Philosophy Discussion Forums

Wizard wrote:Is birth the beginning of all life?

Are bacterium, fungus, viruses, and cells "born"? So you, Greta, were born, and all life came into existence revolving around you? If you die then all life dies???

Also it merely is your subjective opinion that "life begins at birth". I know many Conservative, Traditional, Fundamentalist religionists who staunchly disagree with you, and claim life begins at conception, not birth.

And I personally disagree, maybe your life "began" on your 10th birthday, how do you know otherwise?

It seems to me that all the living cells which constitute your being were alive in previous cells before 'you' were born and even before you were conceived. The individual life of any human, of all life on this planet, is one continuous chain of a living process that goes back to some kind of complex protein molecules replicating billions of years ago! The livingness that sustains this version of life that I call me, has been, of necessity, one continuous living process since whatever sort of primitive "life" first appeared on the Earth. Of course, there is no actual concrete demarcation between what we consider to be "living" and what we suspect is merely capable of replication at the molecular level. So where's that line between "the inertness of being" and "the beginning of life?" There is no line, but rather one continuous process of which we here happen to be some of the presently active examples!

Isn't life grand!

I like your answer Neznac. Everything that "is", logically comes from everything that was, in an unbroken stream. This is why it could be assumed that the universe has always been here. All that ever really happens, is that forms come and go, things live and die, but the essence of what is, does not depart.

Wizard wrote:

Greta wrote:We are born and we die.

Is birth the beginning of all life?

Are bacterium, fungus, viruses, and cells "born"? So you, Greta, were born, and all life came into existence revolving around you? If you die then all life dies???

Also it merely is your subjective opinion that "life begins at birth". I know many Conservative, Traditional, Fundamentalist religionists who staunchly disagree with you, and claim life begins at conception, not birth.

And I personally disagree, maybe your life "began" on your 10th birthday, how do you know otherwise?

I had already referred to the "all part of one entity" angle and I am happy to defer to Neznac's and PresAw's further explanations of the concept.

However, we can say that the Earth's biosphere has a birth and death (without being hung up on the semantics of reproduction - be it mitosis, egg laying, live births etc). As an aside, both conception and in-utero growth and birth would qualify as bursts, like the Big Bang and other examples given in an earlier post.

Meanwhile, my interest in religious dogma's conceptions of life is as infinitesimal as the glories of the subatomic world that includes another of the great patterns - aggregation. I've heard the dogma lines a thousand times before and I'm still not impressed. As with the biosphere or an ants' nest - further evidence of nature's fractals - we are each made up of billions of discrete life forms that are part of a greater whole. Each of us is not one living entity, but a conglomeration of many. Naturally, anything that applies to the Earth also applies to the Universe that contains it.

Good, I'm pleased to see you capitulate Greta. We are all in agreement then.

Neither the universe nor life has a 'beginning' nor end. Any beginning & ending is arbitrary, and probably unscientific.

Our physical body is a cluster of billions of cells, and each cell contributes to the whole. These cells are continuously dying and being replaced. The body we had as children is no longer here, and yet we still feel that we are the same person. It has been said that inside every old person, is a young person wondering what the heck happened. The body reaches a peak and then declines, eventually ceasing altogether. The same thing happens on a cosmic scale with the birth and death of stars and galaxy's. Isn't nature amazing!

I agree, PA. Life, the universe and everything certainly keep me in a "whoa dude" state of mind too If I ever lose that then I know I've lost perspective.

Funny thing, I was doing some Google searches about the possibility of the BB being energy leakage from another domain and found a creationist link, the title triumphantly crowing about the ever changing story behind the big bang, as though sticking to your story regardless of contrary evidence was a sign of commitment and superior character. Gesture trumps content.

No, the BB tale will undoubtedly change more before we are through. I doubt we can really know until we get a handle on dark energy and dark matter. It's hard to make confident predictions when you don't understand over 90% of the universe's contents.

It would be interesting to know people's ideas about dark matter and energy - in the context of how it affects the age of the universe or multiverse. Some guess they are the gravitational effects of parallel universes. It's also possible that at least some big bangs are the other end of big crunches. Either possibility would throw ideas of age in a new light.

Greta,

What is a "big crunch"? In terms of the foundation, or beginning if you like, of the universe? Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to logically imagine something as complex as the universe, coming from nothing, without some kind of intelligent creative algorithm or inherent programming.

Fanman wrote:Greta,

What is a "big crunch"? In terms of the foundation, or beginning if you like, of the universe? Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to logically imagine something as complex as the universe, coming from nothing, without some kind of intelligent creative algorithm or inherent programming.

I can give an explanation. This article (starting on page 5) does a great job of it:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictio ... runch4.htm

Philosophy Explorer,

In what capacity, is a link to an article, your explanation? You do realise, that philosophy, is all about one's own interpretation and understanding of the topic of discussion? If I wanted to read an article, I would of looked for one. Furthermore, isn't "a big crunch" somewhat anecdotal terminology, in consideration of something as epic, as the creation of the universe? The term "big crunch", would be more synonymous with some kind of 'cake topping' would it not? The things that scientists come-up with, never ceases to humour me.

