Randomness, purpose, guidance...science and religion

On Purpose, Guidance, Randomness

It is very important to understand what one means when they say Random or Purposeless or without a Guide  or Directionless. To a mathematician and a biologist those terms can mean different things.

Random can mean unpredictable or without a cause for a mathematician. Random can also mean to a biologist purposeless or directionless. But then you also have to understand the connotations used by each user.

Is anything truly random? 

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than, yes. I say this, because we simply do not know if a higher intelligence like an alien would have the same limits. We only know what we know through our own eyes.

Where do we find randomness?

In physics we find randomness in virtual particles which are said to pop in and out of existence. For some this means for no cause, and for others there could be a cause we simply do not see yet, because we can't even really see the virtual particle itself.

Is it random in terms of unpredictability? It is interesting, because from my readings it seems that the beginning and end states of virtual particles are predictable, but it is the in-between states that are not. The end state could be predicted to be a quark. You could have several  virtual particles pop in as a virtual photon and some as a virtual gluon- but in the end the overall number of virtual particles that pop in as a quark will be more and the particle will be defined as a quark. As the end state is "becoming" all kinds of things can happen. We can't predict all the in-between states, but the overall state is predictable.

Another point is that we can see particles having to take path A or path B and they chose one over the other. There is no reason we can see why one is better than the other or preferred, or different. They are the same and yet the particles can chose which path to take and retain all their internal order.

So, this is unpredictable as to which path they will choose and apparently no cause per se. A computer game given the same problem will crash from what I'm told because it cannot compute what to do. Yet, our quantum universe can figure it out.

This is interesting to me, because it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice in a way. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

So, as an unconscious entity randomness allows for freedom of choice fundamentally and as a conscious entity we also have freedom of choice, but based now on our consciousness.

 If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important.

Are variables hidden? We know it is possible we do not see the reasons why virtual particles pop in and out, because we cannot even see the VP themselves and so perhaps there is something underlying in the quantum vacuum beyond what we can see that provides a cause, or perhaps not. Perhaps it just pops and in the right conditions, it will form a certain way and so the conditions are what are important for growth. I tend to think the later.

We also know through HUP that we cannot see the momentum and location of particles at the same time. That through our very interaction and observation, we have changed the nature of what we are observing. So, there certainly are aspects that are unseen or what I call hidden.

...If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see all the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random in nature on a fundamental level, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully on a fundamental level keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes. 

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

If you define random as unpredictable like a mathematician, then this definition makes perfect sense to me. Of course there are things we can not see. We don't fully see nature and nature has a fundamental random aspect to it. Even our brains perceive random and non random events. This is because our brains evolved out of nature and so are wired to perceive it. Therefore, it makes sense that nature is both random and non random and so our brains perceive both as well.

Now, biologist tend to use this randomness to yield words such as purposeless or directionless or without guidance. 

There are certain events in biology such as genetic drift and draft that are defined as random. The scientist who first purposed genetic drift did not agree it was random. I tend to agree. Random would be unpredictable and while fire spreading and wiping out an entire population and therefore their genes, could be viewed as random...we still have cause and effect. Certain events caused others and certain effects took place. If we had been vigilant to these variables and causes and effects, I think we could predict these events. They had reasons for taking place.

Some of genetic drift/draft does appear to be mathematically random at first. If given two different alleles in a population -let us say one blue and one red- and depending on the number of that allele in the population that will be its chance for survival (If I understood that correctly). So, if we have 50% red and 50% blue alleles in a population, each has an equal chance to survive. But only one will. This is because at some point one will become greater than the other and populations survive by common traits and that which is common becomes more poplar and chosen and eventually the population conforms. However, there is a chance the less likely will succeed. We can't predict this completely.

We see this in culture as well with apes and humans. If a few people in the group solve a problem one way and yet a few others solve it a different way, eventually the group will conform to one way. Everything tends to become homogeneous.

But, to me, this seems to be a fault on our part. We don't see all the variables. If we had all the variables, it seems it would be predictable. There are also causes, though we may not see all of them. So, I'm not really convinced of the use of randomness in biology.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our - memory- fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. From chaos into order. From heterogeneous into homogenous. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

So, I would have to disagree with biologists when they say purposeless or directionless or without guide or without a goal. 

