Artificial life likely in 3 to 10 years
-
Peace
Peace,
The creation of artificial life would not pose even a little threat to the existence of GOD, which is inevitable as ive explained in some of my prevcious posts if causality is not violated and we dont wanna beleive in magic, BUT it would to the Quran as being the Word of GOD. The minimum challenge is to create a fly as per Quran 2273. If they succeed to that extent then the Quran would be falsified. GOD Bless!I think people can make flys, however its not by their own doing, its by God. Kind of like Jesus resurrecting the dead. When they (if ever) make a fly, it will be by stuff that is already created by God, therefore they really wouldnt be creating it, just using Gods creations to make it. I dont see artificial life or creating flys a challenge at all to the Quran.
salam
i think one needs to be wary of prematurely calling something 'alive'. being alive is not a clearly defined concept and one should consider what this means. for example, in a way, there are many living systems inside a computer. these systems make decisions and can become unpredicatable or chaotic; what i think they lack is consciousness, although that is another concept needing deeper thought!
salam
The same could be said of us. What exactly is consciousness and how would we know when a machine would actually have it? For example, it could show signs of it, but is it really conscious or just programmed to behave that way. We could say the same about people, but we just take it that they are conscious. We are a machine of sorts and operate similarly to computers.
Peace
-
Peace "amuslim"
Peace
I think people can make flys, however its not by their own doing, its by God. Kind of like Jesus resurrecting the dead. When they (if ever) make a fly, it will be by stuff that is already created by God, therefore they really wouldnt be creating it, just using Gods creations to make it. I dont see artificial life or creating flys a challenge at all to the Quran.
JK- First of all no one has to date created a biological fly(only modiefied existing ones). Even if thex create a fly out of already existing cells, the challenge wont be met. BUT the Quran clearly states that we cannot create a fly and hence if we succed then the Quran would be wrong since the staemtemt would be contradicting with an established fact. Its one of the falsification tests the Quran offers which i personally believe wont be met. 2ndly youll always need pre existing material to create something a new. The primary substance is Light or EM waves. Well we can learn how to create elementary particlesd out of those and i beleive CERN already succeded in that. Now scientists are trying to create living cells in the lab and allowing them to evolve. If they succeed in getting something as complex as a fly or greater then the Quran is falsified. Period. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "amuslim"
JK- First of all no one has to date created a biological fly(only modiefied existing ones). Even if thex create a fly out of already existing cells, the challenge wont be met. BUT the Quran clearly states that we cannot create a fly and hence if we succed then the Quran would be wrong since the staemtemt would be contradicting with an established fact. Its one of the falsification tests the Quran offers which i personally believe wont be met. 2ndly youll always need pre existing material to create something a new. The primary substance is Light or EM waves. Well we can learn how to create elementary particlesd out of those and i beleive CERN already succeded in that. Now scientists are trying to create living cells in the lab and allowing them to evolve. If they succeed in getting something as complex as a fly or greater then the Quran is falsified. Period. GOD Bless!
salam brother Jonny
sorry for being pedantic, but i just wanted to point out that i think those elementary particles you say are created, are not created, but are what light is made of. think of it as picking currants out of a cake.
perhaps i am wrong, which particles are you referring to?
salam
-
Peace "ignoramus",
Define "create" please. My definition is the "intelligent or planned differentiation of some material" into another in order to get overall beneficial results either immediately or in the long term. GOD is the Light of the heavens and the earth or in scientific terms the Quantum Zero Field Who encompasses all. He is not a magical spiritual being as many religionists try to define Him. Thus when He Himself differnetiates His Light and thereby creates. GOD Bless! -
Peace "ignoramus",
Define "create" please. My definition is the "intelligent or planned differentiation of some material" into another in order to get overall beneficial results either immediately or in the long term. GOD is the Light of the heavens and the earth or in scientific terms the Quantum Zero Field Who encompasses all. He is not a magical spiritual being as many religionists try to define Him. Thus when He Himself differnetiates His Light and thereby creates. GOD Bless!salam
it comes down to definitions once again. if your take the cake from my last post and you seperate the currents from the sponge, have you created something?
if you think you have then we create particles from many things including light.
for me, this is not creation, although there is no reason that my definition is the correct one.
as regards God being the quantum zero field, i think this is absolutley and fundementally wrong. the quantum zero field is something that is itslelf created and something which can be influenced by man. personally, i cannot see how this can be God. of course, my definition of God may be different to yours.
so far as the particles at CERN are concerned, if you state which particles you are referring to, i would have a better understanding of what you were saying in your last but one post.
all forces and matter can be described in terms of fields as well as particles; they are just 2 different ways of describing the same thing. for example, light can be understood as particles (photons), as well as fields (electromagnetic radiation).
salam
-
Peace "ignoramous",
salam
it comes down to definitions once again. if your take the cake from my last post and you seperate the currents from the sponge, have you created something?
if you think you have then we create particles from many things including light.
for me, this is not creation, although there is no reason that my definition is the correct one.
