Just a Question

[Crow]

Fractal nature of Pollock's paintings

I posted this a while ago in another thread you may find it interesting. It is from the TV documentary The Code, its worth watching and would highly recommend it to everyone. Here are the links to the episodes if you want to check it out Episode One, Episode Two, Episode Three.

[history_geek]

I think the forming of a star system would be a rather good example of order arising from chaos.

This link seems to explain it rather well:
http://novan.com/solar.htm

Edit:

Also, another example might be the birth of our moon. Originally it was a smaller planet, that early in the history of our solar system collided with the early earth, that was not completely solid, and in fact part of the Earths core was merged with the Moon. Eventually the gravitational pull of the two objects balanced somewhat, and what once was a planet became the Moon. But it doesn't stop there. The length of days has been measured to have changed over the history. At one point Earth had a day cycle of about 22 or so hours. That was because the Moon was closer to us then it is today. It is slowly moving away from Earth, and within the next few million years it will have escaped the gravity all together.

Man, if only had the brains to be an astronomer or a cosmologist...

Yeah, but I'm wondering how they could possibly know that? See italics. But that's not really important. What is important is that you think the forming of a star system is an example of order emerging from chaos. Let's say that's true. How could it happen? Chaos is chaos; or did it just magically happen?

...did you read the article I linked?

THE SOLAR SYSTEM EMERGES OUT OF THE CHAOS - Eventually out of all this chaos and turmoil our orderly solar system began to emerge. The Sun had slowly settled down from its tremendous expansions and contractions of earlier times. Most of its matter had fallen back into the Sun, some had been lost and a small percentage had begun oscillating back and forth across the Sun's path.

The sun began to emit a constant amount of radiant energy that did not fluctuate too much. (This made the existence of life on Earth possible). Its solar flares became less energetic. At that time they still occasionally spit out globs of molten matter and gases into space, some of which also became comets and other solar bodies. These prominences still occur today but now they do not have enough velocity to overcome the gravity of the mature Sun.

The matter, hurling out in these present prominences does not have enough energy to escape from the vicinity of the Sun, into space and so, it falls back into the Sun. The solar flares that we observe today are very tame in comparison with the tremendously powerful solar prominences that occurred in the past ages when significant amounts of matter were hurled free of the Sun's vicinity, into possible orbit.

And how could somebody know this? Science and calculations that have been done by some of the most brilliant minds throughout history. They didn't come to these conclusions over night with a scientist going "Heureka, the Earth is a sphere and the other planets circle the sun!" It took centuries and innovations in technology and mathematics before anyone realized that the Earth is not the center of the universe or even our solar system (as one could logically claim on the basis of everyday observation without further knowledge), that the stars are not on a fixed canvass and that their distance is such that to reach them would take millions of years, that the galaxy we inhabit is but one among many, many more and even longer to realize that they are moving!

Also, for the Moon:

Of the rival theories, the one that many scientists consider the most likely is that the moon is a result of a planetary collision that took place during the early stages of the formation of the solar system.
Birth of The Moon: Where Did It Come From?
By Mr Ghaz, February 20, 2011

The Mystery of Earth's Companion in Space

Image Credit
The six missions to the moon between 1969 and 1972 did much to increase knowledge of its structure and its history. But the origin of the moon remains a mystery.

One theory suggests that the earth and moon were formed close together in space from smaller particles of gas dust that swirled around a young sun. Analysis of lunar rock samples brought back by the Apollo astronauts reveals that, in some cases, they date back more than 4.6 billion years-as old as the earth itself.

Both bodies may have been formed at the same time. But if true, why then are earth and moon rocks of different composition? They contain the same elements and minerals, but in slightly different proportions. And why does the earth have a large molten iron core, while the moon has none at all, or only a very small one?

Descendant of Earth

An alternative supposition is that the moon was originally part of the earth. While in a molten state, the young earth was spinning so fast that it bulged at the equator. The bulge grew larger and larger until the earth was shaped like a dumbbell: eventually part of it broke away to form the moon.

Image Credit

There are some problems with this theory. The earth would have had to be spinning implausibly fast for the moon to attain enough speed to escape the earth's gravity. And, if this had happened, the movements of the earth-moon system would be very different from those we observe today.

