The Nature of the Universe

[maddog]

I don't think it is so easy to anticipate where I am going.

The empirical answer so far is nowhere (or in circles). However, I would appreciate

it if you would answer my questions and not dally around avoiding.

I need to find a point of understanding between myself and others here, that will allow me to move forward. I have tried to do that. One of the beginning arguments does concern the arbitrary interpretation of f=ma. I disagree with your description of my discussion of f=ma as a tirade. I do not need to tirade, I have already done the work necessary to support my position.

Excuse me if I am getting bored of the length of your posts without saying much that

I labeled them a "tirade". Shakespeare once wrote what I think appropos here, "much

ado about nothing".... :P Actually you have not really stated any support I can

fathom for or against you position. The only part I can understand of your position at

all is that Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong and physics is worthless... B) I

don't mean to put words in your mouth. B)

Your response to it, as given above, is not a response to what I have challenged. I have not questioned the mechanical usefulness of f=ma. I will not go back and try to cite earlier messages. I will assume the failure of communication is mine. I will make my point again. I will move on to your next message to continue this. I will get to Einstein.

I forget where you basically Newtons description of f=ma is not fundamentally correct.

Sounds "wrong" to me... I've got to get some sleep. I search for you exact words

tomorrow. What I would like to see is what is need to make f=ma be correct,

probably before I can much follow you. :) B)

 

Maddog

[paultrr]

Wheeler's "It from Bit" was not actually presented as an argument for say some outside intelligence at all. It was presented to show that at certain fudmental levels physical and quantum process boils down to something akin to information processing. In fact, its not unsimular to what we try to create with artificial intelligence. In short, the universe could act like one giant quantum computer at certain scales. If anything would be implied to be intelligent here it would be the universe itself, not some outside force. Now that might could imply that intelligent life and the ability to process information was pre-built into the creation process to begin with. But it would still be nature itself that did all this. Not some outside intelligence. It would imply something science already teaches us that even the Universe evolves with time.

 

The original IT from bit could have been nothing more than a simply natural exchange process who's permutations tend toward higher order. Interesting enough in some ways quantum probability and chaos tend to work in a fashion where order is produced as an outcome even though both have randomness of a sort. Its their randomness that tends to cancel together in favor of more orderly paths.

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

 

Telemad: Next question. Which is more intelligent, the M 51 galaxy or the NGC 1300 galaxy? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response to my last question either. Let me make a list of what part of the Universe James can't find intelligence in.

 

1) asteroids

2) comets

3) moons

4) planets

5) stars

6) galaxies

7) space

 

This alleged fundamental "nature of the Universe" sure doesn't seem to be in the Univese much!!! Shoot, diarrhea seems to be as much a fundamental nature of the Universe as intelligence!

[maddog]

Wheeler's "It from Bit" was not actually presented as an argument for say some outside intelligence at all. It was presented to show that at certain fudmental levels physical and quantum process boils down to something akin to information processing. In fact, its not unsimular to what we try to create with artificial intelligence. In short, the universe could act like one giant quantum computer at certain scales. If anything would be implied to be intelligent here it would be the universe itself, not some outside force.

...

The original IT from bit could have been nothing more than a simply natural exchange process who's permutations tend toward higher order. Interesting enough in some ways quantum probability and chaos tend to work in a fashion where order is produced as an outcome even though both have randomness of a sort. Its their randomness that tends to cancel together in favor of more orderly paths.

Paul,

 

When I added this to the discussion, this is what I meant by it. If there is some fundamental element of

information that could be quantized, as Wheeler calls it a bit, the whole universe could as you say behave

as though a computer processing and we are the output (the product). The notion of Intelligence or

maybe "sentience" (as aware of being aware of self) seems to be itself composed of simpler things like

thoughts. Maybe thoughts are composed of bits. Could be.... ;)

 

Maddog

[James Putnam]

The empirical answer so far is nowhere (or in circles). However, I would appreciate

it if you would answer my questions and not dally around avoiding.

 

Excuse me if I am getting bored of the length of your posts without saying much that

I labeled them a "tirade". Shakespeare once wrote what I think appropos here, "much

ado about nothing".... ;) Actually you have not really stated any support I can

fathom for or against you position. The only part I can understand of your position at

all is that Newton was wrong, Einstein is wrong and physics is worthless... ;) I

don't mean to put words in your mouth. :(

 

I forget where you basically Newtons description of f=ma is not fundamentally correct.