Firstly, the direction and guidance takes place when the natural law take effect. This is the guide, this is the direction.

Secondly, terms such as purpose and goal do not mean anything to an innate thing. If you are investigating a marble, something that is not conscious or aware, how will you find concepts that only reside in conscious things?  (Though it could be arguable that nature and the universe is all conscious on some level -but let us just stick to the non-conscious view for now).

Thirdly, Nature has its own way of doing things, whether we understand them or not. Nature  does have a direction. Energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. Death and life is a constant circle.

This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a direction. This is a purpose. This is a goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one. Just something nature does.

Fourthly, A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal -in the broader connoted sense of the word- because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy of understanding than ourselves.

Even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. While energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

Without proving a "God", nature does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" or other intelligence is behind it.

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and resort to analyze things that most people would consider unconscious to begin with a say, See, it has no purpose or goal" and therefore nothing in the broader connotation of the word has any purpose or goal.

I can look at a marble all day long and see no consciousness and therefore no purpose or goal there. But then it is interesting that the marble bothered to exist at all (I'd say that is its purpose, to exist) and that it can exist (I'd say it followed its internal direction/guide and that is how it can exist)... further I'm not looking at spiritual things or higher intelligence things such as aliens or "god". So, why would I find any of those inside a marble?

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.

God is not Complex!

I don't agree "God" is complex as many Atheists (Krauss and Dawkins lectures) propose and so this complicates things and makes its existence highly unlikely. They use the argument that things go from simple to complex and so if God existed, how would this highly complex entity exist as the first source per se...

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality. A Spirit is essentially Nothing or No Thing. 

Complexity adds limits--

Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful and limitless (virtual particles)....Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

What about Characteristics?

I can’t prove to you God is loving or caring, but I tend to think so. I know love exists. I know care exists and I can’t prove those to you either. 

But I do know our brains are a reflection of nature itself. Our brains perceive random and non-randomness and our brains are mathematical. Nature is those three things as well.

So, how did consciousness evolve? how did language? how did love? 

You can say it is an accident or planned, either way it doesn’t matter for this purpose, because the point is those qualities now exist and how does something without the innate capability of forming such qualities-form those qualities?

It does beg the question whether there is an aspect to this fundamental energy, this fundamental reality, that possess qualities such as these. 

But love and care come in a package of living things. We’ve never seen a non-living thing have those qualities, and so we would think then that those qualities would have to exist in a consciousness at least, if not living in the same form as ourselves.

What about consciousness? Intelligence? 

We find these two qualities in highly complex begins, humans we will use as the example. We find humans with intelligence and consciousness; however, it took a lot of time for them to acquire this and we have no examples of either existing without space or time or a physical body that developed into something complex. But I would argue that our consciousness and intelligence is very limited and in fact is limited because our physical bodies our bound by our space-time. However, HOW do electrons know what other electrons they are entangled with are doing? Because they are not bound by Time. They are not physical like we are, but are on a more simple energy form. 

I think electrons are timeless. 

So, if electrons can be timeless and do this, why couldn't a spiritual energy also know things in a way unfamiliar to us?

In a sense this could be called a consciousness, but that would also limit what it actually is because in fact our ideas of consciousness are limited to our very understanding of it which exist in our minds which have limits. 

This is the same with intelligence. When we say this is intelligent. What does that mean? Does this mean God has an IQ of 200? It is very limiting and in fact our own understanding of intelligence is very limited by our own experiences with it within our own minds.

so- God's intelligence and consciousness would work like nothing we know. It would be boundless consciousness and intelligence. Limitless. 

Because of this, it would also come in a simple form. I propose this simplest form is Spiritual energy. 

However- we could use an argument that is more of a physical (measurable) form. 

The main question is does consciousness or can consciousness exist as a simple, fundamental form of reality? or can it only exist as a side effect of a more complex living thing?

Well, we know from the above God could not be complex. So, whatever this consciousness is it would have to be on the scale of simple and fundamental. We do see the quantum nature of things showing us this possibility. So, God would have to fall toward the quantum sphere. 