More dramatic is the idea that the moon was born in a different part of the solar system but for some reason was deflected into an orbit that brought it close to earth; eventually, it was captured by earth's gravity. This theory would explain the difference in the composition of the rocks. However, astronomers have difficulty explaining how the capture would have happened.

Worlds in Collision

Of the rival theories, the one that many scientists consider the most likely is that the moon is a result of a planetary collision that took place during the early stages of the formation of the solar system.

Known as the giant impact theory, it suggests that a planet the size of Mars collided with the earth. Both the planet and the earth were still in a molten state; each had core of dense rock with a layer of lighter rock on top. At the moment of impact, jets of molten rock were flung into space; in the course of times they coalesced to form the moon. Easily vaporized substances, including water, were driven out of the new moon by the fiery heat of its creation. The core of the colliding planet melted into the core of the earth.

Image Credit
At first, many astronomers resisted the giant impact theory because it depended on a highly improbable event. Some still refuse to accept it. But the advent of supercomputers has made it possible to work out what the composition of the moon should be if such an event had taken place. The facts fit the theory well.

Why are lunar rocks different from those of the earth? Because those on the moon contain a greater proportion of the colliding planet. The theory also explains why there is no water in lunar rock.

Further, the concept may provide a reason for why veins of heavy metals, such as gold and platinum, are found near the earth's surface. Had they been present in the earth from the beginning, they should have sunk deeper. But perhaps these precious metals arrived more recently-in the rogue body that sired the moon.

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/birth-of-the-moon-where-did-it-come-from/#ixzz1mMkva1oU

I seem to have made a small blunder when I didn't mention these other hypothesis...sorry about that

In any case, this is where we are, thanks to generations of astronomers, like Copernicus and Galileo (both were religious), who worked with the best and most accurate information available, and made result that have been refined and made more accurate by new generations. With more kickass gadgets

That is how we know anything about anything. Not by taking in what an absolution pushing authority says, but by examining the world around us and following the evidence and data. We don't and never will have absolute answers, but we will have the most accurate and functioning ones possible. And we are getting better at this game with every new generation.

PS: sorry guys, rant mode kicked in

[Davin]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

And a confusion between a scientific law which is based on observations of something happening, with a law that was created to control what is happening.

[Tank]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

And a confusion between a scientific law which is based on observations of something happening, with a law that was created to control what is happening.

Yep! and that too.

[Egor]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

I am not bothered at all by the idea of order from chaos...  If the universe emerged from pure chaos that then became orderly because of how objects tend to attract to each other then that would mean we simply couldn't study how the universe works past a certain point.  Not having knowledge of something doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone...lots of things we can't know now and lots of things we likely can never know.

That's all I wanted to know with this thread. You just admitted you subscribe to magical thinking. You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd. You go on to say that order resulted from the way things attract one another, and are comfortable not knowing how such a thing could ever come to be.

I think that's an honest atheistic opinion. And honestly, I don't have much more to discuss here. As far as I'm concerned the OP has been answered. I mean, no one has disagreed with you.

I have NEVER claimed that I an somehow sanctified over religious people...any religious person could accept reality just as well as I can without giving up their core belief).  Stop applying blanket ideas to me, and others, just because you believe we all think a certain way.  Stuff like this is why you don't get along well with anyone.

Sanctified means set apart—with a religious connotation. And what's with this weak "and others" comment as if you need support from your friends to confront me? And if you haven't guessed it yet, my mission in life is not to "get along well with others."

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

No, you all did very well at setting up the argument. Thanks.

See ya 'round.

[Davin]

lol

[history_geek]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

I am not bothered at all by the idea of order from chaos...  If the universe emerged from pure chaos that then became orderly because of how objects tend to attract to each other then that would mean we simply couldn't study how the universe works past a certain point.  Not having knowledge of something doesn't bother me and shouldn't bother anyone...lots of things we can't know now and lots of things we likely can never know.

That's all I wanted to know with this thread. You just admitted you subscribe to magical thinking. You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd. You go on to say that order resulted from the way things attract one another, and are comfortable not knowing how such a thing could ever come to be.

I think that's an honest atheistic opinion. And honestly, I don't have much more to discuss here. As far as I'm concerned the OP has been answered. I mean, no one has disagreed with you.

