Arts & Humanities >
Meaning of Life
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedBig Bang or Big Man: How in the heck did we get here?
Results so far:
| Big Bang | 53% | 1004 votes | Total: 1907 votes | |
| Big Man | 47% | 903 votes |
Big Bang
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesConsidering the depth which theoretical scientists must often explore in their efforts to gain that deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of reality it is refreshing to note that discussion of the anthropic principle is yet ongoing. Lisa Zyga writes in her Physorg.com article (see link below) "What Anthropic Reasoning Can Really Tell Us" that anthropic reasoning is losing credibility as a viable explanation for the existence of our Universe because anthropic conclusions reflect mostly our biases rather than our knowledge. I don't share her point of view. Insomuch that it is possible to bury our heads in too much mathematics (Einstein did it to support his static universe theory - he was wrong) it is also possible to demand too much of empiricism to explain what cannot be tested. Sometimes we really do need a leap of faith.
The conventional description of the anthropic principle states that the Universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. The notion that if it were any other way than that is the way that it would be and we would still be here to observe it is as much a contradiction of the anthropic principle as supportive of it. That amended description does not sit well with physicists studying it. In essence, anthropocentrism holds that the Universe could only exist as it does to support life. To most theorists this is all just a little too pretty and fortuitous to merit title to viable theory. And therein lies the problem with it. Even if things were so, it is just too difficult to fit it into the context of Big Bang Theory. Life can not be determined to exist so it must be purely coincidental. But the anthropic principle is still too attractive and tempting to dismiss entirely. It is still the only scientific reasoning for the emergence and evolution of life. What is missing in the debate is the perception of a coherent framework to support anthropic reasoning.
Quantum theory can help. If we were to reduce the temperature of the entire Universe and everything in it to absolute zero than everything would condense into a single colossal atom. Thermal dynamics prevents this from happening. But, philosophical as it may sound, we are still essentially all one. Imagining the entire history of the Universe compressed to the time frame of a split second helps us to appreciate the role that time plays in differentiating existence. Nevertheless, everything could be perceived as happening at the same time. Same place, same time. Temporarily harboring those radical ideas will allow us to perhaps see the entire process of creation from that first quantum fluctuation when space, time and matter were first realized to the present to be a singular expression. In fractal terms this expression is not so random. Life is not such a fortuitous event after all. Life is essential to the whole, because the expression has made life manifest and purposeful. Determination of life is essential to the complete anthropocentric nature of the expression. It is not really so unscientific to say that the Universe could not have turned out any other way because any other direction would not have supported life because it's true. In its pure originality the evolution of the Universe is determined to follow the course that it takes because the only influences that might make it different imply directions that do not conform to the reason for this expression in the first place. That would have produced a flawed equation - a mutant fractal expression, if you will. But the point is that we are not co-incidental to the nature of existence.
Like any idea, which is what this grand expression represents, this one too passes in time for the observer. The lifetime of his context - ie. his part of the Universe, is as corporeal and as finite as is his life. Thermal dynamics has given us the frame of reference which allows us to position ourselves in our relative time and place and from which we can see the time cones of the past and the future. I like to think that I can see the big picture so I am comfortable with the idea that creation continues at the periphery of the Universe in the perpetual process of new beginning - that space is as much a creation as the matter which displaces it. We are where we are, not where it has been, and not where it is. It shall pass on.
Notwithstanding that there can be no place in nothing for the Universe to have begun - ergo no center of the Universe - logic dictates that this is intrinsically impossible; that there must be a reference point from which the Universe first began and from which it began expanding. Perhaps a conclusion can be drawn out of theory as to the evolutionary process wherein matter and space are first created to that inevitable end where we are left only with a void and all matter and energy within that void has disappeared, unraveled and expired. If our theory is correct then the beginnings of that process must lie somewhere - it must be observable.
Perhaps that very region has been found. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite produced a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background which appears to be disrupted by the presence of a large hole seemingly devoid of the presence of matter. It is being called the "WMAP Cold Spot". The spot is huge, about a billion light years across and is located between six and ten billion light years from Earth.
