Where did we come from?
-
Peace Br. jonny_k,
Light does not experience time under relativity? Can you refer me to where you got that conclusion from?
Uh, uh... not happening for me. I am happy with the knowledge that my Lord is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Guide of all the Heavens and the Earth and whatever is between them. A very "Creationist" notion as opposed to the true scientists and biologists who are no longer in awe of the "perfection" in the creations just because they feel that given so much time to evolve, it would only be "natural" to expect such level of detail and complexity.
Br. OPF
Just to address some of your questions from your previous post
Peace
I agree wholly with the underlined part. That in italics isn't really true because it's a gross generalisation.
On the bolded section, the 'reference point' of light is undefined because in special relativity, you convert everything you see into that of something someone else sees by means of the 'Lorentz factor' - 1 / sqrt(1- ). If v^2 = c^2 then you will have to divide by 0 - which is undefined. More specifically, it's not that light 'experiences no time', it's more so that you can't refer to "the point of view of light" or any other massless thing.
Biblical distortions? I'll let you convey your understanding to me about the "Shaitan", "Iblees" and "Malaika". Or do you accept the following view of Dr. Shabbir
"Take a panoramic view of your common origin. Life began as a single life cell from hydrated inorganic matter (2313) We made you Adam (Homo sapiens, male and female). And We made the angels (the Universal forces) subservient to you. Satan or Iblees, your own rebellious desires, refused to submit to your higher controls of judgment."
That's the view I tend towards.
Anyway, "you and your spouse" I got from 235.
Mary conceived and moved away (1922). Is that enough to imply that there was a man involved in the conception? What about 1932? "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;" (Yusuf Ali). Why mention only his mother, not his father? Wait, don't answer that... Let me try to fill in the gaps of reality that were apparently omitted from the Book.
Mary had a visit from the "Malaika" (or insert any metaphor that you are comfortable with), who appeared to her as a man and gave her good news of a son, to which she replied how can I have a son, when I am still chaste and he said, it will be since it is easy for your Lord. After that, she (married someone and) conceived Jesus and moved to remote place to give birth (went back home to her husband only to find that he had died/left them), went back to her people with her child, who told them that he was a messenger of God and He made him kind to his mother."
I think I now understand how you are viewing the "test".
The issue is that any attempt to 'fill in the gaps' is denounced by the quran as conjecture. So I'll avoid that. But that's one of many rational explanations. Either way, Mary had a child, and there is no need to claim she was a virgin unless you can bring proof that humans can actually reproduce like that - the ball is in your court.
As for 235, I think you are mixing up your verses. 235 does not necessarily mean the same pair as mentioned in 41 unless you conclude Eve came from Adam's rib (!!?!?). In 41, there is a reference to the first creation, not necessarily Adam. Adam is noted as a successor, not a first creation and is given the special quality of being able to shed blood (isn't that wonderful?). No mention of 'Eve' in the quran either.
No confusion, really.
29020 - Say "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation for Allah has power over all things. (YUSUF ALI)
Are we told to travel throught the earth to "see" how Allah originates creation, or how Allah originates creation and repeats/returns it?
To observe both. Use the facilities of cross-reference with the quran, could it mean anything else? How about if we actually relate it to reality, don't a group of people already do that?
So, that means that there is a very thin line between distinguishing supernatural events and reality.
"No mechanical principle prevents the air emptying from a room when you open the door, killing everyone inside. Physics does not forbid a human from growing younger or the dead rising! All that has to happen for these "miraculous" events is that the molecules involved are accidentally moving in the right direction at the right instant. Of course these miracles are not observed to happen except in fantasies, but only because they are so highly unlikely." (Source http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html)
What one defines as reality may be supernatural for the other and vice versa.
Statistically absurd. There is nothing supernatural about those events but the chances of them happening may as well be 0.
That is the statement of the rejectors/disbelievers from among them, i.e. those who witnessed the favours that God granted to Jesus
5110 - "Then will Allah say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said 'This is nothing but evident magic.'" (Yousuf Ali)
Looking forward to your input.