Sounds "wrong" to me... I've got to get some sleep. I search for you exact words

tomorrow. What I would like to see is what is need to make f=ma be correct,

probably before I can much follow you. ;) ;)

 

Maddog

 

Ok forget it. Your inability to comprehend bores me. I explained in detail what is wrong with f=ma in an earlier post. I would have gone through it again, and said even more. But, that was because I wanted to try to meet you more than halfway. The fact is I have no need to read your disrespectful posts and then do anything in response to them. My website is almost always number one for over four years on any search engine for "new physics theory" or "new theoretical physics". I did not pay anyone anything at anytime to promote this site. It is there because of interest. Over 8 megabytes of information is transmitted every day on the average. There are visitors from all over the world including many from universities. Your are not interested, but many others are.

 

James

[James Putnam]

You experiment with objects undergoing changes of velocity. You model this information with the equation f=ma. Your empirical evidence consists of measurements of distance and time. The variations observed in the measurements of changes of velocity indicate there is a cause for change of velocity and is a cause for resistance to change of velocity. The name of convenience "force" is assigned to represent the cause of changes of velocity. You do not know what is force and you do not know what is resistance to force. You know indirectly that they exist, but you do not know their natures. So, in the equation, you have two separate appearing undefined properties, distance and time. You do not know that 'f' or 'm' (resistance to force) are individually unique properties. They may have a fundamental relationship to each other. There may be a single cause for both that manifests itself differently under different circumstances. Perhaps it is responsible for all effects. In other words, maybe unity exists on the fundamental level.

 

There are different possibilities of choice. In order to proceed to theorize about the meaning of f=ma, you either assume that force and mass have a hidden relationship and try to determine what it is, or perhaps you decide their natures are fundamentally different. If you choose the second possibility, then you must theorize into existence a nature for one of these two unknown properties. There are two unknown natures in a single equation. Either force or mass can be chosen to be assigned a unique fundamental nature. This act would put one of these properties into a class with the fundamentally unique properties of distance and time. The common historical choice was to assign a unique nature to mass. Force is then defined in terms of mass and acceleration.

 

So far, the act has consisted of words and ideas. The practical usefulness of the equation is not affected. It represents the pattern observed in the data. Therefore, it can certainly be used to extrapolate future possible points in the pattern. Now, though, there is the need to define units of measurement for each property. Both distance and time are true unique fundamental properties. Their units can be chosen arbitrarily and no harm is done to the usefulness of the equation. However, mass has been arbitraily chosen to be a unique fundamental property. It also needs units of measurement. Because it is assigned a unique nature, its units cannot be defined in terms of other units anymore than can those of distance and time. In the mks system of units it has been assigned the units of kilograms. Now there are three indefinable units of measurement, kilograms, meters, and seconds. The units of force are given the name of newtons. Newtons are now definable. They can be defined in terms of kilograms, meters, and seconds.

 

By this act of assigning indefinable units of measurement to mass, the theory that mass is a unique fundamental property becomes solidified into the equation. The equation has a theoretical interpretation that will make itself felt in all cases where mass and force are used in higher level theory. If the nature of mass has been misrepresented, the effect of this is carried over into the definitions of energy (force x distance) and momentum (force x time). Now, nothing done so far has diminished the usefulness of the equation to make accurate predictions. So, successful predictions are not enough to establish for us whether or not the equation has been defined properly. Where will any detrimental effects reveal themselves? The detrimental effects would result from the act of arbitrarily introducing disunity into the fundamentals. They will reveal themselves when an attempt is made to unify theory.

 

Unity may have been possible at the fundamental level; however, we will have missed the opportunity to discover this. This act that may have been in error for mass is repeated also for electric charge. Conventionally speaking, no one knows what is electric charge. It is not known that its nature is unique and not caused by a fundamental single property. However, it has received the special treatment of being assumed to be a fundamentally unique property. It was assigned a unique, indefinable unit of measurement. There are then four indefinable units, coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds. There is also the force of gravity. Perhaps it could have been recognized as being a different manifestation of a single original cause. If it is the case that gravitational force and electromagnetic force are different manifestations of a single fundamental cause, we have ruled out the possibility of our theory to reveal this to us. We cannot discover early fundamental unity in that which we have arbitrarily defined as having uniquely different natures.