Fanman wrote:Philosophy Explorer,

In what capacity, is a link to an article, your explanation? You do realise, that philosophy, is all about one's own interpretation and understanding of the topic of discussion? If I wanted to read an article, I would of looked for one. Furthermore, isn't "a big crunch" somewhat anecdotal terminology, in consideration of something as epic, as the creation of the universe? The term "big crunch", would be more synonymous with some kind of 'cake topping' would it not? The things that scientists come-up with, never ceases to humour me.

It's just science, Fan. You asked a scientific question and received a scientific answer.

If the big crunch is to seem possible we'd need to discover a contrary force that could overpower dark energy.

Fanman wrote:Philosophy Explorer,

In what capacity, is a link to an article, your explanation? You do realise, that philosophy, is all about one's own interpretation and understanding of the topic of discussion? If I wanted to read an article, I would of looked for one. Furthermore, isn't "a big crunch" somewhat anecdotal terminology, in consideration of something as epic, as the creation of the universe? The term "big crunch", would be more synonymous with some kind of 'cake topping' would it not? The things that scientists come-up with, never ceases to humour me.

Keep in mind that article comes with diagrams which I can't do on my own. Have you read the article and does it clear up your question(s)?

Big Bang? Big Crunch?

It does not cease to amaze me how "scientists" can claim such fantasies and get a free pass while fundamentalist christians are "completely wrong" about Creationism/Genesis.

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, a true monument to the grandiosity of human fantasy, fallacy, and idiocy.


Philosophy Explorer,

Can you explain the "Big Crunch" to me, using your own words, without referencing an article or google search? Deconstruct the Big Crunch using your own mind, logic, reason. What does it mean, how does it happen? Use common sense, break it down into "simple" speak for the masses.

"The universe implodes." How, is there some huge central force of gravity pulling all ends of the universe inward? Prove it, prove that such a gravitational force can exist. If you cannot prove this, or provide evidence for it, or devise repeatable tests toward proving your hypothesis, then you are not doing science!

Wizard wrote:Big Bang? Big Crunch?

It does not cease to amaze me how "scientists" can claim such fantasies and get a free pass while fundamentalist christians are "completely wrong" about Creationism/Genesis.

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling, a true monument to the grandiosity of human fantasy, fallacy, and idiocy.


Philosophy Explorer,

Can you explain the "Big Crunch" to me, using your own words, without referencing an article or google search? Deconstruct the Big Crunch using your own mind, logic, reason. What does it mean, how does it happen? Use common sense, break it down into "simple" speak for the masses.

"The universe implodes." How, is there some huge central force of gravity pulling all ends of the universe inward? Prove it, prove that such a gravitational force can exist. If you cannot prove this, or provide evidence for it, or devise repeatable tests toward proving your hypothesis, then you are not doing science!

Think of a black hole at the centre of a galaxy. A gravitational pull so strong that all the stars in that galaxy are spinning around it like water going down a drain. And as the stars get close enough to the centre, they are sucked in, thus increase the gravity of the black hole even further. Now if you follow this line of though, you might imagine a black hole that has grown to be so vast and powerful, that it begins to swallows up entire galaxy's. I would call such an event a Big Crunch.

Present awareness wrote:Think of a black hole at the centre of a galaxy. A gravitational pull so strong that all the stars in that galaxy are spinning around it like water going down a drain. And as the stars get close enough to the centre, they are sucked in, thus increase the gravity of the black hole even further. Now if you follow this line of though, you might imagine a black hole that has grown to be so vast and powerful, that it begins to swallows up entire galaxy's. I would call such an event a Big Crunch.

Wonderful encapsulation of Singularity Theory, however, prove it.

Use "science" to provide evidence for this. Use the scientific method, reproduce experiments, data, and results in a laboratory. Without this experimentation, data, and results, you have no "scientific" proof. You are not doing science, just as Philosophy Explorer completely glosses over science.

The fundamental process of science is repetition. If you cannot repeat an experiment and reproduce its results THEN IT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!

So, go ahead, produce an experiment that "begins" the universe, and "ends" the universe. If you cannot do this then your theory, whether scientific or religious in nature, in its postulation, is false. And it certainly is not "scientific".


People here are confusing religion for science. The "Big Bang Theory" is religion (not much difference, if any, from Creationism and Catholic Genesis). The "Big Crunch Theory" is also religion. These are religious beliefs, not scientific beliefs. Because you cannot test your hypothesis nor can you repeat it. Begin and end the universe, go on, prove your claims, logic, statements. Defend your rationale.


Or, a better option, do philosophy.

The universe is infinite; it neither has beginning nor end. The universe is eternal. Common sense, Reason.

This is not science class Wizard, this is Philosophy 101. I'm not here to prove anything, only to discuss possible origins of the universe, regardless of how unlikely they may be. Like you, I believe that the universe has always here in one form or another, but there's no way to prove it, and saying something, doesn't necessarily make it so.