When viewing a computer generated cross section of the Universe we are presented with an image which shows strings of galaxies occupying filaments of matter like some dense web in the darkness of space. We are reminded of our theory that there is an end to existence, that even as the creation process continues for perpetuity at the periphery of the Universe, all things must pass in time and the energies that make up particles of matter and force must have a "shelf-life", eventually also passing in time in a process already begun at that place which we should now be able to identify and where creation began. Those galactic filaments can almost be seen to shrink and atrophy even as the gaps between them grow larger, and this is perhaps what we are witnessing when we observe everything to be moving away from us no matter where we stand in this Universe. We are all trapped in the cycle of life and death and the Universe that was and is and will be are no exceptions. Those events are all a part of this reality. It is all happening at the same time.
It is most logical to me that there is this dynamic to the life-cycle of creation. The Universe is not static. Things do not remain the same. The cycle of birth and rebirth continues.
__________ _____
references:
http ://www.physorg.com/n ews121691428.html
htt p://www.space.com/sc ienceastronomy/07082 3_huge_hole.html
http ://www.space.com/php /multimedia/imagedis play/img_display.php ?pic=050322_dark_ene rgy_02.jpg
Learn more about this author, Steve Lussing.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Big Man
At some point in every child's life, if he has the capacity to reason and think, he begins to wonder how we all got here. Our parents take us to church where we learn that an intelligent being created everything that was created. At school, our teachers teach about a big bang theory in which a huge explosion took place, resulting in our planet. We are asked to believe that everything that exists today came from single cell amoeba that evolved into the diversity of species alive now through eons of time. Which is more difficult to believe?
Because of the conflicting stories of how we all came to be, children spend their growing up years confused. No one makes it clear that these two ideas are complete and separate issues. Many children attempt to merge the two ideas, finding it impossible to reconcile the major story components that will not merge successfully. Is it any wonder that so many adults are still confused?
The easiest way to decide for yourself which story is fact is to closely examine all things in existence today. Ask yourself if a single cell amoeba could possibly evolve into the millions of species that live on our planet today. What would cause the evolution of a flower to diversify into hundreds of thousands of different species, each uniquely capable of surviving where it has chosen to live? Does a flower have the ability to decide which area of the earth has the best growing conditions for its survival? What makes a rose decide to change colors, alter the number of petals, vary the fragrances, or whether to bush or climb? How did all the species decide what was needed as food, then make sure that evolution provided the food for the survival of every single one of millions of species? Are we to believe that all this was left to chance, and by chance, happened exactly as needed by each species?
While it may be difficult for some to believe that an intelligent entity planned, to the tiniest detail, how all species would depend upon each other, it is far easier to believe than an unproven theory that remains unproven after thousands of years. Scientists have mapped the genetic make-up of man, but cannot prove that man evolved over a period of millions of years? Perhaps it is time to admit the theory is unprovable. What about the creator we call God? Can we prove that He exists and that He created everything that was created? I believe that nature, itself, proves that we were created.
The grasshopper eats the grain. The robin eats the grasshopper. The eagle eats the robin. The lion eats the eagle. You can see that a food chain is well established. The actual food chain is quite complicated and complex, causing many people to doubt that it happened by chance or by a long evolution. Everything upon the face of the earth has a purpose and a place in the food chain. To believe in the big bang theory, we are asked to believe that plants and animals have always had the ability to adjust, as needed, to keep their purpose and place in the food chain in check to ensure a complete balance of life on earth.
If humans ultimately evolved from primates, why are there still primates on earth today? Were there some who said, "I don't think so, Elmo. I am perfectly happy being a Chimpanzee, but you go right ahead and evolve into a higher being if it makes you feel better." For those who did not evolve, do you not think he would do so today if he could? After all, why remain a primate that is hunted and killed or captured and placed in zoos?
There are just too many holes in the big bang theory. To believe in one creator takes faith only. There is no tentative faith with which to test the waters before jumping right in. Either you have complete faith in a one true creator God or you believe whatever suits the lifestyle you have chosen.to live. Surrendering complete faith in a Holy God means you will have to live accordingly. This is what many people get hung up over. They believe they must be perfect and without blemish before coming before the Creator. This is impossible. God knows this because He created man. Man must first see himself as helpless without God. It is when he admits this to himself and God that God steps in to supply the power needed to change, or conform, if you will.
If I had absolute proof that God created all, I would not share it with mankind. Without faith, God tells us, it is impossible to please Him. So we come back to what you are willing, or should I say able, to believe based upon what you know of the earth we live on and how all things interact for the preservation of all.
Learn more about this author, Barbara Stanley.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
