The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
When it comes to the age old question "Where did we come from?"
There seem to be two answers:
1. God made everything etc.
2. We evolved.
There it is. Black and white. One or the other.
Well, how about this:
God (or someone else) made the basics, and we evolved from there. Why not have some grey? Why can't there a mixture of the two theories?
Thoughts?
There seem to be two answers:
1. God made everything etc.
2. We evolved.
There it is. Black and white. One or the other.
Well, how about this:
God (or someone else) made the basics, and we evolved from there. Why not have some grey? Why can't there a mixture of the two theories?
Thoughts?
Page:
monkey_man wrote:
> If space ends... what's beyond it?
Iain M Banks "Notes of the Culture"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lastly, something of the totally fake cosmology that underpins the shakily credible stardrives mentioned in the Culture stories. Even if you can accept all the above, featuring a humanoid species that seems to exhibit no real greed, paranoia, stupidity, fanaticism or bigotry, wait till you read this...
We accept that the three dimensions of space we live in are curved, that space-time describes a hypersphere, just as the two dimensions of length and width on the surface of a totally smooth planet curve in a third dimension to produce a three-dimensional sphere. In the Culture stories, the idea is that - when you imagine the hypersphere which is our expanding universe - rather than thinking of a growing hollow sphere (like a inflating beach-ball, for example), think of an onion.
An expanding onion, certainly, but an onion, nevertheless. Within our universe, our hypersphere, there are whole layers of younger, smaller hyperspheres. And we are not the very outer-most skin of that expanding onion, either; there are older, larger universes beyond ours, too. Between each universe there is something called the Energy Grid (I said this was all fake); I have no idea what this is, but it's what the Culture starships run on. And of course, if you could get through the Energy Grid, to a younger universe, and then repeat the process... now we really are talking about immortality. (This is why there are two types of hyperspace mentioned in the stories; infraspace within our hypersphere, and ultraspace without.)
Now comes the difficult bit; switch to seven dimensions and even our four dimensional universe can be described as a circle. So forget about the onion; think of a doughnut. A doughnut with only a very tiny hole in the middle. That hole is the Cosmic Centre, the singularity, the great initiating fireball, the place the universes come from; and it didn't exist just in the instant our universe came into being; it exists all the time, and it's exploding all the time, like some Cosmic car engine, producing universes like exhaust smoke.
As each universe comes into being, detonating and spreading and expanding, it - or rather the single circle we are using to describe it - goes gradually up the inner slope of our doughnut, like a widening ripple from a stone flung in a pond. It goes over the top of the doughnut, reaches its furthest extent on the outside edge of the doughnut, and then starts the long, contracting, collapsing journey back in towards the Cosmic Centre again, to be reborn...
Or at least it does if it's on that doughnut; the doughnut is itself hollow, filled with smaller ones where the universes don't live so long. And there are larger ones outside it, where the universes live longer, and maybe there are universes that aren't on doughnuts at all, and never fall back in, and just dissipate out into... some form of meta-space? Where fragments of them are captured eventually by the attraction of another doughnut, and fall in towards its Cosmic Centre with the debris of lots of other dissipated universes, to be reborn as something quite different again? Who knows. (I know it's all nonsense, but you've got to admit it's impressive nonsense. And like I said at the start, none of it exists anyway, does it?)
> If space ends... what's beyond it?
Iain M Banks "Notes of the Culture"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Lastly, something of the totally fake cosmology that underpins the shakily credible stardrives mentioned in the Culture stories. Even if you can accept all the above, featuring a humanoid species that seems to exhibit no real greed, paranoia, stupidity, fanaticism or bigotry, wait till you read this...
We accept that the three dimensions of space we live in are curved, that space-time describes a hypersphere, just as the two dimensions of length and width on the surface of a totally smooth planet curve in a third dimension to produce a three-dimensional sphere. In the Culture stories, the idea is that - when you imagine the hypersphere which is our expanding universe - rather than thinking of a growing hollow sphere (like a inflating beach-ball, for example), think of an onion.