 

This practice has a direct effect on how we view the nature of the universe. Our perspective on the nature of the universe is drawn from the definitions we introduce into our equations of theoretical physics. We picture the properties responsible for the operation of the universe to be those which we theoretically designed. If this practice that began with f=ma is wrong, then the properties we use to form our view of the nature of the universe are also wrong. If there is unity at the fundamental leve, the difference of perspective on the nature of the universe would be profoundly different. The practical usefulness in making predictions would be similar, but the theory, throughout, would demonstrate the constancy and continuity of unity for all the universe for all its existence.

 

James

[TeleMad]

<snore....>

[justforfun]

I wanna get my two cents worth in. I used to be ticked off at religions so I thought I was an atheist, and I avoided spiritual issues. That seems to be what's going on here. But for a thorough discussion of this issue, especially you, James, since you seem really interested, I suggest checking out this website: http://www.ws5.com The guy is arguing for the existence of God (I think) but going about it in a scientific, philosophical way. Anyway, like I've said elsewhere, when science and spirituality can be discussed at the same time, we will be much closer to the answers we all seek.

[James Putnam]

I wanna get my two cents worth in. I used to be ticked off at religions so I thought I was an atheist, and I avoided spiritual issues. That seems to be what's going on here. But for a thorough discussion of this issue, especially you, James, since you seem really interested, I suggest checking out this website: www.ws5.com The guy is arguing for the existence of God (I think) but going about it in a scientific, philosophical way. Anyway, like I've said elsewhere, when science and spirituality can be discussed at the same time, we will be much closer to the answers we all seek.

 

Hello justforfun,

 

That book is 100 pages long so it will be a while before I can comment on it. Yes it is the case that I am very interested in learning the nature of the universe. My preference is to do this by scientific means. I have stated this effort makes clear to me that intelligence is the primary property of the universe. The cause of intelligence could be God. However, scientifically speaking, intelligence cannot be shown to be caused. I am uncomfortable with seeking specific religious answers. Most probably because the wide variety of religions seems to be self defeating. How are we supposed to learn the truth from so many different truths? I don't try it. What is clear to me is that truth does exist and we can come to know it. We can come to know it by learning about intelligence for real. This idea is not new. What I share with others are my ideas about how we may pursue learning the origin of meaning and its purpose.

 

The following is directed at interested readers in general.

 

There are properties of the universe that are self evident. Knowledge of the operation of the universe can make its true properties known. This does not mean they are obvious or easily seen. They go unrecognized because of lack of knowledge and obfuscation. In the case of the lack of knowledge, Here are two reasons I see for lack of knowledge. One reason is that we do not know what is cause. This is why theory is needed. Theory consists of guesses about what may be causes. The guesses are compatible with and confined by the preferences of the theorist. Theory reflects back, what the theorist prefers to believe about the nature of the universe. The second reason is the rarity of insight. This is seen in the practice of memorizing the results of observation. If it is believed that facts and causes are known, then the mind stops seeking answers. It succumbs to belief. The creativity needed to go beyond memorization is not activated. Reciting facts of observations is deemed sufficient to prove understanding.

 

Obfuscation occurs for at least three reasons. One is individual preferences about what should or should not be believed. This failing is philosophically caused. Advancements in understanding are severely restricted by the belief that understanding already exists. If one thinks they know something, then there is no longer the need to learn that something. The second reason is the practice of trading words for words. Answers about the unknown consists of words. When the words are challenged for meaning, they are traded for other words. Our words can give the impression that the unknown has been made known, but words cannot make the unknown known. The third reason is the practice of substituting results for cause. Instead of explaining what is something, it is instead explained what that something does. For example, sight can be explained as the ability to visualize objects at a distance. This explains only what sight allows us to do. It does not tell us what is sight. Why can we visualize objects at a distance? Asking this question often does not lead to an explanation. It leads instead to the recitation of the mechanical parts involved. Why do the mechanical parts make it possible for us to visualize objects at a distance? The point is that we cannot explain why something happens, by repeating what is happening or listing the parts involved.

 

James

[Biochemist]

In the mks system of units it has been assigned the units of kilograms. Now there are three indefinable units of measurement, kilograms, meters, and seconds......Conventionally speaking, no one knows what is electric charge....There are then four indefinable units, coulombs, kilograms, meters, and seconds....We cannot discover early fundamental unity in that which we have arbitrarily defined as having uniquely different natures.

