posted
We've debated Intelligent Design on this forum. Most of the religious participants in those debates seemed to reject ID as a movement, but stated that they believed in "theistic evolution", i.e. that evolution is in some way implemented and/or controlled by God. (I know this is a 'nutshell' version of that position.)
My questions are for the religious-and-scientifically minded among us. (Like the "theistic evolutionists".) Does this "god behind the science" belief extend to other scientific theories as well? For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe? Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Let me add here a request that we all please keep this discussion (if there is one) civil. Let people express their beliefs without ridicule. I'm not asking this in order to challenge anyone's beliefs, but to understand them myself.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in the miracles laid out by Karl, I don't consider myself to have scientific rationalizations for HOW they occurred. I'm satisfied that they did, and that's enough for me.
Of course, I never claimed to be a scientific theist, so maybe I'm not the person to be addresssing.
What about a belief in a god of miracles clashes with what you know about the Christian, Muslim, and Judaic God?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
I don't believe in the "Big Bang" theory, but I recognize that it and it's kin (like the ever expanding and contracting, but never quite making a big bang universe) do the best job of describing what we see.
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation,
Again, I don't believe in these current theories as correct. In fact, I'm sure they are not completely correct. We'll making more observations and getting more data and we'll revise these theories appropriately. That's how science works.
But I think that there is truth in these theories.
Of course, there was truth in Newton's theories, even though the argument could be made that they were completely wrong. After all, at no point do they accurately and completely describe anything.
Unless you're an engineer, and then they are certainly true enough.
quote:which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
I believe that the power of the divine, whatever you call it (the hand of God, faith, etc.) is somehow, in a way I don't comprehend, behind all those things, and behind all of the natural laws that we observe. It is behind the law of gravity that causes my other shoe to fall when I drop it.
But the fact that in my view it is tied to God does not preclude me from studying it in a naturalistic fashion. The study of the Bible alone is not sufficient to teach me how to build a bridge. I need to study the natural laws as I observe them, not as I think they should be because of my faith.
In other words, I believe that science and faith don't compete with each other at all.
Including with evolution. Whether or not evolution happened (and there's know way to know), whether or not the earth is actually millions of years old, they both appear to be true. And I'll glady study why they appear to be true, and what their ramifications are, even if I have some reservations about their factual truthfulness because of my faith.
quote:The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
I think I mostly answered this. I do not believe in any of them. I reckon that the ultimate fate of the univers is probably one of the places where science is least likely to give us an accurate picture. After all, it's the ultimate extrapolation.
But that said, unless things drastically change in the universe (which seems very plausible to me), it sure seems like a big crunch (or something like it) or heat death of the universe is inevitable.
But as to what will actually happen, I really don't know.
quote:Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
Yes, I believe that miracles literally happen. I have no way of knowing, but I don't think that these happen by suspending natural law. My belief is that other, more fundamental natural laws are probably being implemented in ways that we normally do not observe.
quote:These aren't meant to be leading questions. I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
How many times in the last few weeks have I been told that the God I worship is fundamentally different from the God of mainstream Christianity? One more time.
Feel free to ask me follow-up questions, Karl. You've always shown the ability to discuss things like this with sensitivity and respect.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally believe that we still don't know nearly as much as we think we do about the cosmos. This, to me, it excellently illustrated by the recent observation that matter in the universe is traveling away from other matter at an exponentially faster and faster rate--something that shouldn't happen unless there is a force pushing matter apart.
Do we understand this phenomenon? Not remotely. I find it fascinating, but I certainly don't understand it.
I believe that science reveals truth, but I also believe that we have a lot less of the truth than we often suppose, and therefore our theories tend to be faulty because we draw faulty assumptions.
As for the fate of the actual universe, I don't know. Of course, I believe in the theology in which I have faith, but the theology I believe in is far from clarifying what will happen to the universe--at least the way I interpret it.
One thing the theology I believe in makes clear is that there are existances that are eternal in nature. Certainly the universe we observe now does not *appear* to be eternal in the sense of unchanging. I don't know how the observation and the belief reconcile. But again, I believe we are far from having all the info.
As for a God of miracles, I believe that all miracles can be explained by natural law. Just as advanced technology always seems like "magic" to those who don't understand it. Basically, I believe that God "knows" a way to rearrange the matter in water to become wine--and that it has something to do with "commanding" the matter and it obeying--and that this is a natural, repeatable process.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:do you believe in the "Big Bang" and that God used it to create the universe?