An expanding onion, certainly, but an onion, nevertheless. Within our universe, our hypersphere, there are whole layers of younger, smaller hyperspheres. And we are not the very outer-most skin of that expanding onion, either; there are older, larger universes beyond ours, too. Between each universe there is something called the Energy Grid (I said this was all fake); I have no idea what this is, but it's what the Culture starships run on. And of course, if you could get through the Energy Grid, to a younger universe, and then repeat the process... now we really are talking about immortality. (This is why there are two types of hyperspace mentioned in the stories; infraspace within our hypersphere, and ultraspace without.)
Now comes the difficult bit; switch to seven dimensions and even our four dimensional universe can be described as a circle. So forget about the onion; think of a doughnut. A doughnut with only a very tiny hole in the middle. That hole is the Cosmic Centre, the singularity, the great initiating fireball, the place the universes come from; and it didn't exist just in the instant our universe came into being; it exists all the time, and it's exploding all the time, like some Cosmic car engine, producing universes like exhaust smoke.
As each universe comes into being, detonating and spreading and expanding, it - or rather the single circle we are using to describe it - goes gradually up the inner slope of our doughnut, like a widening ripple from a stone flung in a pond. It goes over the top of the doughnut, reaches its furthest extent on the outside edge of the doughnut, and then starts the long, contracting, collapsing journey back in towards the Cosmic Centre again, to be reborn...
Or at least it does if it's on that doughnut; the doughnut is itself hollow, filled with smaller ones where the universes don't live so long. And there are larger ones outside it, where the universes live longer, and maybe there are universes that aren't on doughnuts at all, and never fall back in, and just dissipate out into... some form of meta-space? Where fragments of them are captured eventually by the attraction of another doughnut, and fall in towards its Cosmic Centre with the debris of lots of other dissipated universes, to be reborn as something quite different again? Who knows. (I know it's all nonsense, but you've got to admit it's impressive nonsense. And like I said at the start, none of it exists anyway, does it?)
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> The quesstion that really gets me, though - and I've had numerous
> conversations about it with several different people is this one:
>
> If space ends... what's beyond it?
I think that's already been answered. Beyond space is...more space! Only it's the other side of the Universe, and you've got a long way to go, Buddy!
> The quesstion that really gets me, though - and I've had numerous
> conversations about it with several different people is this one:
>
> If space ends... what's beyond it?
I think that's already been answered. Beyond space is...more space! Only it's the other side of the Universe, and you've got a long way to go, Buddy!
ßulle†† wrote:
> Good point. There could well be an explanation far beyond our
> understanding, that we are yet to discover. The thing is, who knows?
> Nobody in our lifetime will ever know.
>
> For all we know, the true explanation could be something that has
> never even been suggested before...
Thats what I'm trying to get across. :)
> Good point. There could well be an explanation far beyond our
> understanding, that we are yet to discover. The thing is, who knows?
> Nobody in our lifetime will ever know.
>
> For all we know, the true explanation could be something that has
> never even been suggested before...
Thats what I'm trying to get across. :)
ßulle†† wrote:
> I'm no good at arguments, so please accept this as my view - even if
> you do find it narrow-minded or naive...
Nooo, not at all. Each to their own belief (as long as it isn't forced on me like forest fan tends to do. Thats when my hackles rise) I'm just generally curious. 'Tis interesting to read other peoples views.
> I'm no good at arguments, so please accept this as my view - even if
> you do find it narrow-minded or naive...
Nooo, not at all. Each to their own belief (as long as it isn't forced on me like forest fan tends to do. Thats when my hackles rise) I'm just generally curious. 'Tis interesting to read other peoples views.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Like we say "There can't be any life on planet X because it's
> too close to/far away from the Sun, and nothing could survive
> there."
>
> Says who? We don't *know* that life can't possibly exist on, say,
> Jupiter. Life "as we know it" can't exist, but who says
> life here is the only type of life there is?
Good example, but it is very possible that some form of life could have adapted to the high temperatures and are living on there right now. We won't know as we can't get close enough to search well enough.
> Many of our assumptions are - whether we realise it or not - bound by
> what we know and understand to be the facts. We once believed that
> the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe!
Good point. There could well be an explanation far beyond our understanding, that we are yet to discover. The thing is, who knows? Nobody in our lifetime will ever know.
For all we know, the true explanation could be something that has never even been suggested before...
> Like we say "There can't be any life on planet X because it's
> too close to/far away from the Sun, and nothing could survive
> there."
>
> Says who? We don't *know* that life can't possibly exist on, say,
> Jupiter. Life "as we know it" can't exist, but who says
> life here is the only type of life there is?
