now, if you are referring to something that operates independently of the brain, that might be considered supernatural.

        QUOTE: "The entire point that brought us to this off-topic discussion was that the brain is a physical, carbon-based 'reality' but the mind is not - does that make it any less 'real'? Our psychology and emotions are not carbon based, they are not physical; does this mean they do they not 'exist'?"

        For someone who has a brain, Kathy, this is a spectacular "leap of faith."

        Can you demonstrate one single instance of a thought, an emotion, or of "psychology" that has taken place without a brain?

        Of course, you cannot.

        Why?

        Because you have a brain.

        No brain - no psychology.

        No brain - no emotions.

        No brain - no thoughts.

        No brain - no mind.

        No brain - no Kathy.

        ---

        So while there may be some "superconsciousness" that floats around without a brain, you Kathy (and I) and every thought, every feeling and every emotion we have ever had, or will ever have, requires a brain.
      • thumb
        Dec 5 2011: Come on Kathy, you say our brain does not generate thoughts, feelings, emotions, patterns, neurotransmitters, and so on." And that this is all "consciousness working through the brain."

        And thought is "from our MIND, not our BRAIN."

        The implication being (I presume) we do not really need a brain to have a mind, thoughts, feelings and so on.

        Is that correct?

        ----

        QUOTE: ".. a generator of thought, feelings, emotions, patterns, neurotransmitters, and so on." No, this is the consciousness working through the brain, Thomas.

        Consciousness is varied in its energies; that which we experience as thought is from our MIND, not our BRAIN.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.