In the beginning was the word… (information)What are you trying to say, I don’t understand
your line of reasoning.
Although the title of the article is extremely misleading, the video itself is remarkably illuminating, and fits nicely with my own personal observations about the nature of reality. The entire gist of the video, I believe, is that there are patterns to be found in the underlying structure of things. These patterns are complex in their ultimate manifestations, but exceedingly simple in their essence. They’re discernible in everything, from the shape of a leaf, to the composition of language, to the behavior of men. They’re there in math, and nature, and art. The same patterns occurring over and over again. One can choose to refer to these patterns as information, as Mr. Vedral does in this video, but the important thing isn’t what you call them, but that you realize that they’re there. Because once you realize that they’re there, then you have to ask yourself, why.Vlatko Vedral: ‘I’d like to explain the origin of God’
Quantum physicist Vlatko Vedral thinks he has found what the universe is made of: information
Information has an actual meaning in physics, and besides, even if you accept this, and, say, the Big Bang was a creative event (remember folks, cosmologists state that it is only an event that happened to the observable universe, and no theory states that it was the beginning, that’s just a bit of sloppy wording for laymen), then everything is information, and thus information was created at the same time as everything else.What are you trying to say, I don’t understand
your line of reasoning.
The constant “c” (the speed of light) is a constant which governs several aspects of physics. Photons can travel at c in a vacuum because they have no mass, but “speed of light” is still a short hand. Physicists generally use “c”, in recognition of the fact that it is one of the basic physical constants, with ramifications for several areas of physics beyond optics.Before light, what was the speed of light? Was that number in existence before light?
I understand that (sort of) but no one has ever really been able to explain to me why a constant is a constant in the first place, except to say, “It is what it is”. Which has always sounded a lot like, “I am that I am” to me.The constant “c” (the speed of light) is a constant which governs several aspects of physics. Photons can travel at c in a vacuum because they have no mass, but “speed of light” is still a short hand. Physicists generally use “c”, in recognition of the fact that it is one of the basic physical constants, with ramifications for several areas of physics beyond optics.
As to “light”, as in visible light, the Universe didn’t become transparent to light until over 370,000 years after the Big Bang, long after photons had arisen. Photons themselves arose from the earliest interactions between subatomic particles (photons being an energy-transmitting particle).
Does this answer you question?
That’s because no one knows yet. In science, one has to accept that some questions have yet to be answered.I understand that (sort of) but no one has ever really been able to explain to me why a constant is a constant in the first place, except to say “It is what it is” which has always sounded a lot like “I am that I am” to me.
Bingo!!That’s because no one knows yet. In science, one has to accept that some questions have yet to be answered.
Now the question is can a religion accept the same uncertainty, or is every gap in knowledge to be completed with “God did it!”Bingo!!
To me the answer is not, “God did it.”Now the question is can a religion accept the same uncertainty, or is every gap in knowledge to be completed with “God did it!”
I don’t think scientists have to be satisfied. In fact, they usually are not. But some problems are more difficult to solve than others.It just occurred to me that:
If science is satisfied with “It is what it is”
I can be satisfied with, “I am that I am”
Reason and faith are not in conflict. They have the same beginning.
But that assumes that God did in fact do it. I’m an atheist. I don’t accept that there is a god, and thus I don’t simply accept the claim “This is how God did it.”To me the answer is not, “God did it.”
Science is the discovery of “How did God do it.”
But I do care. I love to think of the power of the cosmos. I love wondering why. I love it all.I don’t think scientists have to be satisfied. In fact, they usually are not. But some problems are more difficult to solve than others.
If they were satisfied with “We’ll never know how the constants came to be in place”, they’d probably stop trying to develop cosmological models.
Having to admit you don’t know the answer isn’t the same as “I don’t care that I don’t know the answer.”
As do I, and in reality, I don’t actually believe religion as a general notion is incompatible with science, though obviously some groups make claims that are patently absurd. It’s just my view that a prime mover is unnecessary, but I’m perfectly willing to concede that I could be wrong. I’m an atheist, but I’d like to think I’m not an overly dogmatic atheist.But I do care. I love to think of the power of the cosmos. I love wondering why. I love it all.
Consider there will always be at least one gap, or we would be God.Now the question is can a religion accept the same uncertainty, or is every gap in knowledge to be completed with “God did it!”