JK- Yes this IS creating something new.
as regards God being the quantum zero field, i think this is absolutley and fundementally wrong. the quantum zero field is something that is itslelf created and something which can be influenced by man. personally, i cannot see how this can be God. of course, my definition of God may be different to yours.
JK- The best explanation for GOD in science is probaly the Higgs Field(see wiki), Quantum Field which penetrates the entire universe as also said in sura annoor where GOD clearly says Hes the Light of the heavsns and the earth BEFORE entering into allegory. The only problem with Higgs definition is the mere statement "Its(Higgs Field's) presence is said to be required in order to explain the large difference in mass between those particles which mediate weak interactions (the W and Z bosons) and that which mediates electromagnetic interactions (the photon)." Whilst this stamenet maybe correct another important point to consider is that the original Quantum Field has had INFINITE time to evolve as i mentioned earlier and as a result MUST INEVITABLY have emerged into intelligence. But since this too happened infinite time ago it is technically correct to say that He was always there. The logical result of infinite regression as ive discussed before. GOD is not a magical being as many religinists like to postulate.
so far as the particles at CERN are concerned, if you state which particles you are referring to, i would have a better understanding of what you were saying in your last but one post.
JK- They collided photons of cxertain frequency to create simple hydrogen atoms for example.
all forces and matter can be described in terms of fields as well as particles; they are just 2 different ways of describing the same thing. for example, light can be understood as particles (photons), as well as fields (electromagnetic radiation).
salam
JK- This is true though ultimately all is combined(can possibly be explained by string theory soon) at the quantum level and yes it is of dual nature all the way. GOD Bless!
-
Washington Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they're getting closer.
They will only get closer and closer but they will never actually get there
O mankind! A similitude is coined, so pay ye heed to it Lo! those on whom ye call beside Allah will never create a fly though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly took something from them, they could not rescue it from him. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought! (al-Hajj 2273)
-
salam brother Jonny
Peace "ignoramous",
JK- Yes this IS creating something new.
when i say creation, i mean something completely different.
JK- The best explanation for GOD in science is probaly the Higgs Field(see wiki), Quantum Field which penetrates the entire universe as also said in sura annoor where GOD clearly says Hes the Light of the heavsns and the earth BEFORE entering into allegory. The only problem with Higgs definition is the mere statement "Its(Higgs Field's) presence is said to be required in order to explain the large difference in mass between those particles which mediate weak interactions (the W and Z bosons) and that which mediates electromagnetic interactions (the photon)." Whilst this stamenet maybe correct another important point to consider is that the original Quantum Field has had INFINITE time to evolve as i mentioned earlier and as a result MUST INEVITABLY have emerged into intelligence. But since this too happened infinite time ago it is technically correct to say that He was always there. The logical result of infinite regression as ive discussed before. GOD is not a magical being as many religinists like to postulate.
i think you are getting lost in semantics; when God says He is the light of the heavens and the Earth, He does not mean physical light.
if you worship Higgs bosons, do you worship any particular one, or all of the billions and billions of them? i cannot see any difference in worshipping a Higgs boson and a piece of rock.
what you loosely call the quantum field is not of infinite age, it is only aas old as the universe. it is also not one single entity.
what has infinite regression to do with God?
JK- They collided photons of cxertain frequency to create simple hydrogen atoms for example.
they are not created; E=mc2
JK- This is true though ultimately all is combined(can possibly be explained by string theory soon) at the quantum level and yes it is of dual nature all the way. GOD Bless!
i do not understand what you mean.
salam
-
Peace all,
From what I understand, God being a Light is not literal, it just means that everything is in existance because of God, as well as the nurture and a thousand other reasons. Light is a creation and is physical, God cannot be light.
Same with the Quantum Field. Digress a couple years back and we could say that God was electrons. In all actuality, God is everything because without giving us life, we wouldnt be in existance.
Peace
-
Creation shouldn't be confused with creator.
-
Peace "ignoramus",
salam brother Jonny
when i say creation, i mean something completely different.
