Are Physical Laws Arbitrary?

[newtonian]

Plat, you all - the laws governing our universe are not just some chance set from the googols of possibilities.<br /><br />The laws are exactly fine tuned.<br /><br />You all mentioned the splitting of the Helium atom.<br /><br />Research has been done to determine how stellar synthesis of carbon from helium occurs in stars.<br /><br />It turns out that there is an exact double matching of the nuclear resonances of Helium, Beryllium and carbon so as to allow carbon synthesis.<br /><br />Without the catalyzing effects of the in phase resonances of these 3 atoms virtually no carbon would be synthesized and no life as we know it would be possible in our universe!<br /><br />This is detailed, btw, in "The Symbiotic Universe," by George Greenstein. And, of course, other scientific sources.<br /><br />Are you all aware of the many ways our universe's laws and properties are fine tuned to allow for life as we know it?

 

[newtonian]

bonezelite - I trust you realize from my above posts that while some Biblical passages may be interpreted in different ways, others are simple and straightforward.<br /><br />For example, stretching out the heavens in Isaiah 40:22 cannot mean our universe is contracting rather than expanding; also when Job 2610 states the terminator is a circle this could only mean earth is a sphere, etc.<br /><br />Otherwise, I do agree with you that the Bible only gives us hints and leaves most of the joy of discovery to scientists with their "tools."<br /><br />It helps, though, to realize, for example, that DNA and other genetic coding [e.g. epigenetic coding via methylation of 'junk' DNA; and coding via methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin} is God's book, alluded to in Psalms 139:16 (and context).<br /><br />It would have saved scientists much time by realizing the book was not largely "junk," but instead searching for the purpose of various sequences.<br /><br />It would have saved the history of science from the way out models of past centuries after Moses recorded earth was hung upon nothing (Job 26:7), etc. <br /><br />Just curious - the trajectory of Venus?<br /><br />Are you alluding to Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" and "Earth in Upheaval" wherein he posits a recent introduction of Venus to our solar system?<br /><br />I do not, btw, believe in Velikovsky's model - but the evidence of a past catastrophe on earth, which the <br />Bible also states, is compelling.<br /><br />However, I understand that not all of Velikovsky's quotes are accurate.<br /><br />Some are, however.

 

[plat]

<b>"i tend to envision solid objects being able to pass through one another while remaining structurally identified. and maybe there are more liquid metals like mercury, but numbering in the dozens. endless variations of things like this. space time may be purple. there may be water droplets that are the size of an entire planet."</b><br /><br />Yeah, I agree...like some far out stuff like that

 

[bonzelite]

newtonian, your posts are engaging and very thought provoking, philosophical. i appreciate that highly. <br /><br />about Venus. yes, there are the models that propose Venus to be "young" and only recently placed in it's current orbital distance from the sun. subsequently, catastrophism has become an entire cult, if you will, among alternative theorists. whereas i am skeptical of these models just as you, i do take them into account, if not only lightly, as some shred of truth may be buried somewhere in there to some measure. i tend to believe, at times, that the ancients actually knew more than we do about some [not all] natural phenomena. and it was through mankind's own proliferating political institutions, namely western religions, that we lost sight of what was really going on. <br /><br />in that you cite Biblical references in your posts, which is very interesting by the way, you must at least entertain the power of myth and lore as occasionally viable sources for "facts." or at least clues. i agree with you that the Bible can go from vague to specific when it uses numbers and illustrative passages. some of it is literal. some of it is not. depends on the context in large part, imo. <br /><br />the emergence and evidence of universally recognized, simultaneously occurring, symbols throughout ancient cultures, often separated by thousands of miles and impassable mountain ranges, is compelling to me. and myriad ancient structures throughout the world have seemingly no viably explained method of construction [like, for example, ultra hard obsidian outer sarcophagi cut to such exacting perfection that no modern saw exists that could cut such an object and with such precision -how was it cut, then?].

 

[newtonian]

bonzelite - I hadn't thought of my posts as philosophical - I guess when I engage in speculation as I sometimes do it does border on philosophy.<br /><br />However, I do not actually like philosophy because it is not a reliable source for truth.<br /><br />I do believe the Bible is a reliable source for truth - and it does stand in contrast with the many symbols and doctrines common to most religions on earth.<br /><br />Most religious doctrines and symbols come from the religion of ancient Babylon (hence called "Babylon the Great" in Revelation) - however, the Bible is independent of and in contrast with the religion of ancient Babylon.<br /><br />The cross which crosses with the Egyptian crux ansata, etc., is but one of many examples; the spire and phallic worship is another; there are many other examples.<br /><br />If we are to go into these subjects in depth, we should start a thread in phenomenon or free space.<br /><br />One tangent more relevant to space science is "Earth in Upheaval," by Immanuel Velikovsky. The real evidence for a catastrophic flood compares with the question of whether earth's sculptor was primarily ice or water, which, in turn, compares with Mar's sculptor being ice or water - I go for water in both cases, btw, though there is some ice influence on earth, including ice catastrophically floating on water.<br /><br />You might compare today's Science channel episode on what really caused the extinction of Dinosaurs and the two models presented: a gradual deposition over 100,000+ years vs. a catastrophic deposition over a few days by violent tsunamis.<br /><br />Your last point definitely belongs on the phenomenon section, I think.

 

[bonzelite]

newtonian, i don't really make much distinction between philosophy and science. the way i see it, philosophy is exactly the pursuit of truth, as science is but ONE aspect of philosophy; science is within the palm of philosophy. <br /><br />for example, if you cite biblical references and approach the passages with intent to draw rational scientific inferences, as i have seen you do very interestingly, then this is applying scientific philosophy to religion in pursuit of truth. you are imparting a personal spin on what it may mean, yet you are also using proven scientific tools to hone the observations into rational objective conclusions. and this intellectual behavior is the basis for all of our scientific models. without this behavior, there is no science. <br /><br />i'm game for a phenomenon thread if you will migrate there from time to time. i will be there, then.