Does consciousness have to exist in a living thing. Are computers living? I would say no, because they are not born naturally and while they do die and do need energy as food, they don’t grow. Although, a self learning computer could be argued to be growing. But they still were not born naturally, they were made by man. so, by scientific current definitions of living I would say they are not living. 

Yet, perhaps on another planet there are beings that are fully silicon based and live as “computer people” or hybrids of half-silicon and half-carbon. So, there may actually be examples out there that we don’t have of computer type of entities that are living. 

However living things are not only born, they die, need food, and grow. 

God would do none of those things (except possibly grow)

In fact, you could argue the entire universe is like one big quantum computer that at some fundamental level as not born, won’t die and doesn’t eat. But you could argue it does grow. But then does it ever really change since it always remains fundamentally the same stuff?  

Could that entity possess consciousness?

If computers are found to be able to have consciousness I would argue that for sure a God could have consciousness and in fact it could be like the consciousness of a quantum computer. 

This is how consciousness exists without being a living thing as we are used to seeing consciousness appear. 

HOWEVER, By definition God is infinite and so how would God die? If God couldn’t die, then God is not living by standard definitions either. God doesn’t eat and God doesn’t grow. (Or does he?) 

This doesn’t mean God doesn’t have a consciousness. This simply means by our definitions of what qualifies a living thing, in order to be living you must also be able to die and if you can’t then you are not living. Our Computers then are not truly living either, because they were made, not born. However, one day they may be shown to acquire consciousness.  

I’m not so if our computers can have a true consciousness —following in the work of Hameroff and Penrose— which makes this job much more difficult, but the argument for a consciousness in a computer is sometimes compelling and when looking at the quantum level of nature and the possibilities of quantum computers, one has to wonder if these dreams will one day prove to become reality. 

Then, I’d have to really wonder if the quantum universe truly is conscious on some level. Because if quantum computers can acquire consciousness that does leave the spooky door open for the possibility of our quantum universe itself. 

So- we’ve determined the basic characteristics of God as possible.

We’ve determined consciousness could be possible without a “living thing” and since this consciousness would exist in a quantum level ,this consciousness is not complex either, it is as simple as you get —limitless quantum consciousness so to speak.

But can consciousness exist in a simple —not complex- living thing? Well, by our current definitions of living, no. But then God wouldn’t eat and metabolize and God wasn’t born and won’t die. 

So, the important part here isn’t whether God would be living by our scientific current definitions, but whether God would have consciousness?  

And what if the real definition of being alive was truly broader? What if being alive didn’t have to include the scientific current understanding of “living thing”. What if being alive just meant a conscious entity. This would definitely include our computers—because being born would not be a hang-up. 

In fact, the quantum universe is kinda acting like a mother, giving birth to all kinds of non-living and living things. Except, is this universe alive and conscious?

I would propose that true reality is that which we don’t see, hidden or unseen. I would propose it is in this where energy is alive and acts like a conscious quantum computer. And the moment it is seen by us or by nature, it behaves in accordance to our natural laws.  

Consciousness can do all kinds of things from what we’ve seen in nature and in ourselves. It can communicate. It can understand spacial concepts, mathematical concepts, randomness, non randomness, it can have relationships with other non-living things and living things and even with itself. It enjoys music and create sounds. 

...

So God would be a simple infinite illimitable eternal quantum conscious spirit so to speak. But then I'd also argue every definition we impose on God , limits God and God is limitless...so the definition would not truly suit either. 

But it is also possible this consciousness is not derived from the quantum aspects, but derived from the spirit itself and that the quantum nature of the universe simply facilitates this spiritual consciousness. 

On purpose, guidance, and randomness

 Is anything truly random? Are there any true accidents?

Well if we are looking through the eyes of man than yes. 

If there existed no randomness in nature than mathematicians could predict everything that would happen if given the variables, if they could see the variables.

The fact that some things seem to be truly random or accidental in nature, the fact that man cannot actually see nature fully keeps us somewhat in the dark about the future. We can't predict it like a gypsy in a crystal ball.

Man is limited in what he can see and perceive.

So, I'd say true randomness in nature is essential for nature to keep the future sealed, to keep the wool over our eyes.