The unbelievers said it was magic, i.e. trickery, supernatural. What did the believers say? ;D
-
Peace "sharp001",
Peace Br. jonny_k,
How did you concur that there had to be a "time" where there was only quantum flux/quantum particles? That is philosophical, mildly put... and also the very nature of quantum fluctuations is temporary and so cannot differentiate into anything
"Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation.... In classical physics (appliable to macroscopic phenomena), empty space-time is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles). It is the quantum mechanical state in which no field quanta are excited, that is, no particles are present. Hence, it is the "ground state" of the quantum field, the state of minimum energy.... particle pairs appear, lead a brief existence, and then annihilate one another in accordance with the Uncertainty Principle." Source (http//universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm)
JK- Ofcourse the quantum vacuum is a much more complex entity. And quantum "particles" themselves dont have a minimum energy. They can forever be divided into more simpler quanta with yet lower energy. I supposed you meant the ground state of elementary particles like electrons perhaps? In that case yes thats true but what turned into the first quarks or electrons intially. It was the quantum vacuum. Now for your statement of the uncertainty principle as particles appearing out of "nothing". Here nothing is just a word filler BECAUSE IT GOES BEYOND OUR MEANS OF OBSERVATION AT THIS TIME. I however strongly disagree with using the the term "nothing" for just like those people who just say "GOD did it", this also causes a hindrance to further ideas. The point is no way can one at any point deny cause and effect. It would be absurd to do so.
Light does not experience time under relativity? Can you refer me to where you got that conclusion from?
JK- Perhaps i didnt phrase it correctly. When something approaches the speed of light time keeps slowing more and more down for that object relative to all the surrounding material. At light speed time as we know it is frozen. This means that at should one reach light speed one would experience ALL CAUSES AND EFFECTS AT ONCE, BE EVERYWHERE AT ONCE ETC.
There was a reason why I asked if you could see whatever that it you think God is (Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc.). The parable of His light given in 2435 in realistic terms could be an indication of its intense brightness or in metaphorical terms of the ultimate nature of his guidance. Ponder over all the verse where the word "Noor" has been used. They are, I believe, in connection with Darkness. A source of Light in the surrounding Darkness. Physically speaking, the Moon has been described as the Light, not the Sun (105, 7116). Metaphorically speaking, Light (Guidance) amidst Darkness (Misguidedness). Misguidedness and disorder is the general theme in the grand scheme of things if left alone to themselves. Even the second law of thermodynamics attests to it "In a closed system, everything tends towards disorder (maximum entropy)".
JK- I wouldnt even try bringing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics for this universe couldve been and most probably is one of infinite universes which is created every now and then in the quantum vacuum as Stephen Hawkins is now suggesting as well.
Considering this, I think God's description in 2435 is a metaphor and includes an parable of that metaphor, because physically speaking, God has to be observable. Among other reason for my understanding, the general theme of all of the single-word descriptions attributed to Him are special, unique, thereby having a prefix of "Al" which is not the case in 2435. Also, "So do not give parables to God. God knows while you do not know." (1674) I know that people may interpret this verse differently but to me, it seems that we are not supposesd to coin comparisons or similitudes other than the ones that are mentioned in the Book. To me, saying that God is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network etc. is like saying, since 2435 says God is "the" Light of the heavens and the Earth and He must have been present before creation and since the only theoretical "light" plausible before creation is Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations, therefore,
God = Light (2435)
Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations = LightTherefore,
God = Higgs Field, Supreme Unified Quantum Network, Quantum Fluctuations.
Uh, uh... not happening for me. I am happy with the knowledge that my Lord is the Creator, the Sustainer, the Guide of all the Heavens and the Earth and whatever is between them. A very "Creationist" notion as opposed to the true scientists and biologists who are no longer in awe of the "perfection" in the creations just because they feel that given so much time to evolve, it would only be "natural" to expect such level of detail and complexity.
JK- GOD is also my Sustainer, Creator and everything else. But where is your proof then? Or how do you know that there is GOD? Your above statements only show that you wanna believe but not that you have any consistent arguments as to why you accept the existence of GOD. The mere statement that you cannot get intelligent beings out of random fluctuations is absurd to say the least because then one can easily say "well how did GOD, the most Intelligent, come into being" and one would only start giving arguments which show that one just wants to believe and has no proof or consistency whatsoever. I actually solved this problem, at least for myself, through the arguments ive presented here. I logically admit that intelligence not only can but inevitably arises out of random fluctuations with the addition of accepting an infinite number of cause and effects already passed thus making the existence of GOD CAUSALLY INEVITABLE. GOD Bless!
