He was saying that there is no indeterminism, which isn’t the same thing as randomness. Indeterminism is an inference on true randomness (rather than the imprecision of measuring tools).
It was, it is, it will be forever an infinite /eternal Cosmic Vacuum.
The Cosmic Vacuum is homogenous, isotopic, symmetric, flat, smooth and
has temperature T=0K. The cosmic vacuum is not an empty infinite continuum.
T=0K is filled with Dirac’s dualistic quantum ‘‘negative, virtual particle’’ (E=±MC²).
These particles obey the law of ‘‘entropy’’ and Heisenberg uncertainty principle
( Δx Δp ≈ ħ/4π) and according to Einstein’s SRT cannot be firm, they must be
quantum elastic particles. These ‘‘virtual’’ particles destroy the smooth surface
of the cosmic vacuum and can be observed in Casimir effect, in Lamb shift,
in the vacuum fluctuations. These ‘‘virtual’’ particles give birth to everything
in the Material World.
Maybe therefore Danah Zohar wrote:
” If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.”
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208, by Danah Zohar. /
======= . . .
What will be? You’re talking about the average, ground state within space-time vesicles, bubbles, i.e. universes. The conservation laws are iron clad in them. What has that got to do with the infinite negentropy multiverse?
We agree. Back around 2000 I remember coming across a Time/Life book, I believe the title was “Molecules” and it consisted of the the hundred most common organic molecules, from simplest to most complex.
It was paging through that book and seeing how simple those combinations of a very few elements build on top of each other to create the foundation for the plethora of natural life we see around us.
It’s among my special cosmic moments, eureka as they say. It totally exploded that cute quip of Einstein’s. The atoms were the dice and the rolls of dice were molecular configurations. Some worked, some didn’t and disappears from the scene.
Also as much as Einstein is to be admired, and I do, I don’t think it’s inaccurate to say he never interested himself in Earth’s actual evolution, it was beneath him, he was after God, or MATH, or some such ultimate answer.
If I’m wrong about that please someone correct me with relevant links.
Happy Thanksgiving.
1 Like
Again Einstein was no more talking chemistry than he was biology or God.
Fair enough.
But considering that quote of his is used in every imaginable philosophical argument, and beyond, it’s not unfair to extrapolate. After all those quantum particles add up to something real. Or?
Merrily, merrily. Merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.
Not by me it isn’t. If people are ignorant enough to misapply it, that’s their jeopardy.
I’m glad you do understand Einstein.
For more:
Okay fine, God doesn’t play with dice, but Nature certainly does.
Correct. Unless God instantiates nature of course. It’s good to see chemistry talking Einstein.
I’ve heard that one before. Some like to add that God did it, that God could do anything, except experience itself, from the point of view of not knowing itself, so it had to create the universe that didn’t know it. Too messy for me.
For me, it’s survival. We’re made of the byproduct of how the universe formed and cooled. That left behind the particles that eventually cooked into all the elements. That stuff is, and it had no reason to not be, so it kept on, combining with whatever was there when there was nothing else to do but stop. But the laws of physics don’t stop that easily. We have combined into something so complex, we now don’t know ourselves. We give those laws of motion meaning, calling them “desire”.
We can’t stop the cycle, which includes recycling of that stuff, that energy. We call it death. Death that returns to the what looks inert to us, but then new life comes from that. Not surprising our mythology matches our nature.
1 Like
Yeah, but poetically it’s about as beautiful a notion as can be.
And it certainly feeds into our everlasting superiority complex. 
And it certainly beats a Universal Personal God, who’s holding open a space in heaven for my “everlasting” after life - a pathetic lost soul in search of its body to satisfy the longing to experience something, anything, once again. Now that’s too weird for me. (and for you I’m sure. 
I believe looking at the facts of evolution, it’s obvious that life has an innate and unstoppable quest towards increased sensory, cognitive, processing, along with physical command and control.
While we humans are a fluke species. I do believe a creature of our abilities was inevitable given the environmental conditions that continue providing the vital building blocks for this advance in complexity. As it happened, a one a billion+ chance that finally came to fruition.
Actually it was Carl Sagan who said it best, and I think most famously:
“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”
Notice he says “a way”, not “the way”. Which I think is the problem with religion in general - they think we’re special somehow, “the way”, which is what happens when you think small and local.
1 Like
I tried to avoid any intention in the words I used. If evolution is unintentional, as I believe it is, then it’s hard to say what parts of us are ideal for flourishing and which are things we’d be better off without.
A fluke, as you say.
Yep. When you start making rules, that’s when it no longer is about caring and supporting. Rituals are one thing, but when you think the symbols are real people, you’ve lost the value.
Not really. I see it more as a stochastic function. Natural selection is not intentional, but it is probabilistic.
I do believe that the human intellect was a lucky fluke and not a result of gradual evolution. If it were we’d still be on a level with the other great apes.
IMO it was a beneficial genetic mutation of human chromosome 2 and can be traced to the emergence of homo sapiens and the genetic split from the common ancestor.
I don’t know if it was a “fluke”, because the other great apes have the same chance. For all we know, a real version of “Planet of the Apes” could still happen, naturally or with scientists experimenting. Either way, because of how we treat them, the majority turn on us and somehow manage to subdue us, maybe enslave us (but I doubt that), or at least keep us away from them. I truly believe nature has given them the same chance to be on our level, eventually, if humans don’t drive them to extinction.
On the other hand, whales and dolphins had the right idea when they went back to the ocean and stay away from land dwelling advance species, such as the human ape.
There is, or are, theories about brain to body ratios that i don’t fully understand. That there is an ideal size for brain development. And our hands and feet seem well adapted to just about anything, so, you’d think the odds world favor that.