I have NEVER claimed that I an somehow sanctified over religious people...any religious person could accept reality just as well as I can without giving up their core belief).  Stop applying blanket ideas to me, and others, just because you believe we all think a certain way.  Stuff like this is why you don't get along well with anyone.

Sanctified means set apart—with a religious connotation. And what's with this weak "and others" comment as if you need support from your friends to confront me? And if you haven't guessed it yet, my mission in life is not to "get along well with others."

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

Yup...been expecting it since the OP. (Or perhaps the first cause argument)

Considering that some of us said it's all ordered and some of us went with chaos I guess we suck at setting the groundwork for the argument....

No, you all did very well at setting up the argument. Thanks.

See ya 'round.

[Whitney]

You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd.

It's only absurd if you don't understand the theory on how it would work....

For anyone that actually cares about learning, I think this is the you tube copy of the netflix link I posted earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg  if the clip i was describing is not in that episode then check for other parts of the curiosity series on you tube.

[Tom62]

At least the chaos in my apartment is intelligently designed (lol)

[Crow]

You believe order came from chaos, which is absurd.

I take it your understanding of the quantum physics is less than basic then?

[Tank]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Rubbish. You now presume to know the state of the universe before it existed. Why don't you go to a astrophysics forum and ask the question there. Get the answer then come back here and post a link to the discussion.

[The Magic Pudding]

Said what I had to say, selectively heard what I wanted to hear an now I'm going to cover my ears and go ner ner ner really loud.

[Ali]

Here comes the 'fine tuning' argument.

I don't think so. I just want an answer to one simple question, are the laws of physics (or what they describe) an example of order or are they not.

Now, logically, if they represent order, then the order existed before the universe began—had to have. But I see below that atheists have another logic at hand

Rubbish. You now presume to know the state of the universe before it existed. Why don't you go to a astrophysics forum and ask the question there. Get the answer then come back here and post a link to the discussion.

In fairness, I'd be willing to believe that the natural laws "existed" before there was a universe for them to be applied to.  Not that there is some cosmic being that set the rules and then set up the universe to follow those rules (which I imagine is what Egor thinks) but that the law of gravity (for example) is always true, and was always whether there is anything there to experience gravity or not.  I guess my difference is that I don't think that the universe was ever truly "chaotic" if by "chaotic" you mean that it was not subject to natural laws (although we, as humans, may not know or fully understand all of the laws at play.).  Let's take the Big Bang for a moment.  I assume that there is some natural law that says when matter is compressed into a small enough space, eventually it's going to explode.  Happened.  From there, it's easy enough to understand the rest of the formation of the universe using natual laws.  I went to the Science museum with my 3 year old year old on Sunday, and we spent a good deal of time watching computer simulations of stars forming, and galaxies forming, and what not.  It's definitely not chaotic, again, if you take chaotic to mean that it doesn't follow natural laws.  So there never really was a chaotic which is why the argument about chaos to order is invalid.  No magical thinking needed.  And by the way, how hysterical that a theist is accusing other people of "magical thinking."  *Snerk*

[Whitney]

The part of the formation that I was referring to as being chaotic was the state things were in just before they all started to attract to each other due to the natural attractions of how various chemicals bond and then gravitational pulls.  Even though the big bang wasn't an "explosion" as commonly thought; everything was spread out quite randomly before it began to organize.  The part of the video I was trying to refer to (I guess I'll have to watch the series again to find it because I think I linked to the wrong part; listened do it while working and didn't hear the part come up; though I could have been not paying enough attention) illustrates that if the universe had started out orderly (like if everything were evenly spaced on a grid) that nothing could have formed as it takes a few irregularities in order for the attractive forces to effect change; otherwise they remain in a neutral state as everything is pulling on each other in the same way.

Or am I wrong in using the word chaos to mean not orderly?

Then you get down to the quantum level where it gets weird and implies a certain degree of chaos:  http://library.thinkquest.org/3487/qp.html  http://www.whatismetaphysics.com/basicsofquantumphysics.html

[Ali]

Whitney, I don't think you're wrong in your use of the word "chaos" I just think that Egor is using it in a different way.  I believe he is trying to show that everything was "random" (for lack of a better word) so it had to become orderly through god's will.  My argument is that everything has always been subject to natural laws (whether we understand those laws or not), so there never was that kind of random where divine intervention would have been necessary to create order.  Natural law always applied.