It’s pretty hard to find evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory. So it must have happened, but something had to have caused the Big Bang. Was it God that caused it? I think that’s very possible. Or God may have constructed an even more extensive and complex system which resulted in the Big Bang and the creation of our universe. (something like the Bubble Universe idea)
quote:Do you believe in the current theories of planet, star, and galaxy formation, which (at face value) do not require a devine hand for their explanatory value, with the additional belief that somewhere God's hand is the impetus or controlling factor that uses these methods to create the universe we see?
Yes, kind of. God may have created the rules that dictate the formation of everything, but I don’t think he is a necessary factor in the continual and future growth and formation of the universe.
quote:The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch”… or a… "Big Freeze”. Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
I believe that without intervention the universe will conclude in one of the two mentioned scenarios, and only a god could be powerful enough to intervene in something like this. Although, there is much to be learned about dark energy and dark matter that might influence our current theories of the fate of the universe.
quote:Do you believe in "miracles"? That is, do you believe that God, at times, intervenes by suspending natural law? Do you believe The Flood, or the parting of the Red Sea, or turning water into wine literally occurred?
Yes, kind of. I’m not sure about the literal interpretation of some miraculous events, but I do believe in miracles. I don’t think a miracle requires God to violate any laws of nature, rather, I view it as a manipulation of other existing laws. In other words, a miracle is only a miracle because we don’t understand how it happened, or we may not have the ability to recreate it. I can’t really think of a good example to describe what I mean. Maybe like how magnetic levitation is possible because electromagnetism is powerful enough to negate the forces of gravity, but to someone that is unaware of electromagnetic fields, it would look like a miracle.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a scientist (well, an engineer) and a theist, so I guess I fit the criteria. To start I'd like to say I appreciate the respectful tone Karl struck. I hope all posters (including myself) can be similarly respectful, regardless of viewpoint.
I believe in miracles. I literally believe in the parting of the Red sea, water to wine, and others. I believe that God works within natural laws, and it's man's lack of complete understanding of natural laws that ascribes a "supernatural" element to miracles. Thus I think that Christ was working with physical laws which are not yet understood when he healed the blind and caused the lame to walk.
I accept God as the creator of heaven and earth and all things in them. I haven't thought deeply about reconciling the big bang and astrophysics with my belief in God, but I suppose my feeling would be similar to what Karl stated. I accept that God is creator first; if I become convinced scientifically that worlds and galaxies came about as the result of specific natural laws, then I must view those laws as the vehicle through which God accomplished his creation. I think that your assertion that these things don't require a divine hand to explain them is untenable. I could say the existance of natural laws is evidence of a creator, for how can anything (including laws) exist without being created. That natural laws can exist independant of deity is not a fact it's just a belief (I'd say a misapplication of Occam's razor).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It’s pretty hard to find evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory. So it must have happened
I disagree with this. Just because we haven't come up with a better explination yet doesn't mean that there isn't one.
quote:I’m not sure about the literal interpretation of some miraculous events, but I do believe in miracles.
That's a good way of putting it. I don't know which miracles seen by the ancient Hebrews would look like a miracles to us if we saw it today, as some of them could quite likely have non-miraculous explinations. But I nevertheless believe that miracles do happen.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe in the current theories about the Big Bang and the formation of stars, the elements, and planets. But I do believe God set the whole thing in motion. Part of that is faith. But part of it is my own understanding of the 20-or-so cosmological constants (ratio of gravity to strong nuclear force, fine structure sonstant, G, electron mass, planck's constant, etc- see http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980308a.html for a simple rundown) and my belief that if those were changed even slightly, life would not be possible. For example, small changes in the ratio of gravity strength to strong nuclear force would affect the lifespan of stars and the amount of heat/pressure to start fusion in the first place. And since all necessary elements are created inside stars, that would be changed, and most likely not be possible. There's more, but that should suffice. Not really interested in an argument.
Anyway, as for the universe's end, I'm not sure. My religious beliefs imply the universe will never end. Modern physics demands that big crunch or big freeze (though, IIRC, didn't recent findings lend credence to a rather even distribution of mass (and the resulting flat shape of the universe) so that the universe will continue to expand infinitely, as opposed to the situation where gravity overcomes the big bang's rate of expansion, resulting in the big crunch?) The scientific theories seem sound, so I'm not really sure. I'll have to wait and see.
And yes, I believe that miracles have happened in the past.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj - By asking the question, you brought the average down, and now it is no longer eligible. Way to go. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came up with a wierd idea the other day. It like theistic evolution tries to combine God with science.