Good example, but it is very possible that some form of life could have adapted to the high temperatures and are living on there right now. We won't know as we can't get close enough to search well enough.
> Many of our assumptions are - whether we realise it or not - bound by
> what we know and understand to be the facts. We once believed that
> the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe!
Good point. There could well be an explanation far beyond our understanding, that we are yet to discover. The thing is, who knows? Nobody in our lifetime will ever know.
For all we know, the true explanation could be something that has never even been suggested before...
2.
The quesstion that really gets me, though - and I've had numerous conversations about it with several different people is this one:
If space ends... what's beyond it?
If space ends... what's beyond it?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Heh. I just love the fact that an apparently all powerful diety HAS
> to have came from SOMETHING.
>
> Why? Could it not have created itself? Could "Time" as a
> concept we understand might not apply to it? :)
>
> Anyway. I don't have the time to argue 100 percent to this as I'm
> busy, its just I can't underestand why people can't accept that
> something that there is NO PROOF of and is supposed to be omnipresent
> (see my comments in the "being a Christian thread", I'm not
> religious at all) can exist outside of our limited understanding of
> the universe.
>
> In one way, isn't that being as blinkered as dear old forest fan in
> the other thread?
I can understand where you're coming from Pandaemonium, and I too don't want to argue this too much (as I will undoubtedly dig myself into a 'stupid' hole), but my view - even thinking out of our level of understanding - is that everything has to start somewhere i.e. have been created or formed/mutated as part of the evolution process.
If an omnipresent being 'created itself', surely that means it evolved from it's previous incarnation/form, therefore classifying it as a form of evolution?!
I'm no good at arguments, so please accept this as my view - even if you do find it narrow-minded or naive...
> Heh. I just love the fact that an apparently all powerful diety HAS
> to have came from SOMETHING.
>
> Why? Could it not have created itself? Could "Time" as a
> concept we understand might not apply to it? :)
>
> Anyway. I don't have the time to argue 100 percent to this as I'm
> busy, its just I can't underestand why people can't accept that
> something that there is NO PROOF of and is supposed to be omnipresent
> (see my comments in the "being a Christian thread", I'm not
> religious at all) can exist outside of our limited understanding of
> the universe.
>
> In one way, isn't that being as blinkered as dear old forest fan in
> the other thread?
I can understand where you're coming from Pandaemonium, and I too don't want to argue this too much (as I will undoubtedly dig myself into a 'stupid' hole), but my view - even thinking out of our level of understanding - is that everything has to start somewhere i.e. have been created or formed/mutated as part of the evolution process.
If an omnipresent being 'created itself', surely that means it evolved from it's previous incarnation/form, therefore classifying it as a form of evolution?!
I'm no good at arguments, so please accept this as my view - even if you do find it narrow-minded or naive...
ßulle†† wrote:
> Because nothing can just appear out of thin air. Everything originates
> from something so a God would have to have either been created by
> something or someone
Only because that's the way we understand things to work.
Like we say "There can't be any life on planet X because it's too close to/far away from the Sun, and nothing could survive there."
Says who? We don't *know* that life can't possibly exist on, say, Jupiter. Life "as we know it" can't exist, but who says life here is the only type of life there is?
Many of our assumptions are - whether we realise it or not - bound by what we know and understand to be the facts. We once believed that the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe!
Anyway, if "God" can "just exist" - why couldn't everything else?
> Because nothing can just appear out of thin air. Everything originates
> from something so a God would have to have either been created by
> something or someone
Only because that's the way we understand things to work.
Like we say "There can't be any life on planet X because it's too close to/far away from the Sun, and nothing could survive there."
Says who? We don't *know* that life can't possibly exist on, say, Jupiter. Life "as we know it" can't exist, but who says life here is the only type of life there is?
Many of our assumptions are - whether we realise it or not - bound by what we know and understand to be the facts. We once believed that the Earth was flat and at the centre of the Universe!
Anyway, if "God" can "just exist" - why couldn't everything else?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Why? Could it not have created itself? Could "Time" as a
> concept we understand not apply to it? :)
spacky fingers alert.
> Why? Could it not have created itself? Could "Time" as a
> concept we understand not apply to it? :)
spacky fingers alert.
Page: