IMO, the physics community is looking at the "arrow of time" completely wrong. It's the basic problem that mathematics has no physical reality until something is available that acts like mathematics, something that has is the evolution of time, and has physics constants attached to it, making it physically real. I feel like I should give the atheist physicists a pat on the back. You did your best. You did your level best, as a community, to try to prove that reality could stand on math alone. Your hard-work and brilliant skills were phenomenal. but you failed. You proved that reality cannot stand on mathematics alone. Something else is needed. Something or someone that can work out the physics constants, and then set up a dynamical system that creates the big bang, gravity, everything. You all should shift your focus, from trying to describe the mathematics of EVERYTHING, to trying to understand a system that creates spacetime and other fields.

Dear Georgina, Steve and Jason,

All written information am supposedly finite, and consists of millions of bits of symbolic alphabetical and numerical combinations supposedly about visible and invisible phenomena understandable only by humans for a finite duration. But the one visible reality ETERNALLY provided by Nature am INFINITE and understandable by all creatures forever.

Joe Fisher, Extraordinarily Gifted Realist

Jason, have you read my preceding posts?

Joe, your post has nothing to do with the blog or my argument set out in the preceding posts. You capitalize eternally and infinite, shouting their importance, but there is no way to prove that it is so.

YouTube video: [link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu0GksWf5pI]David Sinclair - Cracking & reversing the aging clock - Science Unlimited 2019[link]

Old mice can be rejuvenated, without time reversal. Age as measured by several biological markers can be reversed while chronological age continues to increase. Chronological age is correlated with biological age. However, it is not clock time that determines biological age but effects upon material structure, affecting function. Passage of time continues whether a mouse is aging or growing younger.

Does anybody here think that the big bang is scientific proof that an anti-entropy force exists?

Hi Joe,

Is a belief in God justified? The very best that science can say is that (1) our universe is too fine tuned to be an accident, 1 part in 10^10^128 is identically zero. A universe that is fine tuned for stable chemistry is impossible by accident. Second, science cannot explain how a prokaryote can form, how life can start "by accident"; that is impossible as well. Third, science cannot explain consciousness, cannot duplicate it, and has a very terrible understanding of human nature when compared to how the Bible describes human nature.

Jason

Hi Georgina,

It would be amazing if science could crack the code on physical immortality for humans.

Jason

Hi Loraine,

I think free will is one of those paradoxes. You can either have free will, or you can control the consequences of your actions. You can't have both. As an example, you can commit the crime that would satisfy your desires, or you can control the consequences of your actions by controlling yourself, which feels like lack of freedom or lack of free will.

Jason

Steven Wolfram has shown, with his cellular automata, that highly complex patterns can sometimes develop from simple reiterative processes.

I don't think Steven Wolfram knows the difference between a pattern, and a process.

Look at ice crystals. All you have to do is remove heat from water or molten rock, and the atoms/molecules slow down into a lattice arrangement. That's easy.

But creating life is a process. It's more like a self assembly factory. Step 1: you need materials. You need about 120 elements called the periodic table. If your outcome if a periodic table of elements, then you need to get protons to fuse together (fusion). So you need a strong force to overcome the repulsion between two protons. It has to be stronger than the coulomb force, or the protons won't fuse into a nucleus. How are you going to make nuclei? You're going to use a nuclear furnace. If the strong force is too strong, then all the energy that is released during fusion will be given off during the big bang. You need these nuclear furnaces (called stars) to burn for billions of years. This is engineering!

Do atheists think that factories are accidents?

Joe,

I can make a very logical argument that life, biological cells, starting with a big bang, looks more like a factory, it looks like a set of processes that were carefully thought out before implemented.

You might question that God is a white man. In my opinion, I think God is a Jew! LOL

Jason,

You can only unnaturally make an infinite number of finite written arguments about any finite subject, visible or invisible, factual or fictional, you wish. But the only truth that has ever been proven was that there has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified VISIBLE INFINITE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by ONE INFINITE type of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

What you are saying sounds like mathematics. But mathematics doesn't make things exist.

What I'm saying is that biological existence looks like an end process of a factory. The big bang looks like the beginning process of a factory. Factories don't happen by accidental.

Jason,

Factory worker

Jason,

I post sensible comments. I do not provide audio files.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe Fisher,

I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is more realistic than anything I've heard from theoreticians.

Jadon