JK- Alright what do you mean then? please define.
i think you are getting lost in semantics; when God says He is the light of the heavens and the Earth, He does not mean physical light.
JK- NONSENSE. Now your becoming same as those spiritual mystics. The Quran only mentions the allegory AFTER the claim that GOD is the Light of the heavens and the earth.
if you worship Higgs bosons, do you worship any particular one, or all of the billions and billions of them? i cannot see any difference in worshipping a Higgs boson and a piece of rock.
JK- ALL OF THEM COMBINED. And if you cannot see the difference between this and worshipping a rock i cannot help you. These particles together have passed throughan infinite amount of evolution and hence must have acquired the highest possible amount of rationalty.
what you loosely call the quantum field is not of infinite age, it is only aas old as the universe. it is also not one single entity.
JK- As is aid time does not have a beginning in the absolute sense and the quantum particles were ALWAYS THERE. Regarding mere quantum field it is true one can say there are more than one by diferenatiation but the Higgs Field is one only. It defines the unified quantum field since elemenatry particles last but not least als consist of quantum particles.
what has infinite regression to do with God?
JK- Infinite regression inevatibly lead to the rise of GOD. Thats what ive been trying to make clear.
they are not created; E=mc2
JK- Man i explained creation is a type of differenatiation process. When quantum particles are "destroyed" or change their form they turn into elementary particles and this is creation. If you have a better definition go ahead and explain please.
i do not understand what you mean.
salam
JK- Everything in the universe is linked with the Higgs Field and every particle is of dual wave and paticle nature. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "amuslim",
Peace all,
From what I understand, God being a Light is not literal, it just means that everything is in existance because of God, as well as the nurture and a thousand other reasons. Light is a creation and is physical, God cannot be light.
Same with the Quantum Field. Digress a couple years back and we could say that God was electrons. In all actuality, God is everything because without giving us life, we wouldnt be in existance.
Peace
JK- All reserach to date has shown that Light is the ultimate substance which only consists of further light(light upon light as GOD is also defined in the Quran). If GOD is not Light then the Quran is false since the Quran does NOT talk about any spiritual light in the related verse. Life and/or existence could also result out of infinite regression. The reason why GOD exists is because He would always be there at any instant a finite rational being emerges since at that point infinite regression WOULD ALREADY HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND WITH IT INFINITE EVOLUTION AND HENCE 1) INFINTE AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE 2) GREATEST INTELLIGENCE POSSIBLE(if we consider this universe to be the oly one in existence) which could only have been achieved by the unification of undifferentiated qunatum particles. GOD Bless!
-
Greetings all,
I'm with jonny_K on this. See also
Re The 'Global Brain'
? Reply #7 on December 01, 2007, 091640 AM ?
Greetings Zulf,
Thanks for the recommendation. Did you catch the quotes "Every photon of light is an identical unit of ACTION," and "Light is the first manifestation of the Absolute"?
Pretty cool, especially if you turn it around to say then that every action that we take is adding light to our essence - our being - and bringing us one step closer to the Absolute!
-
Peace jonny_K
All reserach to date has shown that Light is the ultimate substance which only consists of further light(light upon light as GOD is also defined in the Quran). If GOD is not Light then the Quran is false since the Quran does NOT talk about any spiritual light in the related verse. Life and/or existence could also result out of infinite regression.
"Research" =/= Reality
In any case, did light cause the big bang? Was there light before the big bang?
I believe you are trying to fit modern 'research' into a quranic verse that's obviously a metaphor.
-
Greetings DArgento,
As you've seen, I generally support jonny_k on this topic, and as such, feel the need to comment about light as a metaphor in the verse.
I wouldn't want to merely fit modern 'research' into a Qur'anic verse, but we can use the understanding of the workings of the world around us in order to better understand what God has written. With that in mind, let me give this a try
In the book "The Field," Lynn McTaggart has a chapter entitled "Beings of Light", in it she writes about the work of physicist Fritz-Albert Popp on the photo repair system of the human body. It's pretty complicated, but to simplify in order to make my point, his work proved that a weak, yet very coherent light of 380 nanometers was somehow being produced in living systems - 'coherent' meaning that the light is communicating, resonating, working together intelligently. This energy is the driving force for all the molecules in any living system. It's what makes the difference between something that is 'living' and something that is 'dead'.