If you define random as unpredictable, there are certain events that are in biology such as genetic drift and draft. We don't have all the variable to predict what will happen and some events seem mathematically random.

In physics, such on the quantum level where particles can take path A or B - the paths are both similar and there is no reason why it would take one over the other, nothing governing it to take one over the other. So, it seems random. But it always keeps its internal order with whatever path it takes over the other. What prompts it do take that path? We don't really know, it seems random. 

BUT does it even matter what path it takes, even if it is truly random, since both paths lead to the same predictable destination? And the end state is predictable from my readings. It is the in-between states that are not predictable, truly random.

This is interesting, because for one it doesn't seem to matter that randomness is a factor, because everything in the end will be deterministic in a way, predictable. However what paths things take we can not determine. This allows for freedom of choice in a way. For non-living things this would be simply random processes vs natural laws which yield non random processes. BUT in living things, while we start out random (like bacteria until it finds an attractant) we end up non random because of memory and consciousness. Freedom to choose.

See, it is important for a certain level of randomness to exist to allow for us true freedom of choice. If everything was deterministic and everything could be predicted, than everything would be set for us and we truly would have no freedom of choice.

This does show us that on a fundamental level, on a small level, nature is and can be very random and this is important.

Nature fulfills a chain of events —in time— much like our memory fulfills a series of events. As nature does this, or own memory does this, things seem to go from random to non random. Simple to complex. From Nothingness (chaos of virtual particles) into something. BUT there is a direction, an internal innate drive.

Energy seems to go from randomness to non-randomness as energies increase and become more complex. (This can also be found in the new theories of dynamic energy).


The true nature of randomness allows the future to be unseen while also allowing for true freedom of choice.

Randomness is not a bad thing! 

HOWEVER--while mathematicians prefer the definition above to that of unpredictability, biological scientists like to use randomness to mean something without purpose or goal.

This is where the problem comes in for many people who see there is something more than just the physical world we can measure scientifically/naturally.

If you define randomness as without purpose or goal -- that is just meaningless and crossing line, because now you are applying your own subjective meaning of things.

 How are we defining the terms?

Nature has its own way to do things, whether we understand them or not. What scientists are looking at is nature- not a spirit or a God.

A marble in itself doesn't have a purpose or goal because it has no consciousness. But this does not mean the marble was not put in place by something with a higher energy and understanding than ourselves.

Also- energy persists toward entropy and life persists toward survival. This seems to be fundamental, inside the very core of all things, innate. This is a purpose and goal. It might not be a conscious one or an external one, but it certainly appears to be an internal one. Just something nature does.

So, even if there is no higher energy "God"  which put the marble into place, there certainly is an internal purpose and goal. Be it a very simple one. Life persists TO EXIST. TO BE. And while energy heads toward entropy, it still bothered to exist at all. Why does it?

So, While I have no problems understanding the mathematical ideas of randomness, biologists seem to cross the line and take it a step further into realms they cannot prove or disprove and so are walking out of the very bounds of science.

And in fact I'd say Nature, even without proving a God, does have a internal purpose and goal. So, that idea just is not correct naturally or even when we consider the possibility that a "God" is behind it.

What about guidance?

I don't think God interferes with the natural world which is what many call guidance. I think God put everything into place exactly as it is and it is self-sufficient without the constant need of intervention.

However, I do think where we see the Spirit or God is in people's lives. The spirit can affect our minds, dreams, emotions and can speak to us and it is in this where we will find guidance.

What does Nothing have to do with it?

In Genesis 1 we find 3 interesting Hebrew words.

Create= Bara

Make=   Asah

Form=   Yatsar

I do not see bara and asah and yatsar as having the same meaning. They are similar, but they are not the same.

We can look at the differences between create and make in English to see this simply. A creator of a new design will create. I created a story. It is something original, no one else can do or have done and it is something new. 

However, I will make a house or make a book. This simply means using the processes familiar to everyone. Nails, wood, hammer and I can make my house. OR with paper, a type writer and binding material I can make my book.

If I create my own house design, then it is new and original and only I can do it and did it. 

I agree Bara is unique because it is something only God can do, but while I agree this is for significance I feel the significance is found in the spiritual side of things. It is significant because of its spiritual significance. 

I also find it very interesting three verbs at once Bara and Asah and Yatsar are used for animals and humans. This is not the case for anything else in Genesis 1. Bara and Yatsar are only used for animals and humans as well. 

BARA is not used for anything else other than animals, humans and then in the first summary. For myself this is as the spiritual summary of importance, but also as the first spiritual act.

This makes sense logically to me because before the Physical world existed, what existed? I would say the Spirit of God. So, if only the spirit of God existed, then how can anything else occupy its space?

Space has to be formed for the physical world to exist inside of. So, the question becomes how?

For myself it is simple. The spirit must perform the first act of self sacrifice and close itself and in this closing a void is formed to allow for a space for the physical world. This void to me I would call nothing —but what I mean by nothing is not the non-existence of everything, because I don’t think true non-existence or absolute nothingness exists.

What it is, is Chaos———the chaos of all the natural energy. Not the spiritual energy. 

What I think is that this “nothingness” that was formed in fact is the bubbling chaotic mess of virtual particles which scientists have detected. Yes, nothingness doesn’t exist, but this in fact what nothingness is. 

What is essential to me in chapter 1, verse 1 is that we do NOT see God making or creating or even using His words to bring this CHAOS -TOHU- into existence. It already was. It just is in the very first line. WHY?

For myself it is clear, because it is the consequence of the first spiritual act. 

Everything goes from a lower energy state of random chaos into a higher energy state of non-random and ordered appearances. 

We also see the word evening also meaning Chaos in Hebrew. the Hebrew of ‘evening’ (VAYEHI EREV) and ‘morning’ (BOKER, BIKO- RET) can be understood as ‘chaos’ and ‘order’. Everything is going through a process of chaos first and then order. From invisibly into visibility. 

Bara is the spiritual act. BUT, in a sense it is nothingness too! Just not as you and most people think of it. When we say nothingness, and I think when God creates from nothingness, what that means is in fact from NO THINGS. Which means it is spiritual, it is unseen, it is not natural.

The other way to create is by using things, or information. So Nothingness in this sense, is a physical nothingness, not an absence of all things and thus spiritual. I see this in a similar way to Rabbi Ramban. However, he does not make the link between No Thing and the Spiritual as being the same thing and I don’t think he understood the physical nothing as essentially the natural energy of everything -just in its most broken down fundamental form. But to me this is very much what nothing is. All the natural energy broken down into its most simple form. 

So this to me is the major difference between Bara and Asah. To create is to create something new, original and with spiritual significance. It is to form from nothing, because the spirit is NO THING. However, when we start seeing things, the natural, the physical is when we see ASAH appear. This is because to make things, you need things. 

Things are built from Simple to Complex. From Random to Non-Random. From Physical Nothing (which is a chaos of virtual particles) into Something. This is the process.  

But when we run into No Thing we also run into the Spirit. 

Dawkins and Hitchens -Get Real!

On Hitchen's/ Dawkin's Rants -Get Real!

Don't get me wrong, I like these guys. I criticize everyone, religious people too.

1) Christianity and religion is the cause of all evil and other stupid rants by Dawkins...

He says Stalin is atheist and what happened had nothing to do with atheism

Yet, with Hitler, somehow his romancing Catholicism was relevant and his Christian soldiers and is somehow relevant to what they did. After all, the Jews killed their Christ —as if this is how it is taught or understood to any intellectually honest Christian—

It’s not intellectually honest of him frankly. 

How come when Stalin kills, it is not because of Atheism and when Hitler kills it is because of his Christianity. 

Religion is not the cause of all evil or even most of it!

Get real!

If religion disappeared tomorrow, people would find another excuse to kill each other. 

It is simply a TOOL, or an EXPRESSION of something deeper within human nature.

Frankly, you can see that dark nature in Chimpanzees as well and by eradicating religion, Chimpanzees wouldn't be all peace and love either.

GET REAL. 

2) Abortion and other ridiculous notions...

He says killing a human fetus at the first or second trimester is okay, because it has no nerves, no feelings yet. However killing an animal is wrong, because it has nerves and can't understand the stance anti-abortionists take. 

