Chapter 1
Today we had an epicycle with Bert and we started reading Fire in the Equations which talks about epistemology. I liked it a lot what I've read so far. It talks about the quest for truth by having faith we know that we can know everything. We don't have precision in language. Depends in each and every person to interpret things and have perspectives.
Chapter 2
Scientist search for truth
Religion search for God, which means truth.
Science is a quest for precise language.
We think of nature as perfectly symmetrical, but it's not
Religion search for God, which means truth.
Science is a quest for precise language.
We think of nature as perfectly symmetrical, but it's not
Chapter 3
Universe is expanding- cosmological constant (anti gravity)
Steady state theory (ateos que no querían creer en un origen)
Big bang theory
Theologians: Have had all explained out
Scientist: They have not
Discovery of the limits of human intellectual endeavour
quasors
universe that is evolving over time
Singularity: beginning is beyond the limits of our science
Imaginary time: no hay pasado, presente ni futuro. solo tiempo
Initial conditions has no boundaries
Entropy: disorder
God is the first cause
mathematical and logical consistency, universe
Steady state theory (ateos que no querían creer en un origen)
Big bang theory
Theologians: Have had all explained out
Scientist: They have not
Discovery of the limits of human intellectual endeavour
quasors
universe that is evolving over time
Singularity: beginning is beyond the limits of our science
Imaginary time: no hay pasado, presente ni futuro. solo tiempo
Initial conditions has no boundaries
Entropy: disorder
God is the first cause
mathematical and logical consistency, universe
Chapter4
Why does the universe bother to exist? Why is there something instead of nothing? Space and time. Momentum and precise position.
How did nothing created something? Is God first cause?
God and matter created at the same time? What was before if then? God, universe, mathematical and logical consistency.
Is truth good? beautiful?
What put the universe in motion?
Concept of God in different religions
Why God created us and then didn't get involved later on with us?
How did nothing created something? Is God first cause?
God and matter created at the same time? What was before if then? God, universe, mathematical and logical consistency.
Is truth good? beautiful?
What put the universe in motion?
Concept of God in different religions
Why God created us and then didn't get involved later on with us?
Chapter 5
For this dialogue we had as a guest Roberto Blum, I noticed the start of the dialogue was not serious at all. Both Javieres, Carmen and Kata were in the outer circle.
If believing in God affects in being a scientific? Each time we will be needing less and less of the explanation of a God if the sciences aim to explain everything.
Principio antropico: condiciones adecuadas para que nosotros existamos.
13,700 años de distancia es lo más lejos que podemos llegar a ver. Cono: espacio de tiempo. La verdad es más alla que la probabilidad. Cómo las mates (sistema formal) son capaces de describir el universo como tal.
Mold our thinking in creating mathematical concepts. Impose them. They start having a life of their own. Follow rules, and see where they take you. Did we discovered it or invented them? We've created this to understand the universe.
Babylonian started with the sexigesimal system. Mayan: twenty- fingers/ toes. Mandel Brot: if you repeat an equation you'll create something new. That nature has already created. Why is it always isomorphic? Universe not complete or not consistent? Universe would not be a formal system. Does it have a mind the universe? We are systems: we need inputs and produce outputs. Input: information. We can create rules and create a formal system. Our minds/brains are a formal system. Machines using a machine (mind and body)
We're the outcome of the rules created billion years ago. Why do rules exists? (physics)
It is up to us to give meaning to probability. Choices: choose the simpler (it is more true). Creator has to be complexer than its creation.
The anthropic principle has several forms. In its ‘weak’ form, it can be used to explain why conditions are just right for us to be here on the earth at this particular time in the history of the universe.
Strong anthropic principle there is a universe because we exist
If believing in God affects in being a scientific? Each time we will be needing less and less of the explanation of a God if the sciences aim to explain everything.
Principio antropico: condiciones adecuadas para que nosotros existamos.
13,700 años de distancia es lo más lejos que podemos llegar a ver. Cono: espacio de tiempo. La verdad es más alla que la probabilidad. Cómo las mates (sistema formal) son capaces de describir el universo como tal.
Mold our thinking in creating mathematical concepts. Impose them. They start having a life of their own. Follow rules, and see where they take you. Did we discovered it or invented them? We've created this to understand the universe.
