Einstein’s Big Blunder

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Day 1 | 648 Comments

 
«
»
 

648 Comments

kavya says:
June 22, 2009 at 9:32 am

goodeveinig iam from india my question was i told that universe come from the some particles energy and that energy was undefined
i refered the answer so it just like big-bang
so please can u tell my difference between energy and bigbang

saranya says:
June 23, 2009 at 12:53 am

What is mean by big bang theory and what was the result of big bang theory which was recently tried?

Alyssa says:
June 23, 2009 at 11:39 am

in this article, it is stated that matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant.
well saying the same thing; that 1.these be created by a higher power, the One spoken of, the ultimate Creator of which we contemplate minisculy, as well as that 2.those things were created by Us, the ‘creations’.
is not matter, energy ?. is not time and space a created illusion; things we believe are real but are truly figments of our imaginations that we as a consciously evolving species have yet to see past ?
so at the big bang, which i have been told may happen all the time in different dimensions… our dimension was born. that is all i logically understand or accept so far . . .

gini says:
June 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm

How is the theory of relativity related to expansion of the universe? Can you explain how is it that time, cause &effect & especially energy came into existance at the beginning? Till now I used to think that energy was responsible for it all to start. Without energy how could it all begin?

Mary says:
June 23, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Pretty nice post. I just came across your site and wanted to say
that I have really liked browsing your blog posts. Anyway
I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you post again soon!

Andrew Purcell says:
June 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Hector, you are magnificent. It’s wonderful to read the thoughts of a thoughtful man of science.

Perry, I think Lucretius explains all of this adequately . Everything has its origin in a natural cause. We can see that calves come from cows, that oaks come from acorns. Lightning doesn’t come from gods — it has a natural origin. The sun does not come from a god. It has a natural origin. Everything else has a natural origin, but this one, singular even does not have a natural origin? There is no reason whatsoever to assume this and jump to a supernatural cause as the explanation. Just because we don’t currently understand it, this is does not hint in the slightest way that there is a conscious creator (though whether consciousness itself has some profound, misunderstood significance, that idea I’m more open to). There is also no reason to believe that this universe is unique, that there aren’t others either far distant in “space” or in multiverses. Again, just because we don’t understand a phenomenon, it is ludicrous to suddenly shrug our shoulders and say “God did it!”

We can do better. We might not understand it at all this moment, but our scientists are working on it now.

Perry Marshall says:
June 24, 2009 at 12:52 am

I’m still awaiting someone to demonstrate that life has a natural cause.

Or that even a simple communication system can have a natural cause.

Empirical evidence, please.

Venugopal says:
June 24, 2009 at 3:12 am

Dear Dr.Perry Marshal
Crystals are the most ordered material in the world
of non-living matter. Even the dimensions are unbelivably
accurate. The crystals are capable of growing themselves,
if conditions are correct, in self repeating units in all three
dimensions, still maintaining their order and accuracy.
Cannot we say that the natural forces which makes the crystals
grow in a highly ordered fashion can also give raise to living things
from non-living, inert matter ?
Regards
VG

Perry Marshall says:
June 30, 2009 at 11:37 am

Crystals are not self-replicating molecules – they do not form from a plan. They form only because the shape of the molecules naturally forms the pattern. This is entirely different from DNA which builds a structure from a plan.

Andrew Purcell says:
June 24, 2009 at 9:59 am

Hi Perry, thanks for the response.

Right, I understand that I’m not offering empirical evidence, but it’s sort of a catch-22, isn’t it? If scientists can demonstrate in a lab the mechanism by which life originated then their intelligence is what devised the experiment and therefore the experiment would be invalid in your eyes. As to why we don’t see life spontaneously arising in nature, the amino acid soup that is generally thought to be the precursor to life can no longer exist anywhere (not to mention can’t chemically come into being) since it would immediately be eaten by living organisms. So while the EXACT mechanism by which life arose isn’t understood (yet), it IS understood why we don’t observe it occurring now. Once life has a foothold, it clearly has selective advantages over emergent-life.

Also, regarding the “impossibility” of random changes to DNA (the message) creating a meaningful (or in this case “better” message), you seem to ignore the whole idea of a species using sexual self-selection and the fact that it took far longer for life to make the first leap (to become sexual organisms) than ALL the other evolutionary leaps put together (it’s curious the ID folks never mention this basic fact about the origins of life on Earth). This of course supports not a designed universe, but one of chance, where life managed to get the upper hand after on chance after billions of years by developing a sexual reproductive system that allowed it to diversify magnificently and in comparatively short time.

Perry Marshall says:
June 30, 2009 at 11:40 am

I don’t see how evolution or the emergence of sexual reproduction indicates chance as an explanation for the origin of life.