I myself am pro choice, however I fail to see his conviction as being justified. An animal is killed before it is eaten!  If it is killed in a humane way, it does't feel much of anything at all when killed, and when eaten...well I think we can safely say it has no feelings then.

The real issue would be the cruel conditions animals have to live in before they are eaten. This is where I have an issue with eating meat. But the only reason this problem exists is because of big corporation and their greed to make money, Which is the same reason why we have so many cars, so much pollution, and such a poor public transportation system. 

And all of this fails to consider the fact of when a fetus acquires consciousness and when it actually does have an emotional capacity to feel. Scientifically we do know that a fetus gets its nerves in the 8th week and these receptors are transmitted to the brain in the 28th week, but its body does move to pain before that and so we can't be really sure! This only addresses issues of physical pain however. 

Get Real Dawkins!

3) We are not unique? But we are. 

I believe it might have been Krauss and possibly Dawkins as well who said that we are not unique and that there is other life out there. My argument is that we know through probability that other life is out there most likely, we haven't actually come in contact with it as far as mass acknowledgement though I think it is possible a few have.

Aliens in my view would not be this militaristic army wanting to destroy us and unless we had something they desperately needed to survive, why would they kill us? I'm sure they could find other planets that are habitable out there and food on other planets. No, if aliens come to Earth they will be the teachers and intellects and scientists and the curious minded. They would investigate and observe us and maybe even conduct a few experiments on a few of us.

However, they would not be like us. We would all share the same basic building blocks, sure.

But how these building blocks express themselves would be very different planet to planet. What is the likelihood of other planets having the same conditions of ours, having the same random mutations, the same accidents, and living the same length of time as us so that they would be just like us?

Aliens would be completely different from us. Their evolution would likely have taken a different course altogether!

Now, I've heard one of them argue that a scientist friend says it would likely be that a meteorite from our planet would have hit another plant and so the life we meet would be like our own. REALLY!

In order for this to happen, not only would a meteorite from our plant have tosurvive its travel through space and find a habitable plant on the brink of its biological evolutionary period in order to mix with it, Then this life would have to succeed and survive. Then for this to be the kind of life we would likely find,this would have to happen a whole bunch of times!

Sure, maybe it has happened a few times, maybe not. But I doubt at all this is the kind of life we would run into. If this life is anything like us it surely destroyed itself before it even advanced to the capability of interstellar travel.

Once again, GET REAL GUYS!

4) On Hitchens and his comment about tyrannical Rabbis

Hitchens said it was Rabbinical tyranny before Spinoza - does he possess some supernatural power that enables him to know the thoughts and emotions of the millions of Jewish people before Spinoza? That they felt their rabbinical teachers tyrannical? I doubt they would. I bet most of them would be glad to have someone who cares, listens, and offers help.

I would say a tyrant is someone who comes into a group of people to dictate to them what his perception of life and reality ought to be and if they don't agree than they are somehow inferior, intellectually dishonest or lazy. Cuz that must be what religious folk are, right? Then takes a bunch of money he is paid and leaves never to see those people again. 

He asked what can a religious person do that he can't. I'd say he can't stay with us for years to help us through our troubles, our emotions, our financial strains, and our personal needs.  But the man on his right can, why? because he is a rabbi. That is his purpose. 

The atheist agenda loves to say things like the "religious authority controls you". As if people who go to temple, church or synagogue do so because they fear otherwise. They make a choice every week. Most continue because it serves a purpose in their life. It works. 

The religion they speak of is that of a mad man, Not the average man. 

Get real Hitchens!

5) On Hitchens calling religious people liars

Hitchens say the Jewish man is lying because he comforts them with the idea of god, and afterlife. He says he has no information to know this. But isn’t he lying too to say there is nothing after life and you have no soul or spirit that will continue. That there is no god, but you lived and good. Where did he get this info? What info his he privy to that we don’t have? Has he been there to the other side and back to report?

Get real Hitchens!

6)  

Nothingness takes a lot of work-

I agree the universe came from nothing, but what supplied the energy of nothingness? Because nothingness actually takes a lottttttttt of work.

The reason I say this is we can see that protons get most of their mass from the empty space, not the quarks and so obviously a lot is happening out of nothing, more so then out of something. In fact out of nothing we are guaranteed something, anything because nothing can't stay that way for very long.