James-

I have to admit that I had a tough time following some of your earlier posts, but this one is pretty articulate. You suggested that the postulated independence of units of measurement preclude us from discovering unity. (Did I get that right?)

 

Interesting idea. But it seems to me that it doesn't really preclude our discovery, it just makes the terminology we elect to use in the investigation of unity a little more complicated. For example, the utility of Newtonian physics remains, even though a lot of the fundamentals were essentially overturned by relativity. Einstein had to create his own nomenclature for discussion, but the presuppositions of Newtonian thinking did not really stop him.

 

Were you saying that the existing definition of units actually precludes the thinking about unity, or just that we have to think more outside of the box to get to it?

[James Putnam]

James-

I have to admit that I had a tough time following some of your earlier posts, but this one is pretty articulate. You suggested that the postulated independence of units of measurement preclude us from discovering unity. (Did I get that right?)

 

That is the point I was making. This is not my whole case, but it is the simplest beginning I can use to raise the point.

 

Interesting idea. But it seems to me that it doesn't really preclude our discovery, it just makes the terminology we elect to use in the investigation of unity a little more complicated. For example, the utility of Newtonian physics remains, even though a lot of the fundamentals were essentially overturned by relativity. Einstein had to create his own nomenclature for discussion, but the presuppositions of Newtonian thinking did not really stop him.

 

I think the effect is much more concrete. It precludes discovering unity at the fundamental level. It is the reason why unity is something that is being sought after the development of theory. It is seen that the theories, as they now stand, do not demonstrate unity. We intuitively feel that disunity is evidence of error. We will not be satisfied with theory until a 'theory of everything' (i.e., unified mechanical theory) is achieved. This latter effort at unity is too late. The damage was done at the beginning. The efforts to overcome institutionalized disunity involve the invention of hidden mysterious properties such as more dimensions. In other words the effort to place the appearance of unity over disunity, we must abandon reliance upon the empirical properties of the universe in favor of a theoretical universe.

 

I do not see the movement from Newtonian physics to Einstein physics as being representative of this problem. The disunity introduced into Newtonian physics is carried over into Einstein physics. It is true there are radical differences in their interpretations, but these are not the result of disunity. They are due to earlier incompleteness. The patterns observed in empirical data were not as completely known for Newton. He formulated his mathematics to imitate the patterns known at the time. Einstein did not address this problem of arbitrarily assigning units of measurement. He carried them over into his theory.

 

Were you saying that the existing definition of units actually precludes the thinking about unity, or just that we have to think more outside of the box to get to it?

 

I am saying it precludes the achievement of unity. String theory is representative of thinking outside the box. However, it also represents the mental and mathematical gymnastics that confront us because of having introduced disunity at the fundamental level. Also, this is much more of a problem than changing nomenclature. It is a problem of grossly misinterpreting the nature of the universe. The differences are profound. I avoid moving into individual type differences too quickly, because, they will immediately be rejected on face value. They must be connected together through a demonstration of unity. However, it is possible to demonstrate, separately, that seemingly outrageous changes to properties and their units of measurement will not automatically result in nonsensical results. Here is a short relatively easy, if one is comfortable with incremental values, example prepared for my website to demonstrate this point: http://newphysicstheory.com/Fine%20Structure%20Constant%20Electric%20Permittivity.htm.

 

James

[maddog]

Here is a short relatively easy, if one is comfortable with incremental values, example prepared for my website to demonstrate this point:

http://HTTP://newphysicstheory.com

Thanks James for giving a link to your website. I found some of it interesting. What perplexed me is

how at first I thought we were thinking in a similar fashion. Then as went on about Intelligence and

all (you do talk a lot), you kept using the word Unity. I was the whole time thinking you were saying

the unification of the four forces. I finally found from your website:

Real unity includes both the universe and us in one nature. It joins together physics, life and intelligence.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I still haven't figured out how F=ma is somehow inaccurate,

however, I can come back to that later.

 

Next, I found another comment basically building on this notion of Unity:

Furthermore, the existence of unity in the universe should be sought in the properties of subatomic particles. Since everything material is built up from combinations of these particles, then it is scientific to consider that the properties of all complex material bodiesp are the result of the complex combinations of the properties of subatomic particles. Life and intelligence appear to be attached to complex combinations of subatomic particles.