-
Br. OPF,
Just a few words about your post, after which I think it would be a stand-still for the time-being, until I get my head cleared.
I agree wholly with the underlined part. That in italics isn't really true because it's a gross generalisation.
Gross generalisation? Well, at least not by me...
"Intelligent Design advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support Intelligent Design, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory." (Source http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq)
The issue is that any attempt to 'fill in the gaps' is denounced by the quran as conjecture. So I'll avoid that. But that's one of many rational explanations. Either way, Mary had a child, and there is no need to claim she was a virgin unless you can bring proof that humans can actually reproduce like that - the ball is in your court.
I concede that apart from what the Lord tells us in the Book about Jesus, we can't add anything to it. I wanted to say that in similar fashion, we should not rule out virgin birth in the same way that we can't rule out the possibility of normal birth, but it is futile argument as virgin birth is already ruled out based on current reality. But I am unable to readily accept for reasons I think perhaps I will be unable to convey at the moment. Suffice to say, it is just how the verses are presented regarding Mary and Jesus... like the disbelievers saying that Jesus is the son begotten by God, not Jesus being born without a father or Mary's virgin birth. I suppose I'll let the verses sink in further before I come to a decisive conclusion.
As for 235, I think you are mixing up your verses. 235 does not necessarily mean the same pair as mentioned in 41 unless you conclude Eve came from Adam's rib (!!?!?). In 41, there is a reference to the first creation, not necessarily Adam. Adam is noted as a successor, not a first creation and is given the special quality of being able to shed blood (isn't that wonderful?). No mention of 'Eve' in the quran either.
Successor... to whom? The previous creations? Maybe the dinosaurs? ... Eve? Did I mention her? I apologize if I did, although I don't recall. Also, 3 verses
761 - Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned? (Free minds)
41 - O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you. (Free minds)
4913 - O mankind, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honourable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. (Free minds)
Keeping in mind 761, would the Book mention something which it itself says is something not even to be mentioned?
Statistically absurd. There is nothing supernatural about those events but the chances of them happening may as well be 0.
... But they aren't zero and are nothing supernatural, right?
The unbelievers said it was magic, i.e. trickery, supernatural. What did the believers say? ;D
Maybe the believers said, "It is indeed a sign from the Lord"...
and how does trickery=supernatural?
I don't understand where you found plants from, because every other translation I use mentions nothing of plants
7117
Free Minds - And God made you grow from the Earth like plants.
JM Rodwell - And God hath caused you to spring forth from the earth like a plant;
Khalifa - And GOD germinated you from the earth like plants.Keep in mind the time factor. The statement is true but in no way contradicts evolution. God is proving his might by saying that at one point, he never existed (and as physics tells us, nothing tangible existed at one specific point in time), but he does now, and it's very easy to god alone. Are you implying Zakariya popped out of thin air?
What I am suggesting that everyone of us is "nothing" before our existence. Sperm and eggs... are they an entity, are they a conscience? They are of nothing, not even capable of guaranteeing a new existence, say, maybe, due to fertilization complexities.
Br. jonny_k,
Just one question for you? How do you think people of the times past proved God without quantum physics?
Peace all
-
Peace "sharp001",
Just one question for you? How do you think people of the times past proved God without quantum physics?
JK- Very simple. Although they didnt know quantum physics, rational people knew everything must have a prior cause to it so there must have been an infinite number of causes from any point in time. Also they must have comprehended that an infinite number of cause and effects would lead to the rise of an infinite unified intelligence Who then in turn leaves nothing more upto chance. This concept isnt really too difficult to grasp. GOD Bless!