Chance is also not the source of evolutionary diversity. See my article at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/new-theory-of-evolution/

Andrew Purcell says:
June 30, 2009 at 2:32 pm

Perry, you’re deftly avoiding my point : )

First, I’M the one who pointed out that chance is not the source of evolutionary diversity. So we’re in agreement there, though perhaps we do not agree completely on the mechanisms involved.

Secondly, you’re clearly avoiding the thorny issue in my point, which is that life existed for billions of years before the Cambrian Explosion. So for billions of years, life is just single-celled stuff, that at most lived in colonies. so what the heck happened? they decided suddenly to undergo this rapid development? Or did the intelligent designer decide to re-intervene and spark this next wave of development. Your argument, while on its face seems to be the model of Ockham’s Razor, only appears that way because you are disregarding the HUGE block of time where essentially nothing changes in the basic structure of living organisms (which is exactly the sort of massive block of time we’d expect would be necessary for random changes to bring about the development we see). Your explanation would seem to require a designer to intervene at multiple stages, which is clearly NOT efficient design. It should have just designed the stuff right in the first place, no?

I’ll admit, the question of information is an interesting one, but I think the answer to it is that there is an inescapable circularity in your reasoning.

A: Information can’t have a natural, unintelligent cause.
B: DNA is information
C: Therefore DNA (and hence life) cannot have a natural, unintelligent cause.

The problem here is that “information” is something being defined by human perception and intelligence. It’s not an a priori truth like the laws of mathematics. What we perceive as significant (that is, signifying something) is simply an occurrence. It is an event in nature that is being interpreted. DNA, while an ornate example, is still merely an assembly of chemicals. It’s an event in nature, and all events have events as causes. You declare that it’s impossible for DNA to have arisen by means of natural processes? First of all, most biologists believe that simpler though less stable RNA was life’s first “plan,” just so we’re trying to include all the facts in our reasoning. Second of all, how on Earth can you make the claim that it’s impossible? Events of incredibly small probability do happen in this universe. By conservative estimates there are billions of earth-like worlds out there and that’s even if you don’t believe

Lastly, I think we need to look at the difference between a self-replicating sequence and information. Information can be copied and transmitted, but information does not replicate itself. However complicated life is, at its core, it is ultimately a repeating sequence. Information contains its beginning and end by definition, but (as far as I know) there is no natural genetic code (that is, I’m not counting the human-engineered GMO terminator seeds) that includes a built-in end to its replication. Yes, the DNA ages, I’m aware, but what I mean is that all DNA builds organisms for the express purpose of perpetuating that DNA ad infinitum. Thus, the purpose of DNA is to produce an infinite sequence, not to carry a block of information. The information in the DNA, including human DNA, is there merely to build a viable carrier to maintain the continuity of the sequence. Thoughts?

Andrew Purcell says:
June 30, 2009 at 2:47 pm

sorry, the cut -off section should read:

and that’s even if you don’t believe in any multiverses, which is a very serious possibility and utterly does away with the argument that there wouldn’t be enough time for life to self-assemble.

btw Perry, I want to thank you for your thoughtful, reasoned responses, not just to my question but to many of the other respondents. they have really made me think, which is a worthwhile endeavor no matter what.

Perry Marshall says:
July 2, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Andrew,

Multiple responses to the question of millions of years of stasis re: life forms are possible. I don’t feel the need to be dogmatic about any of these; the point is just that I don’t see this as a problem. Possible explanations:

-It’s possible the designer intervened in the history of the earth. A statement that He “wouldn’t” is a theological statement not a scientific statement.

-It’s possible that adaptive evolutionary change only happens when it’s forced by challenges in the environment – and major environmental changes happened then.

-It’s possible that it took hundreds of millions of years for simple life forms to generate the necessary ecosystem that could support complex life forms.

-Personally my bias is to assume that the original cell contained a program that would build an entire ecosystem (as above) and that by gathering information from is environment and intelligently adapting, it would fill the earth with every imaginable variety of life form. The only thing that empirically fits the data is a hypothesis of an extremely intelligent program. I point out that nearly ALL systems that evolve – computers, ipods, governments, ideas – have long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid change. And… notice that all systems that evolve that we know the origin of are intelligent.

Random variation cannot account for these evolutionary changes, it’s statistically so improbable as to not be worth considering. No actuary would bet the insurance company’s money on it, that’s for sure.

You are mis quoting me when you re-state my syllogism. I do understand you think I am saying “information can’t have a real unintelligent cause” and you believe that is my starting premise. But that is NOT my premise and that is not what I said!

I said:

1. DNA is a code
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed.

This syllogism beings with the question of whether DNA was designed or not – open to either possibility – and draws a conclusion based on what we DO know. Thus it is a perfectly scientific conclusion.