In this theory what if the world was created 6000yrs ago and the rest is backstory. when OSC writes a story he doesnt start at the beggining of creation he starts at a point in the timeline of his new world. So at the point of its creation OSC world is already millions of years old. WHy couldnt God do the same thing. What if the dinasours and the evolution is just the back story that came into being when God started his story.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Big Bang is plausible (that is to say, I think it's the best idea so far), but regardless of big bang or steady state or oscillating universe, I believe you still run into uncaused first cause issues.
I believe in miracles and, even if the parting of the Sea of Reeds was caused by tidal waves from Santorini it's still pretty darned miraculous timing. In fact, C. S. Lewis wrote an entire book (Miracles) about how the miracles of Jesus signify the legitimacy of Jesus's claim to Godhood... that he refused to make stones into bread (which would have been arbitrary) but he made bread into more bread, fish into more fish, and water into wine... all things that happen naturally as well.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:that he refused to make stones into bread (which would have been arbitrary)
I believe Jesus refused to do it because it would have been a misuse of His power (the reasoning being selfish), not because He couldn't.
In Mormon canon, there is a scripture that says everything God does is for the benefit of mankind. If it isn't for mankind's benefit, God doesn't do it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I just happen to believe that it was done for the benefit of the audience, both at the time and the readers of scripture.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, truthfully, I think it's kind of a cop out. For a long time it bothered me, logically speaking, but I couldn't put my finger on why. I mean, yeah, Hawking said that the Anthropic principle might legitimately apply to the galaxy or our galaxy cluster, but not the whole universe. But to me, that counter-argument seemed (and still seems weak.)
But it wasn't till a couple years ago that I finally was able to figure out why it bothered me, from a logical persective.
It's a reason not to look for an answer. Period. Yeah, there are differing versions of the principle. But ultimately, they are reasons why there is no answer to that question.
To me, the equivalent would be if explorers in a jungle came across what appeared to be writing on a stone outcropping. That writing is not decipherable, but they have characteristics of being unnatural. And then one explorer says, 'No, it is natural. It's just natural erosion that produced something looking like writing. In all the jungles in all the world, do you not think there will be one where erosion creates what might appear to be writing?' 'But why does it look designed? This shape is repeated here and here, there is another one. The spacing is regular. That can't be natural.' 'No, it is. Look, if it didn't look like writing, we wouldn't even be hear asking about it.' Which sidesteps the whole issue.
That's how I see. The universe is the way it is because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here asking about it. Cop out.
quote:I understand how people might be completely scientifically minded, yet still believe in some sort of God. But the gods that I see fitting that sort of bill begin to look very different from the God of mainstream Christianity, or what I know of mainstream Judaism or Islam (which is admittedly limited).
Maybe I misinterpreted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The anthropic principle seems to break one of the basic rules of science -- don't try to explain why, just explain how and what.
It seems to me that the anthropic principle was just created in order to combat the, IMO, very persuasive argument that you put in your first post, IanO.
Which, in my mind, makes it bad science.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think belief in a Big Bang-style timeline and belief in creation by God have to be mutually exclusive. I do believe that God organized the universe according to natural laws.
The difference, I think, between “mere” science and a creationist view for me is purpose. The universe exists and was created for a purpose, and it is more than just a sum of its observable parts.
An inadequate analogy, but hey. At one point our backyard was composed of dying grass and tall weeds, basically following a natural, unorganized course. Wanting a nice place for our kids to enjoy, we began digging up the weeds and wresting the lawn into shape. We rototilled a large section of our backyard and covered it with woodchips. Then we set a swingset on the spot. We put in a sandbox and some other toys. Although we still have lots of work to do, things in the backyard have begun to take their natural course only as we allow them now. The kids enjoy playing back there now. There is a purpose to the way our backyard is organized now, and that purpose gets fulfilled each time the kids run back there to play.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, that statement is apart from my questions about miracles. I would think that from that you might glean that I see a potential conflict between scientific theism and miracles than between miracles and mainstream religion.
In other words, I see no conflict between a belief in miracles and mainstream spirituality in general. I also see little or no conflict between some theistic beliefs and science. However, thus far as I have explored theistic beliefs that see no conflict with science, I have run into issues that I do not quite understand. In fact, I'm going to reply shortly with some follow-up questions that I hope might clarify my position on this.
(Shortly = after lunch. I appreciate all the replies thus far and find them very interesting. I do have follow up questions for several of you. Thanks for giving me your time.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev... it's not that he *can't*, it's that he *doesn't*.
Check the book out, I think you might enjoy, and I don't think there's anything in it you would find objectionable.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never read anything by Lewis that I found objectionable, even though I've read stuff of his that I completely disagreed with.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The prevailing theories about the formation of the universe point to a "big bang" start and a finish of either a "Big Crunch" (where everything evenually collapses back on itself) or a "Big Freeze" (where eventually the universe plays itself out, expanding and expending energy until all is cold and dead). Do any scientific theists here believe these scenarios? If so how does God fit in here? Or if you reject these scenarios, what do you believe is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Did anyone correct this yet? The prevailing theory no longer anticipates the possiblity of a Big Crunch. The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again.
I believe in miracles, but I don't think they're suspensions of the laws of physics, rather I believe God understands physics far better than do we. So the healing of the ten lepers is a miracle in the same way that a telephone is a miracle. When you understand the universe that well, because you organized it, then you can make it behave in ways that seem miraculous.
I think God takes care not to reveal himself too plainly, as a courtesy to those who would find his very existence to be oppressive and coercive. So that every act of God in the universe will have both a natural cause and a "because he wanted it" cause.
For instance, quantum mechanics tells us that there are constant random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. Chaos theory tells us that the butterfly effect can magnify tiny disturbances into huge macro-world effects. One way God might influence macro events is by knowing and inputting the exact quantum flucutaions required to butterfly-effect themselves into physical responses on the macro scale. Nothing in that would violate the laws of physics as we know them today, and that doesn't even count the fact that there's a lot we don't know yet about physics.
It's unclear how thoughts and memory work physically. One speculation is that the brain is a quantum computer of sorts. If that's true it would mean a brain was an ideal tool for translating minute quantum effects into real world thoughts and dreams, and action. In fact, we use them ourselves, to translate our desires into actions, and I would not know how to make this flashlight raise one foot off the table if I didn't have a brain to tell my hand to reach out and pick it up. So it's quite possible that God could give us nudges, sudden thoughts, dreams, odd connections, through this means.
Science is an immensely powerful tool, and I love it and take it very seriously. But it is totally silent on many subjects. By definition it excludes every observation that's not repeatable and objective. This means that for a long time science was unable to recognize, for instance, the fact that stones occasionally fall from the sky as meteorites, or the existence of "sprites", atmospheric phenomena that pilots occasionally witness above the clouds, or ball lightning. Science isn't even sure if blue looks like the same color to me as to you. There's just no way to compare, to know for sure if my blue doesn't look just like your orange. Subjective experience is by definition outside the bounds of science.
That is why there is something more than science to be learned, and so naturally our methods of learning it have to be a bit different than scientific methods. The "scientific method" of religion is "study, ponder, pray". It's "ask and ye shall receive". It's about feelings and conscience, receiving revelation, being lost and encountering this rope or lifeline, this gift, and then accepting it.
quote: It seems to me that the anthropic principle was just created in order to combat the, IMO, very persuasive argument that you put in your first post, IanO.
The problem is that we're inside the system, and so we know we DO exist. Whether our existence is unlikely or not is actually impossible for us to calculate fairly, therefore.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AVR you have a very good point. Science in its purest form, does not care about the "why" just the "how".
Theologists in their purist form do not care about the "how" but only the "why".
"Do not care" is not really correct. Scientists realize they can never prove or disprove "why" and theologists already have the answer to "how"--because God wants it that way.
ID people see evolution as threatening the importance of "Why" while scientists see the ID people as threatening the importance of "How".
As far as my belief--I don't think there is a difference between the "laws" of nature and God's will, between miracles like the flood and miracles like a child's birth. Our understanding of how the Universe runs is really just a deeper understanding of God's will.
You are right though. There is a big difference between a God of the Old Testament, who revolves the universe around a few thousand people, a dozen or so tribes, in a corner of a continent on one lone planet, and a God who creates the universe of millions of galaxies with millions of planets with untold numbers of beings all important to him.
The first God is one of fear and awe, but the second is beyond my abilities to truly appreciate.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you, Porter. That is the problem with the Anthropic principle. It's a reason to not look for an answer.
BTW, I like how you and Beverly articulated your beliefs about the ending of the universe in relation to faith and our understanding of science.
Yes, according to our most current understanding, there must be some type of end to the universe. Energy isn't free and eventually, left to itself, the energy driving the universe will be 'converted' to inert matter. Left to itself. But that's where belief in things that ARE eternal step in and where we believe that that may not necessarily mean the end.