He then determined that this light is stored in the DNA which in turn acts as the tuning fork of the body, striking a particular frequency that certain molecules follow, thereby explaining how one cell is able to become a fully formed living system. Popp's work explains cell coordination and communication, further determining that a weak light emission was indeed the most suitable to orchestrate the 100,000 chemical reactions per cell/per second because these communications are occurring on the quantum level (of light communication) -- higher intensities would 'be felt only in the world of the large'. In all living organisms these light emission follow a certain set pattern - biological rhythms of 7, 14, 32, 80, and 270 days.
Furthermore, his work showed that the number of photons emitted by a living organism is linked to its position on the 'evolutionary scale' -- the more complex the organism, the fewer photons being emitted. And.....when living cells are bombarded with light, the cells would take this light and after a delay, shine intensely, passing on the light in an act of maintaining equilibrium.
For instance, he found that MS patients were taking on (absorbing) too much light and not emitting it and so producing too strong a degree of communicative control in their bodies, preventing flexibility and individuality -- drowning out the possibility of individual cells' ability to improvise when needed. (NB MS patients are known for their 'iron will', mental hardness and hard heartedness.)
On the other hand, cancer patients were shown to have totally lost the coherence and natural periodic rhythms. In effect, they are losing their connection, their light is going out.
But, back to the question at hand, Popp also discovered that light emissions also have a purpose outside of the body - wave resonance (of light) is also used for communication between living things.
So, without further adieu...back to the verse....does it make more literal sense?
-
Peace ILisa,
Interesting, fascinating stuff! Have her claims been verified by others in the scientific community?
I will have to think about that.
What if light is the creation? How do we know that it's not the creation?
Making sure, And are you saying that light = God? Or God's energy?
I am sincerely asking these questions to hopefully learn, no other motives involved here. Skepticism leads to the best possible answers.
It could still be a metaphor. Light= right path
Dark = wrong path; absence of guidance etc..
I wouldn't want to merely fit modern 'research' into a Qur'anic verse, but we can use the understanding of the workings of the world around us in order to better understand what God has written. With that in mind, let me give this a try
Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Perhaps, that's meant to be taken both literally by some and metaphorically by others. I believe al-quran was written this way.
Have you read the verse in context? Do you still come to the same conclusion?
So, without further adieu...back to the verse....does it make more literal sense?
That depends on the individual, doesn't it?
-
Greetings DArgento,
Well, to re-read the ayah (working from Mohd. Asad's translation), it says, 'God is the Light of the heavens and the earth'...that's pretty self-explanatory. For the created heavens and earth, God is the Light. In ayah 40 of the same surah, in continuance of the same line of thought, God talks about darkness, saying that '...he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he!'
This, for me, verifies at least a good part of what I have conveyed in my previous posting in this thread.
I obviously don't know 'what' God is, but from what mankind understands, God would have to be energy, pure energy. That brings us to question what is light?? Light is both particles and waves. (To have this type of essence is unique...) Light IS energy and light has mass. Gravity attracts mass.
Okay, let's step back a bit and think.....God is 'All that is' and creation is a subset of God and All that 'is'. Are you with me? Creation doesn't exist outside of God, it exists within God. "God is the light of the heavens and earth and ...he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he. " Referring to my previous post, if you have no light, you're dead, you no longer exist. So....to have light is to have coherence, to have communication, to exist. So, if God is light and created creatures have to have light to exist, then, light can still literally be God and be the essence of all that is created.
Whew! Does that make sense??
(BTW, this is a nice thought exercise.....!)
-
Greetings DArgento,
I'm confused. confused
I read the ayaat around it; in fact I also wrote about ayah 40 as well. Since I'm not getting the point you're trying to make, I'll have to ask you to spell it out for me. Sorry. We seem to be on different 'trains of thought'. (!!)
-
Peace ILisa,
I owe you an apology. I responded too soon with my last, quick post. brickwall Just ignore it.
Okay, let's step back a bit and think.....God is 'All that is' and creation is a subset of God and All that 'is'. Are you with me? Creation doesn't exist outside of God, it exists within God. "God is the light of the heavens and earth and ...he to whom God gives no light, no light whatever has he. " Referring to my previous post, if you have no light, you're dead, you no longer exist. So....to have light is to have coherence, to have communication, to exist. So, if God is light and created creatures have to have light to exist, then, light can still literally be God and be the essence of all that is created.
I completely agree with that. In both the verses referenced, the light is referred to as an allegory, no? Let's forget about that for now...I guess the question is... Is God limited to the light, in your opinion? My feelings are that God is everywhere and in all creation. And that light could be God, but I still think it's a stretch to say that Light is God period.
However, I never eliminate any possiblities.
Whew! Does that make sense??
I think?