Of course it is possible that the conclusion is wrong. It is also possible that when you take your toast out of the toaster and put it on the counter top tomorrow morning, the toast will continue to get hotter and hotter instead of cooling down.

However that is statistically so unlikely as to not even be considered by rational people.

Yes there is always the argument that “the information in DNA is just a human abstraction, it’s what we read into things but it’s really just physics, simple cause and effect.”

Such a statement willfully ignores the fact that it’s only possible to develop a rational description of the behavior of DNA by using terms like “code” and “transcription” and “copying”.

One cannot formulate a rational description of DNA’s behavior using ONLY the laws of physics. That’s why Watson and Crick’s 1953 discovery of the genetic code was so pivotal. Only with that knowledge could science move forward. So the idea that DNA is an information system is NOT just a human abstraction. Information theory is a necessary tool for understanding biology.

To your last paragraph: I’m not sure if I agree with most of it. But the most important thing you said was: “the purpose of DNA is….”

Right there, you said it. DNA has a purpose. It is OBVIOUS from its action that it has a purpose.

ALL information systems have a purpose. Even if it is as simple as opening your garage when you push the button on the transmitter. And THAT is what defines information driven systems from non-information systems. The infinite chasm. Rocks and snowflakes and sand dunes do not have purpose. DNA does.

It is not impossible that DNA arose naturally. It is just so improbable that there is not a scientist or mathematician alive who has ever shown that such a thing has any reasonable likelihood of occurring.

Perry

Linda says:
June 24, 2009 at 7:56 am

I have two intellectuals important to my life who absolutely refuse to consider God’s existence, I have given the matter to God. However, I would like to post your video on Facebook. Would it be possible to share it this way?
Sincerely in Christ,
Linda McKellip

Perry Marshall says:
June 24, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Sure, go right ahead!

dionne says:
June 24, 2009 at 3:45 pm

i have been pondering about the big bang theory for a while now but haven’t gotten any assistance as to whether it is true or false.to some extent i belive in it but it has some false in it sepecially the theory about the gases and different chemicals just suddenly started comming together.i mean shouldn’t there be some greater force or someone greater than the average human being.

Musashi says:
June 25, 2009 at 3:29 am

Perhaps and also we must consider the possibility that TIME is a product of our human mind. The instinct of survival in our lizard brain needs that coordinate in order to “plan ahead”. Im am saying that Humans are God and whatever it exists it only exists because our brains created it through the interpretation of data provided by our senses. What do you think Sir?

Perry Marshall says:
June 30, 2009 at 11:28 am

I am quite sure that I am not God.

Venugopal says:
July 3, 2009 at 10:33 pm

If God is compared to an ocean, then the essence of all living beings can be compared to the droplets of water from the ocean. The droplets have all the attributes of the mass of water in the ocean like saltiness, density etc.
Since God is beyond any human logic, science and mathematics, it is a futile attempt, IMHO, to explain God in terms of Science.
Regards. VG

Dinuka says:
June 25, 2009 at 4:37 am

Well… I have watched your presentations on evolution and god, I am from a half Christian and half Buddhist family… so having a back ground from both the east and the west, I have come to look at almost any thing in life in a neutral point of view, now that I have vaguely stated my positions on the ideas you present, I would like for you to answer the following questions in an clear manner :

1) What is GOD (How do you describe god)?
2) Where did GOD come from ?
3) Does GOD have an end ?
4) What is your position on beings on other planets ?
5) What are your views on the Multi verse theory ?
6) Where does conciousness fit in to all this ?

Thank you,
Best, Dinuka Herath

Perry Marshall says:
September 7, 2009 at 8:27 pm

Dinuka,

Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq/#christian

Who designed the designer? See
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq/#designer
and
Who made God? http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

God has no beginning and no end.

Beings from other planets: No official position.

Multiverse: There may be other universes but since we are by definition unable to detect them we cannot speak of them and remain in the realm of science. It’s pure speculation and musn’t be used to explain anything.

Consciousness is vital. There’s an infinite chasm between matter/energy and consciousness/communication:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/infinite-chasm/

Perry

EYES says:
June 25, 2009 at 10:39 am

What is dark energy?The answer is:

“I am the one who made the earth and created human beings to live there. By my POWER I expanding the universe; I control the sun, the moon, and the stars” – Isaiah 45:12

What is dark matter? The answer is:

“Do you know where the light comes from or what the SOURCE of darkness is?” – Job 38:19

Therefore light is just only a derivative of ….

and what the SOURCE of darkness is?

empty space is dark therefore space is the product of this source, then what is it?