-
Peace Br. jonny_k,
I think I would disagree. Earlier generation believed in a creator/creators, whether they were greek gods, idols, One God, Buddha, Krishna, whatever you want to call them. They knew the concept of Creator from their forefathers and their fathers before them, even without using their rationale. How? The Books tells of covenants of God with the earliest of mankind. If you were to ask them, what causes the seed to grow into a tree, they would have said their God(s). Who created the animals and the birds? Their God(s). Superstitiously or otherwise, they would always attribute everything to God, rational and irrational men alike. Nowadays, such people would be called creationists. It is only nowadays, that people, becoming more "knowledgeable" in matters of science, have begun to question existence of God(s) or His/their involvement in creation. "Cause and effect" implies that in a system, only if you input something (energy or the like) will you get any output, which is just a change of form of the input. Similarly, for the Universe, something must have been inputted for it to have been effected, and that something must be in the universe but in a different form. However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe. The absense of net energy in the universe, whether postive or negative, implies that there was no energy inputted into the Universe, therefore, there was no cause for the Universe's existence (effect).
Anyway, by your assertion, that must mean that there were more rational people in the days past long ago, including the dark ages and the age of ignorance, then in more recent times, in the light of the following verses
Yusuf Ali
567 - And ye shall be sorted out into three classes.
5610 - And those Foremost (in Faith) will be Foremost (in the Hereafter).
5611 - These will be those Nearest to Allah
5613 - A number of people from those of old,
5614 - And a few from those of later times.
5627 - The Companions of the Right Hand,- what will be the Companions of the Right Hand?
5639 - A (goodly) number from those of old
5640 - And a (goodly) number from those of later times.God Bless
-
Peace "sharp001",
Yes many from amongst the early generations did believe in a creator/creators because their forefathers told them so BUT NOT ALL. Just take a look at the hindu scriptures like the Vedas. They define GOD in almost the same way ive done and clearly state that Hes One. And there were some great philosophers back then who surely gave this a thought.
Regarding the universe and the total energy being zero again this seems to be based on a speculation with the gravitational force. With these kinna things one is only trying to avoid an infinite no of cause and effects(i dont know why the human brain wont just accept it) but one cannot. Why do you think steven hawkins went on to multiple universes? Also lets assume all cause and effects were always inside this universe. YET an infinite amount of cause and effects would have already taken place otherwise at some place one needs to assume that some particle just "came to be out of nothing" and this is a nonsense claim. It is often made when all observatory power we have cannot detect any cause. Consider yourself being in an artificial reality like a matrix where it has been programmed that the smallest observable particle is say 1mm in diameter. You just cannot go beyond that but does that mean there aint any other particles(electrons externally) which make up all this world including that small particle. What if particles around you suddenly started to move and you couldnt detect any cause i.e. paranormal FROM YOUR REFERENCE PT. Does it mean there is no cause? Ofcourse not since this cannot logically be. Ofcourse the external objects would "know" that the causes are due to electron flow in the system which is simulating the reality. GOD Bless! -
029.020 Travel in the earth and see how He makes the first creation, then Allah creates the latter creation; surely Allah has power over all things.
Who travels in the Earth and observes the first creation? Certainly not creationists. Paleontologists. And their findings are much different. The people who obey a quranic commandment say different things to people who claim to do so - and one side has evidence.
Those paleontologists find evolution. Evolution could be part or a method of creation. And I think that evolution is an intelligent process.
-
From OPF
I don't understand where you found plants from, because every other translation I use mentions nothing of plants
That's why you put NO faith in translations. The word used for plants in 7117 is nabata.
Nun-Ba-Ta = to produce (tree), germinate, grow, sprout (plant), grow up (child). nawaabit - offspring of human beings or cattle.
nabata vb. (1)
impf. act. 2320
n.vb. 337, 699, 758, 1024, 1845, 2053, 5720, 7117, 7815anbata vb. (4)
perf. act. 2261, 337, 1519, 225, 267, 2760, 3110, 37146, 507, 509, 7117, 8027
impf. act. 261, 1611, 2760, 3636
Lane's Lexicon, Volume 8, pages 7, 8http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Make PRL your best friend, along with this incredible word for word translation
http//www.textinmotion.com/chapters.jsp
-
From OPF
That's why you put NO faith in translations. The word used for plants in 7117 is nabata.
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
Make PRL your best friend, along with this incredible word for word translation
http//www.textinmotion.com/chapters.jsp
Thanks, the first link I already knew but the second link is just amazing, I've been looking (obviously not hard enough) for something like that. As for the word, my spidey-senses told me that 'growth' would be used in the translations as opposed to literally plants but I prefer going with established meanings for certain reasons. Still...