I am curious as to what do you mean by this, in particular those phrases italicized especially the last

ONE. Specifically how do you mean "attached" ?

 

I especially liked --

We have been trying to define an intelligent universe through the use of dumb particles.

 

This was just from you forward. Just reading this we may be thinking closer than you know. :friday:

 

Maddog

 

ps: I have a Critical Design Review all day tomorrow. If I can get some time, I might go through

some more of your website.

[James Putnam]

Maddog,

 

Thank you for this message.

 

Thanks James for giving a link to your website. I found some of it interesting. What perplexed me is

how at first I thought we were thinking in a similar fashion. Then as went on about Intelligence and

all (you do talk a lot), you kept using the word Unity. I was the whole time thinking you were saying

the unification of the four forces.

 

The unification of the four forces is a side note in learning the nature of the universe. They are defined as being mechanical. This is theoretical interpretation. No one knows the nature of any force. The mechanical interpretation is strictly a philosophical choice. Those who make this choice become saddled with a mechanical universe that cannot account for anything more than changes of velocity. It has no relevance to the existence of life and intelligence. We are not robots.

 

As for the identification of four unique forces of nature, that is a result of problems of interpretation that enterred into physics theory right from the start. If there is a single cause for all changes of velocity, we have blinded ourselves to its existence. The decision that there is more than one cause of force is a decision that unity does not exist. It is not possible to derive unity from theory that embraces disunity. It is not easy for me to support this position so long as physics theory is believed to be correct. That is why I wrote about the arbitrary interpretation of f=ma. It is the easiest point for me to make, where others might recognize that it is possible that theory could be wrong right from the start. Theory must be looked at critically in order to become freed from it.

 

My point is that reality can teach us about the nature of the universe, but theory cannot. At my website, I redefined the fundamentals of physics theory in order to demonstrate that today's mechanical orthodoxy is wrong about almost everything. However, my theoretical work is also mechanical. Its usefulness extends only to demonstrating that current physics theory is not correct. Even if my theoretical work was to become accepted, I would disavow any attempts by others to argue that it represents the nature of the universe. Mechanical theory represents the lowest level of artificial interpretation of the operation of the universe. It does not achieve real understanding. It cannot lead to a theory of everything. It is not about everything. When I speak of unity, I mean all a single original cause for all the properties of the universe. The most important are life and intelligence.

 

I finally found from your website:

 

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Real unity includes both the universe and us in one nature. It joins together physics, life and intelligence.

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I still haven't figured out how F=ma is somehow inaccurate,

however, I can come back to that later.

 

I appologize for becoming impatient. There is a great deal to be said and it cannot be said abruptly. There are two things I am trying to accomplish. The first is to point to facts others might use as an aid for re-interpreting the nature of the universe. I gave just two with which to start. One is the interpretation of f=ma. This goes to demonstrating the arbitrariness of theoretical physics. It requires considering the consequences of following through on the other possibility. That possibility being the existence of fundamental unity. The other one is the fact that all information we ever receive comes to use in the form of photons. This goes to demonstrating that intelligence is the primary property of the universe. Individual progress on this one requires visualizing what it is like to receive information from a storm of photons moving at the speed of light.

 

The second effort I am making is to confront the claims made by others. There are positions stated, as if they are self evident, about a mechanical nature and origin for life and intelligence. The only thing self evident about that position is cannot be correct. Mechanics cannot even explain itself let alone the nature of a universe that gave birth to life and intelligence. Intelligence is not created by evolution from unintelligence. It was individualization of intelligence that was brought forth by the evolutionary process.

 

Next, I found another comment basically building on this notion of Unity:

 

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Furthermore, the existence of unity in the universe should be sought in the properties of subatomic particles. Since everything material is built up from combinations of these particles, then it is scientific to consider that the properties of all complex material bodiesp are the result of the complex combinations of the properties of subatomic particles. Life and intelligence appear to be attached to complex combinations of subatomic particles.

 

I am curious as to what do you mean by this, in particular those phrases italicized especially the last ONE. Specifically how do you mean "attached" ?

 

This gives recognition that everything in the universe is the product of identical subatomic particles. It does not matter whether it is a planet, a star, a virus, or a human being. We all are formed from common universal properties. The mechanical viewpoint would have us believe these properties are mechanical. We are encouraged to imagine that life and intelligence must be mechanical constructs. This idea can only be imagined. It cannot be shown to be real.