So, I also agree nothing does not really exist. It is temporary. It is always trying to become something. It seems to be very unstable. So, Something is eternal. The question is what? Is it nothing? is it something? What we can say is all of this seems to have a common factor- --Energy. I'd say energy is eternal.

The problem though is that we are only seeing one facet of this energy. We are seeing the energy of our universe, of our four dimensions, and of "real particles". We are not seeing the truest nature of energy, because the uncertainty principle shows us that a part of nature will always be unseen. I would say we do not experience all the forms of energy.

Because energy is eternal in my opinion, this doesn't mean though that universes are eternal. Universes to me are an end product.

Maybe Quantum Fluctuations popped out of nothing because of the uncertainty principle and this formed a kind of space-time-gravity. But nothing formed until Higgs Field solidified evolving forces and particles with mass.

BUT more important you'd have to explain how the uncertainty principle applies to the energy of nothing?
 (because the uncertainty principle applies to smaller energies like electrons and virtual particles and when you take away space-time, energy no longer has limits and the energy density becomes infinite from my understanding.) And you know longer have time which is needed to measure the uncertainty principle? but maybe I've got that wrong. Instinctively it seems like the uncertainty principle could work on absolute nothingness (meaning without space-time-gravity) but then who knows?

I don't think energy needs a platform like space-time-gravity to exist....but then is it really nothing? it seems like in fact it is everything- just in another form.

The work of keeping nothing present, the work of keeping a vacuum of empty space actually takes a lot of energy. This is why there is sooo much mass in empty space.We see virtual particles popping out of nothing all the time. ALL THE TIME. So, how is nothingness doing this? This is fascinating stuff.

It seems as if this infinite amount of energy is just there waiting to be born and constantly trying to pop.

So, we have a lotttttt of empty space, but this empty space requires tons of energy to remain empty. But what kind of energy is it? The closet view we get of it before it pops into our known particles, is when it takes the form of virtual particles.

Before space-time, there was nothing .........BUT what is important here is HOW this nothingness exists? The Energy to keep it present seems to have to be infinite and it would be much more difficult to maintain than keeping something in existence. And maybe this energy would even need to be eternal. What kind of energy that can do that? which makes nothing present, this is vital in understanding more fully the nature of reality.

The question becomes... are we experiencing all this infinite eternal and very fundamental, simple energy?

Or are we only experiencing a part of this energy?

Is part of this energy hidden or unseen from us?

What is the true reality of this energy?

I think our understanding of it is essentially limited and might always be. I think we will only experience a part of it.

I don't agree "God" is a complex idea and so this complicates things.

If "God" exists, it would be the most fundamental and simplest form of reality.

Complexity adds limits--
Simplicity brings limitlessness--

We see this with empty space, quantum fluctuations/virtual particles, electrons.

Before we knew of these things, we might think something that can cross the universe in a blink of an eye (electrons), something that is entangled to every other part- knowing what and where it is all the time (electrons), something seemingly timeless (electrons in universe), something seemingly limitless (empty space quantum fluctuations), something eternal (energy), something that pops something out of nothing, seemingly all powerful...

Would have to be a complicated thing.

But of course it is in nature, the most simplest form of nature.

"God" would be the simplest and most fundamental reality. Not being bound by space, time or matter provides limitlessness in its simplicity.

Complexity comes because of matter, space and time....we are complex humans and so we are also very limited -bound by that which makes us complex.

Electrons are very simple and yet very powerful.

The simplest form of nature we have found is electrons and empty space quantum fluctuations. This is the simplest form of energy we know exists.

I think this is one aspect of this infinite energy.

But much of its true nature is hidden from us and we don't experience it in its true fullness. 

Conversations about Virtual Particles

Conversations of Virtual Particles

Person A:

I don’t think we know enough about this cutting edge topic yet to understand.

Is it really popping in and out of existence?

Is it really just a higher dimension particle passing into our three dimensional space?  (i.e. it was always present)

Are they actually just a new particle that we have not yet understood

Is it part of string theory manifestations

I still struggle to understand what it means for empty space to have mass….

