Creation and intelligence: beyond man

[McGizmo]

eggbert,

Your comments and position seem to define the other end of the spectrum from those who are steadfast in particular dogmas with no interest to consider "other" possibilities or scientific reasoning (at its present imperfect state). I am not sure if you will be willing to make any constructive contributions to this thread but your initial posts seem to indicate that this won't likely be the case.

Never mind, I see you have been banned. No surprise there. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[McGizmo]

Aten_Imago,

Well put and stated. Just to add a small monkey wrench; so instinct might be considered autonomic response at a simple level to some genetically programmed response that might have evolved, I suppose. Unless we agree that instinct has been the same for a species from day one, there is still the issue of learning I would think? As I understood it from a karate instuctor I once had, the intent of practice and study of martial arts was to train the body and mind to the point that responses were instinctual. I assume that intelligence is partially involved in such means but no longer evident in the end? Regardless, I think your definition of intelligence seems to be a viable measure of something or at least related to the intellectual process.

I guess that even the best fabric with the tightest weave and strongest fiber will still have holes and be permeable at some level. How does that relate?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

 

[Empath]

For Roth, or anyone else that wants to read it:
Originally at time zero, when there were no events there was no such thing as time. Once there was an event, followed by a second event (whatever that may have been) there was a measure between event 1 and event 2. Events following those of course had "distance" or time between the events. A measure could be made in comparison between the different events, thus time had been born. Man's association with time was also a comparison. Eventually man found some events that were periodic and that appeared to be precise. We developed timing systems based on the movement of the sun, moon, and stars and the repetitive cycles they had. Conveniently we found (we thought) that everything was in the same frame of reference regarding time. In other words, if two precise repetitive cycles of events were compared, the relative speed of the occurrence remained constant. We were able to develop clocks based on pendulums and such, and compare them to repetitive cycles of the sun and stellar objects. An hour was an hour, and consistent. A minute was a minute, and a second was a second consistently. All was great and convenient, since everything was within the same time frame.

Then a problem appeared. It was discovered that time for things that moved at the fastest rate possible didn't share our time frame. In other words, if you could move along with a beam of light at it's speed, it would speed across the universe nearly instantaneously. Okay, no problem, so light and other electromagnetic waves moved nearly instantly. Uh... no; that was only if you were moving along at the same speed as the wave. To observers it always appeared to move at a speed called "c", at approximately 186,000 miles per second, or the speed of light.

The light from the nearest star outside of our solar system takes about 3 years for it to reach earth. If you were traveling along with the light emitted by it, you'd arrive at the planet earth nearly instantly. Since the people on earth had spent about 3 years waiting on your "near instant" trip from the star, they would have aged 3 years while you were still processing the breath of air you took when starting your trip. That would be because you and they were in a different time frame.

It's not the light that changes the time frame. The theory was that it was speed that changed the time frame. Follow up observations have fit the expectations. So, if you could move at an outlandish rate of speed, relative to others, the rate of time would not be the same and you would literally be in a different time frame, no longer able to rely on Big Ben's timing or WWV's radio time signal.

Here's another interesting thing. Speed and gravity, as far as effect, is essentially the same. If you could enter a sufficiently great gravitational field or reduced gravitation field, the effects would be likened to a speed change, and the effect on the time frame, relative to those not in the gravitation field, would be altered.

Through out the universe you've got a wide variance in the mass of heavenly bodies. You've even got super condensed mass in such bodies as pulsars, quasars and of course black holes. Then you've got your lightweights like Earth, or even the moon. As a result, the influence on the time frame near the different bodies are quite varied and not the same as we observe here on good ol' Earth.

 

[McGizmo]

Empath,
If I am in a space craft orbiting the earth at near the speed of light and someone from three light years away flashes a light at earth, at a frequency of three years between flashes (earth time), I will think these flashes are perhaps seconds apart yet someone on earth will see them as 3 years apart. Yet the observer on earth and I will see these flashes at essentially the same moment in time, correct. So the time span between each moment in time is purely a function of your frame of reference. If an object were at absolute rest in the universe, could it exist? would it have mass? How much time would pass between these moments in time?

 

[chiaroscuro]

By object at absolute rest,McGizmo, do you mean no angular momentum relative to the rest of the universe or an object at absolute zero ?
Theoretically,if the latter,the object would have mass--so I guess that constitutes some tentative existence. Time effects?--good question. I believe that electrons would be frozen out of their probability cloud into a definite point in space. Since intelligence as we know it or any functions ( or any energy) could not exist at such a temperature,time could only be quantified by an outside observer. To what effect,I do not know.

 

[McGizmo]

chiaroscuro,
I meant the former, relative to the universe. As I understand it, the universe is expanding so I don't know if it even makes sense to state something "at rest" but if the universe did start at a singularity, I guess I mean some object that remained at that singularity while eveything else commensed to move away.

OK, maybe I should go back to something simplier like talking about whales and dolphins. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif (not that I know what I'm talking about in that case either!)

OT: I have just started reading The DaVinci Code and I find it fascinating in light of recent Cafe Threads, this one included; not to mention on its own merits! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Empath]

Sorry to take so long getting back. I saw your message this morning, but the day was so busy I had to wait to answer.

If you were in orbit around the earth at near light speed, the distance from earth's center of gravity, to achieve orbit, would be so small it would be a subterranean event rather than one in space. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif That's okay though. I assume you were just wondering about the effect of a different time frame, and from that perspective yes. Timing common events observable to you and the other would be different. The tricky thing is to actually figure out whose doing the moving, relatively; is it you or the others? Nothing is really that simple in three dimensional calculation of relative speed.

If you were to perform a pseudo orbit around the earth and move at near light speed, the effect wouldn't likely be what you'd hope regarding those on earth. Flying such an orbit type flight would place you moving away from and then toward those on the ground, and then moving away again. If your path wasn't directly over the spectator, the vectors involved would be even more complicated. The overall effect would likely be not that great a relative speed as much as it would be a fast moving pattern that at least partially canceled itself. Now the one three light years away flashing the light every three years would be even less affected by the pattern at that distance, and you'd probably not find any significant speed difference. It all has to be relative, with speed being the rate of your change of location. If you move away from, or toward a point at 100 MPH your speed relative to that point changes at that rate. If you travel at that rate, but are moving in a path that doesn't intersect that point, your actual speed is still 100 MPH, but your speed relative to that point is less than 100 MPH.

Regarding absolute rest, I'm not sure what's meant by absolute. You can be at rest relative to a point, but the point is referenced by something that is likely moving. Even if you were to somehow define the absolute center of the universe, the ever expanding and changing size and shape of the universe would probably redefine the center both geographically and by mass.

 

[McGizmo]

OK, thanks Empath. It would seem that I should stick to slower speeds and even slower thoughts. It also seems that this thread may have taken a boring turn into oblivian. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Those wanting refunds, please read the fine print. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Empath]

Don't feel alone, Don. If questioned deeper or challenged, I'd probably be lost.

Getting back to the theme, geological time vs belief systems are interesting. As is known, some belief systems attempt to insist that "creative" days consisted of six 24 hour periods, with only about 7000 years passing since then. If you try to reconcile observation to that, then you run into problems. Those systems will insist that Biblical statements indicate such. Obviously it's gone unnoticed that Biblical creation of the 24 hour days produced by the sun wasn't even initiated until the "4th day". The "evenings and mornings" established by the first three days apparently represents a different time period than our 24 hour days, particularly in light of obvious geological age, fossil records and such.