Thursday, July 7, 2011

An Ignorant Insight To Ideas on the "Creator"

The greatest philisophical question, that may never be answered in our lifetimes is "how did we begin?" Did we start as single celled organisms, evolving again and again, into what is apparently the dominant species on the planet? Or did we hail from some unseen force, who distinguished us from the start? Perhaps it was a little bit of both, even? The answer is os mysterious, yet much more important then one can imagine. If we knew how we began, the abilities it could present us may be infinite. If it was evolution, what makes a cluster of molecules into a cell? If it was a god, what force did he use to spark life into us? (And for the record, many people use the argument that theyd rather come from a god then be related to a cockroach. Well id rather come from the essence of a star and be related to a nearly invincible being, cockroach, then be offspring of millenias of inbreeding.) I am ignorant of the cause of life, and I humbly accept that either course deserves credibility, in that evolution would explain how we become what we are, and a deity would explain the spark that makes conciousness. This idea is not meant to demean either side, but propose an ignorant idea to be argued, and more then likely, corrected. Perhaps there is a "god" and perhaps it is not what the world believes it to be.

The average human has five incredible mediums of senses, in that they Extend to an incredible range broadly, but when looking at a focuses sense, it falls short to some more humbles competitors. Our eyes see far, but the hawk can see beyond us, and bees can even see in ways we can only imagine through technology. Our ears, though sensitive, cant compete with the ears of a dog, or their nose for that matter. Though with our medium of senses it becomes apparent we have a grand ability toward interpritation. Any animal can interpret its surroundings, its true, but it takes some degree of intelligence to use our interpretive powers to menipulate the world around us, in other words form technology. The most incredible gift i believe interpretation has brought us is the ability to differentiate life from the unlively. We've found life in the most incredible places, where it can range from a small swamp to the edges of underwater volcanoes. In just a centuries time the requirements for life has expanded exponentially in the ways of temperature, consumption, and geographic neccessities. Life, is without a doubt, a phenominal thing, and I believe it is too unique to be burdened to just one planet. If god is a concious being, why would he stop with just us, after all?

Though the key to life, is unexplained and, so far, only witnessed on Earth, the components for life are abundant in the universe. Every atom of our core has descnended from a long destroyed star (which in my oppinion is a far mor noble bost then saying we descend from inbreeding), and the stars and planets are inifnite across our universe. To say it only exists in our little spot in the universe, or even multiverse, is absurd. Carbon, the key component to life on Earth, is astounding in its abundance, and we know of its incredible durability. The question is not what components make life, but what sparks a concious mind. This is where scientists have failed to find answers, and where Believers in god fail to find the secret in scripture. A notable conclusion, though one I would hate for science to find suitable, is that there is infact a "god", if the only requirements to be a god is to create life that is.

First of all, I would like to say im not promoting or demoting the belief in a deity. Though God has satiated many loopholes in science, From Newtons exceptions in his Newtonian laws, to Einstiens argument of "Gods and cards" or however I should put his quote. Both men were astoundingly brilliant, and their concepts of god I find nothing less then intruiging, especially Einsteins few witty quotes. However, where these men failed to find an answer beyond God other, more humble scientists, found the asnwers in science. Its astounding how the fame of saying god is the answer far outreaches the eventual, physical answer.

The answer that has not yet been answered, yet I'm still humble enough to say will eventually be answered by science, is the spark of life. The immediate answer is a god, so until light is shed I will accept that, but I will still wonder on what makes a "god". If the requirement is the ability to create life, then its more logical to assume god is a Monolith, from the book/movie 2001: A Space Oddyssey. In this sense, the thing that created life could have been a series of rare electromagnetic waves that radiate clusters of molecules into life. If you think of god as this, it explains how the molecules get conciousness, and it raises new levels to the requirements of life. No longer does it have to be carbon-based, it can just be radiated. To credit Star Trek, imagine in a million years getting into a bar fight with a silicon based life form, in some far-off space hub. True or not, id hate to be the guy who tried to give a heap of rocks a black eye. Of course saying god is radiation still leaves a question as to why there is no non-carbon-based life forms on our planet. Another ignorant inferance to answer that, is the Radiation came from a rare comet or space anomoly, and simply spewed an ancestor to Archabacteria onto our planet. A far off as that sounds, I still believe it is just as acceptable as a mono-theological deity of infinite preportions. But lets not jump the gun just yet, to interpret something DeGrasse Tyson, my favorite astro physicist, once said, we must know when we're looking too specifically at one point, and when to back up and take it in from another angle. Sadly I don't remember his exact words, but im certain it was for more insightfull then the pitiful excuse for wisdom i just spouted out. The point being though, I feel that taking it to the level of claiming it was a form of asteroid with carbon-based life and radiation right off the bat, is a bit too extreme without some, more credible, sources for reason.