Priyanka says:
June 29, 2009 at 1:34 am

How do you define time? I believe Time is infinite, it has always existed and will always exists. But the question is what was before the creation of matter, energy and space? What is beyond the Universe?

Shahidur Rahman Sikder says:
June 29, 2009 at 4:54 pm

A mysterious new form of energy seems to make up most of the universe. Where did the universe come from? What in the world is it? Answering of the question: See about or see the light- http://www.universalrule.info through that encouraging the spirit of discovery and sharing of fundamental knowledge about the Universe and our place in its midst.

saurav says:
July 1, 2009 at 6:06 am

don’t take it otherwise but if, god created universe, who created god? what is he made up of? molecules, energy or something else…. i mean how can there be a being so powerful and extremely intelligent. this question boggols my mind everytime i think about hte universe

Mark says:
July 2, 2009 at 1:10 am

To say “Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time” is a big and unproved assumption. No one knows for sure.

Religion is simply belief in something you cannot prove. This is not to say it is true or not, we just cannot be sure.

The origin of the universe is subject to many unproven scientific theories, involving quantum fluctuations, parallel universes and multi-verses. It is tempting to want there to be a “Creator” because of our anthropormorphic and psychological needs for limits and boundaries, but why could there not equally be an endless cycle of natural creation and destruction and re-creation?

This universe with us in it exists due to a confluence of factors in physics. If any of these factors were just a little bit out, there would be no universe as we know it, and no “us”. But why could this not equally be the result of Darwinian natural selection on a cosmic scale? Endless experimentation by Nature?

If the universe is finite (whether expanding, contracting or stable) what does its boundary look like? What is on the other side of this boundary? Is it like an event horizon? If the universe started with “Big Bang” and then expanded outwards in all directions, the point at which Big Bang occurred must be within our universe. In fact, if the universe is expanding evenly, this point should be at the very center of the univese. Where is this point?

Perry Marshall says:
July 2, 2009 at 11:06 pm

The reason an endless cycle of creation and re-creation is impossible is entropy. The universe spends energy too fast to “bounce.” Any speculation about endless evolution by nature is unscientific for that reason.

I’m sure there are cosmologists who can tell you where the center is – Google it and I’m sure you’ll come up with a family of answers.

But the point is, Einstein’s theorems about space-time indicate that no space = no time so the universe comes into being at the first moment of time and there is no “before.”

Perry Marshall says:
July 10, 2009 at 4:14 pm

There is no endless cycle of natural creation and destruction because of entropy. Entropy doesn’t realistically allow for endless experimentation. That is just a big and unproved assumption. It is simply a belief in something you cannot prove. And yes, if we believe in entropy then we can be sure.

Dmtrafford says:
July 3, 2009 at 7:29 pm

First of all Einstein didn’t formulate quantum mechanics. In fact he lived the rest of his life trying to disprove it- remember “God does not play dice”.

Regardless, the superiority that Albert speaks of does not have to be a God. For something to be superior it does not have to think, act or know. All that is required is a slight degree of ‘betterness’.

For a scientist, the truth, above everything else, is superior. Nothing can be better than the truth because the truth is perfect. Furthermore, perfection in science is unacheivable in science.

I emplore you to be careful with the use of this website. The arguments are devious and inconsistent. I do not mean to critisize your beliefs or opinions, but I worry about the implications of such reasoning. God may very well exist, but you will never offer an unbreakable proof. Instead, you will have to resort to sophistry and fuzzy logic, just as Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes and all the other God fearing thinkers in history.

My only advice is to be critical – of atheism and theism. Be critical of this website and everyother site. And most of all, be sure what it is that you do not know. There are many things I know. I know that I am a human that is composed of a specific set of genes that have predisposed me to certain dispositions that have combined with my life experiences and created the person that I identify as myself. I do not know if god exists, but I do not need to know in order to understand what it is to be human (described above). Thus, god has no place in the meaning of human life.

maria says:
July 4, 2009 at 5:46 am

the life time of our world is calculated since big bang. Truly material before the explosion should be available before that time. do you think our world is a subset of the other bigger world?so, When people die ,spirit is separated from bodies,what happen to their time vector which is perpendicular to three dimension of their bodies?
i hope ,i ask reasonable question.

anis siddiqui says:
July 5, 2009 at 1:45 am

Eistein’s theory of relativity says time is relative. What exactly does it mean? Does time travel at different speeds in different frames of reference? I read “A Brief History Of Time” by Stephen Hawking in which he says that there are other universes too other than ours where the arrow of time travels in opposite direction. The people living in those universes, unlike us, forget their past but can see the future. The mind boggles at this very thought. Please explain. Anis.

Comment Page 5 of 15« Oldest...«34567»...Newest »