Babylonian started with the sexigesimal system. Mayan: twenty- fingers/ toes. Mandel Brot: if you repeat an equation you'll create something new. That nature has already created. Why is it always isomorphic? Universe not complete or not consistent? Universe would not be a formal system. Does it have a mind the universe? We are systems: we need inputs and produce outputs. Input: information. We can create rules and create a formal system. Our minds/brains are a formal system. Machines using a machine (mind and body)
We're the outcome of the rules created billion years ago. Why do rules exists? (physics)
It is up to us to give meaning to probability. Choices: choose the simpler (it is more true). Creator has to be complexer than its creation.
The anthropic principle has several forms. In its ‘weak’ form, it can be used to explain why conditions are just right for us to be here on the earth at this particular time in the history of the universe.
Strong anthropic principle there is a universe because we exist
Chapter 6
Can I believe strongly in the scientific view of the universe and at the same time believe in a God who is involved continuously in events in the universe?
Science is a shifting body of knowledge.
My assumption is that God relates to men and women who seek him, and that He works within natural law.
Whether the divine explanation contradicts scientific knowledge or breaks these laws. God cannot or must not do things which could not happen purely as the result of natural processes.
Can God intervene in the universe?
Can we strongly believe in the scientific view of the universe, and at the same time believe in a God that is involved continuously in our universe?
7 arguments:
1. Stick with what you can learn from science
2. How can such God Could break his own perfect laws?
3. The laws that God made are not deterministic?
4. Is God breaking a law, or are we misunderstanding what the law is?
5. Is God irrational and arbitrary in his interventions?
6. There are things we are unable to discover
7. Just focus on what is happening, and find hard evidence in the search for God.
The search for a more fundamental law often begins with the discovery that something we have been regarding as fundamental and unchanging fails to hold under some circumstances
our assumption of unity and symmetry kicks in and allows us to conclude that what we have been thinking of as a fundamental law is merely an approximation, and that we must now explore for a deeper underlying law which does not change.
We assume that at absolute bed-rock there are laws which break down in no situations whatsoever.
determinism and predictability, cause and effect,
Predictable systems are the exception, not the rule
Ford defines chaos simply as randomness
small events have enormous consequences.
butterfly effect is ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.- able to predict future events.
chaotic systems as those containing strange attractors,
According to chaos theory, however far into the future one wishes to predict the behavior of a system, there is some degree of accuracy of knowledge of the initial conditions which would make it possible to predict. Complexity theory, on the other hand, has it that neither the near future nor the distant future of a chaotic system is predictable; it is the realization of a random process; hence there is no faster way to learn about the future of the system than to sit around and wait for it to happen.
The universe itself is predeterministic, unchanging laws. Not experiencing ourselves as deterministic.
History of the universe, something you do.
You cant extrinsicate the I from freedom. I am determine?
Science is a shifting body of knowledge.
My assumption is that God relates to men and women who seek him, and that He works within natural law.
Whether the divine explanation contradicts scientific knowledge or breaks these laws. God cannot or must not do things which could not happen purely as the result of natural processes.
Can God intervene in the universe?
Can we strongly believe in the scientific view of the universe, and at the same time believe in a God that is involved continuously in our universe?
7 arguments:
1. Stick with what you can learn from science
2. How can such God Could break his own perfect laws?
3. The laws that God made are not deterministic?
4. Is God breaking a law, or are we misunderstanding what the law is?
5. Is God irrational and arbitrary in his interventions?
6. There are things we are unable to discover
7. Just focus on what is happening, and find hard evidence in the search for God.
The search for a more fundamental law often begins with the discovery that something we have been regarding as fundamental and unchanging fails to hold under some circumstances
our assumption of unity and symmetry kicks in and allows us to conclude that what we have been thinking of as a fundamental law is merely an approximation, and that we must now explore for a deeper underlying law which does not change.
We assume that at absolute bed-rock there are laws which break down in no situations whatsoever.
determinism and predictability, cause and effect,
Predictable systems are the exception, not the rule
Ford defines chaos simply as randomness
small events have enormous consequences.
butterfly effect is ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.- able to predict future events.
chaotic systems as those containing strange attractors,
According to chaos theory, however far into the future one wishes to predict the behavior of a system, there is some degree of accuracy of knowledge of the initial conditions which would make it possible to predict. Complexity theory, on the other hand, has it that neither the near future nor the distant future of a chaotic system is predictable; it is the realization of a random process; hence there is no faster way to learn about the future of the system than to sit around and wait for it to happen.
The universe itself is predeterministic, unchanging laws. Not experiencing ourselves as deterministic.
History of the universe, something you do.
You cant extrinsicate the I from freedom. I am determine?