Peace "sharp001",
JK- Very simple. Although they didnt know quantum physics, rational people knew everything must have a prior cause to it so there must have been an infinite number of causes from any point in time. Also they must have comprehended that an infinite number of cause and effects would lead to the rise of an infinite unified intelligence Who then in turn leaves nothing more upto chance. This concept isnt really too difficult to grasp. GOD Bless!Can you explain how 'quantum physics' changes a thing?
Br. OPF,
Peace all
"Intelligent Design advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support Intelligent Design, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory." (Source http//www.talkdesign.org/cs/td_faq)
Still a gross generalisation...
I concede that apart from what the Lord tells us in the Book about Jesus, we can't add anything to it. I wanted to say that in similar fashion, we should not rule out virgin birth in the same way that we can't rule out the possibility of normal birth, but it is futile argument as virgin birth is already ruled out based on current reality. But I am unable to readily accept for reasons I think perhaps I will be unable to convey at the moment. Suffice to say, it is just how the verses are presented regarding Mary and Jesus... like the disbelievers saying that Jesus is the son begotten by God, not Jesus being born without a father or Mary's virgin birth. I suppose I'll let the verses sink in further before I come to a decisive conclusion.
As you wish ;D
761 - Was there not a time in the past when the human being was nothing to even be mentioned? (Free minds)
41 - O people, be aware of your Lord who has created you from one soul and He created from it its mate and sent forth from it many men and women; and be aware of God whom you ask about, and the relatives. God is watcher over you. (Free minds)
4913 - O mankind, We created you from a male and female, and We made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely, the most honourable among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is Knowledgeable, Expert. (Free minds)
Keeping in mind 761, would the Book mention something which it itself says is something not even to be mentioned?
I think you're missing the meaning/implication of 761. What I see is that in this time mentioned, none but god alone could have known about humans and hence would be unable to mention us. Now look at it logically
a - Adam is mentioned (as successor on earth)
b - An entity and its partner of an opposing gender are mentioned as a first creation from which men and women also came about (not necessarily THE first creation, but the earliest common ancestors of humans)
c - The quran is fully detailed, complete, etcThen you can attempt to say Adam is the entity in b - but that cannot be reconciled with c because surely there would be the name of his partner - unless 'adam' is not specifically a name. Regardless, it is plain to see that b is separate from a. If you say that 'the human being is not to be mentioned' as a command in the past tense from god, then that's an erroneous statement in light of the fact that adam is mentioned, before his creation (when god details his plan to the malaika).
... But they aren't zero and are nothing supernatural, right?
The odds themselves are supernatural. You know what other odds are supernatural? The odds of us actually existing here and now in this universe. There are lots of theories floating around by atheists to explain such a thing (aspects of string theory produce/predict some 10^500 possible universes and they have the marvellous job of reducing it to ours, the "many worlds interpretation" is another such thing), but these have no falsifiability. So I'm not going to deny whatsoever that these ridiculously contorted dice can roll all sixes - because they already HAVE.
Maybe the believers said, "It is indeed a sign from the Lord"...
and how does trickery=supernatural?
I agree. Going over, it would seem that it was an argument as to who believed it was from God, not whether it was supernatural or not.
What I am suggesting that everyone of us is "nothing" before our existence. Sperm and eggs... are they an entity, are they a conscience? They are of nothing, not even capable of guaranteeing a new existence, say, maybe, due to fertilization complexities.
That, of course is a big difference.
Those paleontologists find evolution. Evolution could be part or a method of creation. And I think that evolution is an intelligent process.
I agree, if only because we happen to be here. There is a general agreement however that 'evolution' has no direction. But hey, through natural selection and trial and error and such, it has to produce good results.
-
Peace bro "OPF",
Can you explain how 'quantum physics' changes a thing?