In many ways, I have thought of life as the opposite of the entropy. Yes, I know that the entropy of the entire system is increased when an organism organizes material into more complex structures. But it still seems like it acts like the opposite of entropy, the life principle. And I often wonder if, billions of years in future, life will somehow be used to act on the universe to counteract the entropy that will be increasing. Not necessarily a 'galaxia', a la Asimov, but something. Then again, something else might be possible. But my beliefs tell me the earth will last forever (despite the apparently sound science explaining the sun's going nova in 5 billion years).
So I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The latest is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, so that it will not ever come back together again. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:And I often wonder if, billions of years in future, life will somehow be used to act on the universe to counteract the entropy that will be increasing. Not necessarily a 'galaxia', a la Asimov, but something.
I forget. How did that short story end?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was 'Foundation and Earth'. And it didn't. It ended with the main guy (can't remember his name- It's been 11 years) realizing that he sided with Gaia (with Galaxia to be the next step) because he realized that the galaxy had to be united when it faced threats (external)- then he looked at the a-sexual being for Solaris (or whatever) and thought, 'or internal threats'.
Olivaw came up with the plan because it got rid of the nebulous term 'humanity' and made it easier to help mankind when they were one organism. Kind of dumb. But the idea of a large scale organism has stuck with me.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that nothing is inherently contradictory between true religion and true science, but that says nothing about the muddle imperfect understanding can make of the two.
I think that my view of things like the big bang etc. are similar to the beliefs several others have posted- the scientific theories may be partially correct or wholly false, but I don't think that they have gotten it completely right. However, even if they are wholly correct, I figure God has to have used some sort of process in everything he does which physically affects the universe, so in that sense there must be some theory which can come close to explaining that process.
On the topic of miracles I have a different view than most people. I think that humans have much more power to affect things than we can currently credit, and that while mentioned in the scriptures, this power is part of the innate nature of mankind. I further think that the understanding of true principles is requisite for this power of ours to be used.
As a simple, scientific example of what I mean, a famous quantum physics experiment showed that a human observer can retoractively determine the path of a photon which affects the way it traveled over billions of miles simply by how we choose to observe it. I think that humans have the ability to affect even larger-scale reality in much the same way. The scriptural corollary to thi sis that through faith humans can literally move mountains.
God comes into the picture in allowing humans to tap this potential by giving them the knowledge or understanding which is required to do it. Another way of viewing this is that in order to change reality in this way one must be absolutely capable of viewing the new reality, or the effect on reality, before it actually occurs (referred to as "eyes of faith" in the scriptures). Human minds have problems with this, so God provides the necessary views.
To sum up the obvious conclusion of this way of viewing things- I think that miracles exist, but they are almost universally a result of human will coupled with divine understanding.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, we're thinking of different stories, IanO. Asimov wrote a short story about a series of computers over the centuries, each one more advanced, each one trying to solve the problem of how to reverse entropy. I don't remember how it ends.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It ends with the last computer, alone in a dead and dark universe, saying--"Solution complete. LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
There was also "A Timelike Infinity" by Stephen Baxter considering the end of the universe. The characters were lame. The SF was cool, though. It dealt with people (Friends of Wigner) who believed that the universe was in the same state as Shroedinger's cat- still an uncollapsed wave probability function. And that some observer at the end of the universe (God, for lack of a better terms) would be able to choose which 'version' he wanted by 'observing' it. But humanity was on the verge of exinction by these aliens. so they wanted to preserve the memory of earth to the end of the universe by creating a black hole that would swallow it. Somehow, that information (even genetic) would still exist to be 'read' by the god and he would have a better chance of chosing an universe where earth flourish. Thankfully, they fail.
The main character is somehow stripped out his body and his mind becomes a quantum wave function wandering the universe. Eventually he speeds to the end of time (since he can traverse space-time at will) to see what happens and no god shows up. Those fanatics would have killed everyone for nothing. Instead the universe is cold and lifeless.
I think that's how it ended. Kind of interesting.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
IanO- Thanks. I pop in from time to time to post on interesting topics. this one certainly qualifies (kudos to Karl)
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
So are you saying that humans have the ability to alter reality or move mountains by means of faith, understanding, and will? Is this ability inherent only to humans? What is behind this power or ability? Is it simply the mind, or some connection that we have with the universe?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
How many times in the last few weeks have I been told that the God I worship is fundamentally different from the God of mainstream Christianity? One more time.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