 

My statement quoted above is meant to encourage others to consider following the lead of intelligence instead of mechanics. We recognize intelligence at the macroscopic level. We know it arose from properties of subatomic particles. We should follow the trail of the development of intelligence from ourselves leading backwards to the particles of matter from which we are formed. If we never lose sight of the existence of intelligence as it reduces down to lower and lower levels of complexity, even to levels where we cannot yet discern it, then perhaps we can learn the true properties of matter. These are the properties that directed the evolution of the universe toward the goal of the individual realization of intelligence through the formation of human life.

 

The word attached gives recognition to the fact that our life and intelligence are complex forms of the real properties of matter. My use of the word matter is not intended to give recognition to any mechanical idea about matter. Matter is a name we use to speak of an unknown source for causes of the effects we observe.

 

I especially liked --

 

Originally Posted by James Putnam

We have been trying to define an intelligent universe through the use of dumb particles.

 

This was just from you forward. Just reading this we may be thinking closer than you know. :)

 

Maddog

 

That last quote applies to the universe currently proposed by theoretical physics.

 

Thank you again for this message.

 

James

[DEIOLOGIST]

"The universe originated from and operates solely by intelligent design. Materialism (human imagined mechanical properties) contains no basis for the creation of anything. Intelligence is the key empirical property of the universe and it is, in so far as human logic is concerned, uncaused. "

 

God's intelligent design is different than human design - yes that is true. Most humans think God blows on dust and BOINK a man appears. We know how evolution works and it is nothing like the mumbo jumbo brainless subnatural imbecile design that mystic jerks blab about.

 

God's laws give human beings real super natural power. E=MC^2 is an example of God's law, by understanding the energy to matter relationship you can power a city with electricity or destroy the cities of your enemy.

 

According to many mystics some guy with a beard sitting on a thrown in the sky said-- "Let there be light" and BOINK light appears. This abracadabra (to do with words) nonsense is 100% humanism at it's worst. God has nothing to do with the mystic approach to anything. I know this with practically 100% certainty because nothing mystical has ever worked. Their track record is 100% failure and 0% success. The Randi Foundation has offered a one million dollar prize for years to anything mystical that worked. Nothing worked and the million dollar prize is unclaimed. That's 100% failure 0% success, now that is HUMANISM- 100% BUNK 0% TRUTH.

 

When we learn God's laws things started to work, thank God we don't go by the mystic ungodly humanist rubbish anymore. Our western enlightenment is bringing us closer to God's way of doing things, the intelligent way of doing things

[TeleMad]

James, in binary, does 1 + 1 = 10?

[James Putnam]

We know how evolution works and it is nothing like the mumbo jumbo brainless subnatural imbecile design that mystic jerks blab about.

 

God's laws give human beings real super natural power. E=MC^2 is an example of God's law, by understanding the energy to matter relationship you can power a city with electricity or destroy the cities of your enemy.

 

According to many mystics some guy with a beard sitting on a thrown in the sky said-- "Let there be light" and BOINK light appears. This abracadabra (to do with words) nonsense is 100% humanism at it's worst. God has nothing to do with the mystic approach to anything. I know this with practically 100% certainty because nothing mystical has ever worked. Their track record is 100% failure and 0% success. The Randi Foundation has offered a one million dollar prize for years to anything mystical that worked. Nothing worked and the million dollar prize is unclaimed. That's 100% failure 0% success, now that is HUMANISM- 100% BUNK 0% TRUTH.

 

When we learn God's laws things started to work, thank God we don't go by the mystic ungodly humanist rubbish anymore. Our western enlightenment is bringing us closer to God's way of doing things, the intelligent way of doing things

 

I disassociate myself from messengers that rely upon words such as; imbecile, jerks, blab, nonsense, bunk, and rubbish. I include one other word I have seen in a different post: crap.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Maddog,

 

The word attached gives recognition to the fact that our life and intelligence are complex forms of the real properties of matter.

 

Adding to this statement: I do not expect a need for supernatural events to take place between the assembling together of particles, molecules, and the emergence of life and intelligence. I expect that the true natural properties of the universe will predict the evolution of life and intelligence. I do not believe these true natural properties include the present orthodox theoretical 'natural properties'. Their lack of relevance to the properties of life and intelligence predict this.

 

James