JK- Although those previous generations probably knew what i mentioned earlier, there was one problem which remained with that. Ok so a Supreme Intelligence now inevitably exists somewhere BUT how do we know He created us? Wheres the link? He could be there but we were yet merely the product of isolated random evolutionary processes due to yet other causes and effects. Quantum physics solves this problem. As we know from relativity as we approach the speed of light the external processes begin to speed up relative to us or in other words time begins to slow down for us. For every move wed make being close to ls an outsider woudlve made many moves. If we would be at total speed of light this would make us be everywhere at the same time and this is exactly what light experiences. Even the so called speed of light is somewhat confusing. It is only experienced because of the limited power of the observers which includes all elementary particles. Otherwise light infact does NOT TRAVEL AT ALL. It is already everywhere. If we move back to the time where there was only quantum flux we would thus have only One Single Quantum Foam or more respectfully Cause so to say, since the quantum on its own does not even have isolated causes and effects. It truly is One. Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
-
Greetings jonny_k,
Very nicely put. Thanks for sharing this with us. It makes perfect sense; and just think -- in terms of this concept and the purpose of this separation/differentiation and how it changes how we can understand then the concept of 'tawhid'. Amazing, eh?
-
Peace bro "OPF",
JK- Although those previous generations probably knew what i mentioned earlier, there was one problem which remained with that. Ok so a Supreme Intelligence now inevitably exists somewhere BUT how do we know He created us? Wheres the link? He could be there but we were yet merely the product of isolated random evolutionary processes due to yet other causes and effects. Quantum physics solves this problem. As we know from relativity as we approach the speed of light the external processes begin to speed up relative to us or in other words time begins to slow down for us. For every move wed make being close to ls an outsider woudlve made many moves. If we would be at total speed of light this would make us be everywhere at the same time and this is exactly what light experiences. Even the so called speed of light is somewhat confusing. It is only experienced because of the limited power of the observers which includes all elementary particles. Otherwise light infact does NOT TRAVEL AT ALL. It is already everywhere. If we move back to the time where there was only quantum flux we would thus have only One Single Quantum Foam or more respectfully Cause so to say, since the quantum on its own does not even have isolated causes and effects. It truly is One. Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
As I said already, light has no reference point at all. There is no sense in saying "the point of view of light" because it's undefined and equivalent to dividing by zero which can be seen exactly so when you note that the Lorentz factor for an object at the speed of light is undefined, or asymptotic. 1/0 is not infinity. I would go as far as to say that light doesn't experience time at all.
Only after differentiation can we as observers see bits and pieces of the whole Quantum Foam which we call quanta, and only from that point on would it be justified to call Him Supreme Quantum Network. This then solves the problem since now this initial Quantum Field already "experienced" every possible causal pathway, even through infinite dimensions, thus "gaining" infinite knowledge within an infinitesimal amount of what we know as time and initiated ALL differentiation into whatever elementary particles which then observed Him. Hence it is not possible for ANY elementary particle to not be created by GOD. I know this is kind of hard to absorb at first and so it was for me too. But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics. GOD Bless!
Your idea has been around for a century (look up "Boltzmann brains". It's a statistical absurdity that relies on either incredible luck or infinite time and you're trying to use the latter. What you are relying on is the statistical nature of things on the small scale. Which just isn't proven. In fact that's quite a huge problem since it's not known whether any of quantum mechanics actually describes what the hell is going on at that scale. Most of the mathematical formalism behind it is simply "here's the initial state, run it through the equation and get the chances of detecting your particle in this region". There is no actual description as to what's going on underneath and there's a simple reason for that, QM is barely a century old. In fact, there are some people working on a raw cause & effect based theory (ex.). To conclude anything here would have shaky grounds and quranically, your masjid al-haram should never have shaky grounds (9109).
But i realized that it all fit together perfectly and is in line with quantum physics.
In agreement with what of quantum physics? Quantum electrodynamics? Chromodynamics? Mechanics? Can you show any peer-reviewed studies that come to the same conclusion as you and don't rely on statistical silliness like Boltzmann's problem?
So, it doesn't help one bit at all. It's riddled with paradoxes, it isn't even known whether it actually describes anything and it definitely isn't in a position to be used for anything other than calculating where a particle will move.
-
Peace "OPF",
As I said already, light has no reference point at all. There is no sense in saying "the point of view of light" because it's undefined and equivalent to dividing by zero which can be seen exactly so when you note that the Lorentz factor for an object at the speed of light is undefined, or asymptotic. 1/0 is not infinity. I would go as far as to say that light doesn't experience time at all.