Unless it is just a bias (or relative) for everything…  sort of like:

If you are on earth, and walking down the road you are moving at about 5 miles and hour

but actually the earth is rotating so you are really moving about 1000 miles per hour 

but the earth is orbiting the Sun so you are actually moving 67,000 miles per hour

but the earth is actually spinning around the galaxy so you are actually moving about 480,000 miles per hour

So how fast are you actually moving?

Similarly with the mass…. if everything in space has mass then perhaps it sort of cancels out and looses practicality?

Me:

All good questions. Yes, this is new in some respects, but there actually is a lot of information out there to learn on it as well. Scientists have done a lot of work in this area of dark energy, empty space and electrons. (Arguably empty space makes up the electron cloud and dark energy of outer space is empty space too...but we need to define what it is this exactly means otherwise details are lost in glossy language)

I do think it is really going in and out of existence...but I could be wrong. But it depends on how you define existence? To us existence is the physical. There are things. But is this true existence? True reality? or is true reality something else? And the physical is just the illusion?

For myself, from what little I know -lol- I imagine that ghosts have a similar problem, lol.

In a way it kinda sounds like when we say this is a species A and that is a species B, but where do we draw the lines and is anything really this or that, because in time it will all change. It seems like it is a photo of a particular time and The particle seems like this. Nothing is a solid A, but always becoming or decaying and transforming...  

I think though that HeisenBergs UP is based on emptiness of space though, so even if other dimensions existed (I'm pretty sure they'd have to be lower dimensions though not higher mathematically?) the empty space of those dimensions would demand virtual particles too. 

They are not a new particles, as far as my reading goes. They know what they are. They are a virtual photon, a gluon, etc....they are just not quite a photon yet or not quite a quark or not quite the particles we know just yet---they are unstable, they are becoming or going back into non-existence in a sense.

They are not even particles. This is a bad name. They are more like bubbling waves? Maybe not even that, I've heard them described more of as a wave function only. 

I'm pretty sure photons don't have mass. 

The way I see it is all space is really a field, a gravity field and then other fields....so like a big checkered patterned -but a lot of them. (This space came out of the void in the very beginning of Genesis--or the "singularity" of big bang) 

And virtual particles are like breathes coming from god...breathing into the space. ..This breath offers all kinds of potentiality or probability and it grows sometimes into our space and becomes a particle, but more often then not it returns .... 

And the fields allow these particles to have mass- or to be "seen" (light of genesis) and then the light separated in genesis from the darkness so that it remains in our "space"

Void/Vacuum of empty space is akin to the void/darkness of Genesis 1 line 2. 

The Higgs turned on is kinda like when God said let there be light, LOL and particles gained mass, because this gave them distinction/order and each there own kinda name.

And then particles were able to intermix and combine and build from there and separate from the empty space and occupy real space and this is kinda like when God says, lets separate the light from the darkness. 

......

But it isn't so much the space that has mass, but the particles or virtual particles that interact with the fields that show mass. But it is because the space is empty. So it is kinda like a chicken and egg problem maybe. Virtual particles are there because it is empty, and it is empty and so we will have virtual particles. 

BUT in the early universe Higgs was off and so we didn't have particles with mass through Higgs. But I'm not sure if we still had the gravity field (I kinda think we did always but I need to look it up) and so some particles may have had mass through that field? But virtual particles may have not? That is interesting to find out. 

Currently, we have Higgs, so every particle and virtual particle (I think) will show mass...unless it is a special particle like a photon.  

But the physicist said in that long video --all particles are massless, but because of Higgs (think of your hand is a particle going through air, but now Higgs is like water and your hand has to travel through this same space, but it is effected now because of the interaction with the field).

So, you could say that space doesn't have mass --but that space doesn't exist just as space. It always exists with the water and filled with millions of hands moving through it. 

So, there is no such thing as empty space. 

Even without Higgs and in the early universe, virtual particles would still be doing their thing, we just wouldn't see any mass. So you could have massless space maybe, but not true empty space. ?

I'm just trying to work through all of it myself :)

BUT- it does seem to me that nothingness take a lot of energy and a lot of work to maintain. More so than something does. 

It seems like nature would have to work very hard to not have something pop out of it.