The next Idea I will cover, though not extensively due to my previous essay on it, and the fact I simply cant see the knowledge as useful beyond a few stoner-loved talks and a funny "fact" is the idea of us living inside of a computer simulation. As Morpheus once said "if real is what you can touch, smell, or see then real is nothing more then electrical impulses interpretted by the mind". Essentially, there is a 20% probability(humorously the same percentage of people in America who DO NOT have herpes, and yes I do use that often) that we live in a highly advanced computer simulation, for one reason or another. It would then explain physical anomolies as glitches rather then yet-to-be-defined laws. I doubt it would exactly be like the matrix however. In a less awesome probablity it would be like the Pc game The Sims. We're small bits of programming controlled by an outside source, using the computer..does anyone have an urge to throw a party and get a lodtof flamable furniture? (inside joke for all you sadistical sims players) This simulation could be for a number of reason, including study of lifes beginnings, in that our intelligence is such the dawn of a higher understanding, or just for fun, like a computer game. And it is indeed probable, that the computer could be turned off at any point. lets hope they saved the program! If you seek more explanation and insight on this, read my earlier writing "The reality of reality". As far as im concerned though, we are real, but every possibility deserves some voice.

I will end this brief idea of a god theoreticly coexisting in scientific explanation with my favorite idea. Einsteins formula E=MC^2, also known as the "Special Theory" is incredibly reliable and accounts most any answer in the universe. In respect to the genius i follow it as well, and understand it has done wonders for astrophysical theories including such wonderous things, as black holes. The theory, from my naive understanding, covers time in coordination to matter, mass, and energy. It also divides time and space into their own dimentions, creating the universe and know, and usually, love. We have understandable relevance to density, mass, volume, and time, however the theory only covers up to four dimensions. Let us assume that there are dimensions beyond that, and, for the interesting hell of it, that there are beings that can live -beyond- these four dimensions. It is, after all, understood that their are anomolies not coordinating with force, or immediate relevance. i would like to view photons as the most common, and beyond that we have the incredible, and realistic, anti matter. If there are beings living in the sixth to tenth theorized dimensions then they wouldn't succomb to our understanding of time, space, and matter. They would, from our interpretation, be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. This being, or beings, would then be god. That does not, however, account for the spark of life. If the being exists though, it would have a source of power outside of our own initial power. Perhaps the energy to create life takes a radiation only emitted by these beings, or by incredible energy sources beyond even fusion. Perhaps antimatter, has its own dimension in coordination with our own, and when the particles collide it released energy so potent that, under complete control, it could create the spark of life. Anti matter on its own would destroy most anything but the true ability of anti-atoms is still unknown to us.  For a better understanding, think of Dr.Manhatton from the hit comic and movie The Watchmen. A being of understanding far too complex for us to know, and of power we could not fathom, yet existing with a concious mind.  Its relation to our life would be miniscuel at best, but with such a gaze at the universe perhaps creating a living particle of simple matter would indeed benefit the beings entertainment, much like an owner loving the entertainment his pet gives. Anomolies stay unexplained to us, but explainable through tireless work towards mathmatical answers. Though selfishly i must admit, the thought of such beings existing beyond the fourht wall is Incredible to me, so incredible I wish to believe it, however only in the sense of probablity. Through religious interpretation i find my ideas soured. Its even possible, in the thought that anything is possible, that the universe itself is a living being, and we are but one portion of it. I have to say with that thought our use to it, in relevance to the understanding of our own cells, is so unexplained its quite an absurd idea. I simply like to think of a civilization, or being, that can live beyond the restraints of space and time. THat being, would be our god, even if he isnt the Jehova we have scriptures on

I would like to end by encouraging each and every ready to come up with their own idea for lifes beginning, but to refrain from the closemindedness of a "magical" god. After all, magic is only science yet to be explained. And of course, regardless of how small we are on the scale of a universe, we still exist as living specimen. The best way we can cherish our life is hoping and searching for life outside our own, and live each day knowing its a miraculous event rare in the universe. Understand that none of these ideas have credibility beyond my own education in the matters, which i remind you is slim in comparison to modern Astro Physisicts, but are simple ideas. In truth, I'm no where near a credible scientist like the formally introduced Tyson, or the historicly famous minds of Physisicts, Inventors, and Philosophers. I'm just a young mind who wishes his science fiction entertainment, to be not all fiction, as the coming 21st century has helped with greatly.

No comments:

Post a Comment