JK- 1/0 is infinity accroding to accepted mathematics. Yes 2/0 is also infinity and so is 1.5/0 so we have smaller and greater infinities which is well known in mathematics too. And i made it clear that light does not experience time as we know it. Thats at least according to current knowledge. But to explain anything which goes on in the quantum realm one would have to introduce imaginary time, something which steven hawkins actually did in his latest "theory of everything".
Your idea has been around for a century (look up "Boltzmann brains". It's a statistical absurdity that relies on either incredible luck or infinite time and you're trying to use the latter. What you are relying on is the statistical nature of things on the small scale. Which just isn't proven. In fact that's quite a huge problem since it's not known whether any of quantum mechanics actually describes what the hell is going on at that scale. Most of the mathematical formalism behind it is simply "here's the initial state, run it through the equation and get the chances of detecting your particle in this region". There is no actual description as to what's going on underneath and there's a simple reason for that, QM is barely a century old. In fact, there are some people working on a raw cause & effect based theory (ex.). To conclude anything here would have shaky grounds and quranically, your masjid al-haram should never have shaky grounds (9109).
JK- This is not a statistical absurdity at all, not if we have an infinite no of causes and effects. Yes the Primary Intelligence/COnsciousness must have arisen out of random fluctuations. There is just no other way or would you rather go for magic. Everything after that then is a result of that Being's planning. There is no problem/paradox with this whatsoever. Regarding the increasing enthropy in the universe, this is exactly why this universe cannot be the only one just as stephen hawkins has realized. Theres has to be an infinite no of them or better yet maybe this universe is part of another universe which is yet part of another and so on to in infinity. Hence theres a mere shift of enthropy whilst it increases here it decreases elsewhere. You cannot say that enthropy always increases in absolute terms. This would be somewhat near the creationists claim who also play with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which has been debunked. The best explanation is that Quantum Flux continues to create universes in which first enthropy decreases and then maybe at some point decreases. Initially this is what happened in our universe too. Enthropy DEcreases at first.
In agreement with what of quantum physics? Quantum electrodynamics? Chromodynamics? Mechanics? Can you show any peer-reviewed studies that come to the same conclusion as you and don't rely on statistical silliness like Boltzmann's problem?
So, it doesn't help one bit at all. It's riddled with paradoxes, it isn't even known whether it actually describes anything and it definitely isn't in a position to be used for anything other than calculating where a particle will move.JK- As i said this is anything but silly. Otherwise please explain to me how the Primary Intelligence came into being logically. GOD Bless!
-
Peace sis ?ilisa?,
Greetings jonny_k,
Very nicely put. Thanks for sharing this with us. It makes perfect sense; and just think -- in terms of this concept and the purpose of this separation/differentiation and how it changes how we can understand then the concept of 'tawhid'. Amazing, eh?
JK- Thanks for the positive input and yes indeed I think here we are almost on one level. But I still doubt homeopathy and quantum healing or quantum intervention on the macro level. Simply put I do this mainly because I then don?t see the reasons for all the plants and chemicals and physical laws around us which could be used in various treatments. If you could just explain that. Also did you contact the JREF again that your up for the challenge and waiting? GOD Bless!
-
What force causes one species to evolve into another?
Changing environmental pressures like climate change, habitat change, introduction of new foods/predators/etc, opening of empty habitats, etc.
-
Peace sis ?ilisa?,
JK- Thanks for the positive input and yes indeed I think here we are almost on one level. But I still doubt homeopathy and quantum healing or quantum intervention on the macro level. Simply put I do this mainly because I then don?t see the reasons for all the plants and chemicals and physical laws around us which could be used in various treatments. If you could just explain that. Also did you contact the JREF again that your up for the challenge and waiting? GOD Bless!
Greetings JK,
To clarify are you saying that you don't see what I mean when I say that everything in creation is a reflection of a dis-ease state of man and you'd like for me to explain this?
-
Changing environmental pressures like climate change, habitat change, introduction of new foods/predators/etc, opening of empty habitats, etc.
Yes, those are the reasons for it to be successful, but not what actually happens to the creatures offspring. Most scientists say it's the random mutation of genes, which occasionally leads to new and improved ones, and since those are passed on, a small change is created. I definantly do not believe that random alterations (by such things as radio activity) lead to such sophisticated and delicately balanced life systems. I find the fact that life could not create itself to be one of the biggest evidences of God, but since the theory of evolution gives peoples mind this possibility, it makes it easy for widespread Athiesm--since the biggest evidence is irradicated, and as Muslims we know going this route is to the destruction of a person. This doesn't just effect one person either--Evolution based Athiesm has lead to such philosophies as Nazism and the act of racial cleansing.
-
Peace "OPF",
JK- 1/0 is infinity accroding to accepted mathematics. Yes 2/0 is also infinity and so is 1.5/0 so we have smaller and greater infinities which is well known in mathematics too. And i made it clear that light does not experience time as we know it. Thats at least according to current knowledge. But to explain anything which goes on in the quantum realm one would have to introduce imaginary time, something which steven hawkins actually did in his latest "theory of everything".
Maybe you can cite a source when you say "accepted mathematics". A simple proof against your idea is that 0*anything = 0. Fundamental idea in ring theory, correct? And don't get "quantum" with me when neither of us are arguably qualified to talk "quantum".
JK- This is not a statistical absurdity at all, not if we have an infinite no of causes and effects. Yes the Primary Intelligence/COnsciousness must have arisen out of random fluctuations. There is just no other way or would you rather go for magic. Everything after that then is a result of that Being's planning. There is no problem/paradox with this whatsoever. Regarding the increasing enthropy in the universe, this is exactly why this universe cannot be the only one just as stephen hawkins has realized. Theres has to be an infinite no of them or better yet maybe this universe is part of another universe which is yet part of another and so on to in infinity. Hence theres a mere shift of enthropy whilst it increases here it decreases elsewhere. You cannot say that enthropy always increases in absolute terms. This would be somewhat near the creationists claim who also play with the 2nd law of thermodynamics which has been debunked. The best explanation is that Quantum Flux continues to create universes in which first enthropy decreases and then maybe at some point decreases. Initially this is what happened in our universe too. Enthropy DEcreases at first.
And there is an equal chance of an "anti-god" spawning in the next "fluctuations" or previously. Again, sillyness. I don't actually care what "stephen hawkins has realised" because MWI is completely unverifiable to the point of idiocy, cooked up to explain a certain result in quantum mechanics and belongs in a trash heap.
JK- As i said this is anything but silly. Otherwise please explain to me how the Primary Intelligence came into being logically. GOD Bless!
There is no need to 'explain how god came into being'. Sorry to tell you but we are well out of our scope here.
-
Peace "OPF",
Maybe you can cite a source when you say "accepted mathematics". A simple proof against your idea is that 0*anything = 0. Fundamental idea in ring theory, correct? And don't get "quantum" with me when neither of us are arguably qualified to talk "quantum".
JK- 0 x "anything FINITE" = 0 yes, but 0 x "INfinity" is NOT ONLY zero, otherwise taking 0 x INF = 0 would give ONLY, by cross multiplication, 0 / 0 = INF which is incorrect since 0/0 can be ANY finite value as well i.e. and infinite amount of solutions and is therefore indeterminate. Other examples of indeterminates would be 0^0 and 1^INF. See http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0/0
And there is an equal chance of an "anti-god" spawning in the next "fluctuations" or previously. Again, sillyness. I don't actually care what "stephen hawkins has realised" because MWI is completely unverifiable to the point of idiocy, cooked up to explain a certain result in quantum mechanics and belongs in a trash heap.
JK- How do you define "anti-god"? Do you mean something which rebels against GOD? If so then yes there sure is but like in evolution the most rational dominates and that by definition is what is termed as GOD. So this term "anti-god" of yours doesnt make any sense. And MWI does IMO resolve the otherwise apparent paradoxes in quantum mechanics and is very reasonable taking into account that quantum "particles" exist in all possible states simultaneously, the outcomes each manifesting in its own universe.
There is no need to 'explain how god came into being'. Sorry to tell you but we are well out of our scope here.
JK- Oh yes there is if one wants to be intellectually honest. Just claiming "GOD did it or is there" is not satisfactory to say the least. GOD Bless!