DEIOLOGIST Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 "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. " Ok your not into abracadabra and Divine breath, thank God. The true natural properties of the universe will predict the evolution of life and intelligence. I think the standard cosmological model would predict the evolution of life and intelligence. Unified Natural Laws or God makes up Nothing with balanced negative and positive forces - Then Vacuum fluctuations in that nothing release energy from the negative and positive forces resulting in The Big Bang. Energy cools and forms matter. Matter goes from inorganic to organic through super novas ("We are all star dust" - Carl Sagan). Organic matter evolves into RNA & DNA. Mutation and natural selection of life eventually lead to increasing intelligence. With an infinite number of years and an infinite number of universes the evolution of intelligent beings approaches 100% certainty. I think these orthodox answers make more sense to me than any others I have seen. That is why I am a Deist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted March 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Ok your not into abracadabra and Divine breath, thank God. The true natural properties of the universe will predict the evolution of life and intelligence. I think the standard cosmological model would predict the evolution of life and intelligence. Unified Natural Laws or God makes up Nothing with balanced negative and positive forces - Then Vacuum fluctuations in that nothing release energy from the negative and positive forces resulting in The Big Bang. Energy cools and forms matter. Matter goes from inorganic to organic through super novas ("We are all star dust" - Carl Sagan). Organic matter evolves into RNA & DNA. Mutation and natural selection of life eventually lead to increasing intelligence. With an infinite number of years and an infinite number of universes the evolution of intelligent beings approaches 100% certainty. I think these orthodox answers make more sense to me than any others I have seen. That is why I am a Deist. Theory predicts nothing. Physics theory describes beliefs about mechnical causes for inanimate motion. Theory is a belief system that adds interpretation to patterns observed in empirical data. These patterns are imitated by means of mathematical formulas. It is the patterns that are useful for extrapolating future results. The theoretical interpretations do not add to this usefulness. The entire body of empirical physics knowledge involves information about effects involving motion. Physicists can speak of the instability of 'nothing', of energy, of force, and multiple universes. None of these can be explained. What is energy? What is force? What is cause? We interpret the evidence as showing the universe had an origin. We know that the universe evolved. We know we are formed from particles and molecules of matter. We know we are alive and are intelligent. Theory did not get us here. Your chain of events describes one belief system. It does not describe properties of the universe that can be demonstrated to lead to life and intelligence. Your description of the universe is mechanical. Mechanics does not win credibility just because physicists and other scientists associate it with life and intelligence. Mechanics cannot give rise to life and intelligence. What is the means by which is it presumed to accomplish this? Adding physics theory into a story of how the uninverse evolved does not give it credibility. We have no empirical evidence showing that mechanical theory describes the 'real natural properties' of the universe. The theoretical mechanical interpretation gives no method by which life and intelligence can be caused or predicted. Yes we know life and intelligence exist. They are absolute evidence that our theories are wrong. The existence of life and intelligence shows that we should not be interpreting the universe in a mechanical manner. Scientific progress is being thwarted by the artificial veil of mechanical theory. We need to remove this veil and begin to see the real operation of the universe. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 We are not robots. I thought I would mention that some folks on this site believe we are robots. That is, a) they believe that the universe is deterministic and :) they do not hold to a theistic view that would allow for free will. That pretty much would make us robots. FYI James- you get the award for the longest post I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted March 25, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 I thought I would mention that some folks on this site believe we are robots. That is, a) they believe that the universe is deterministic and :) they do not hold to a theistic view that would allow for free will. That pretty much would make us robots. FYI James- you get the award for the longest post I have seen. Biochemist: I do not hold a theistic view either. I do not know what is the origin of intelligence. I am certain that no one else knows, by scientific means, either. I am also certain that no one can show how mechanical causes and effects might give rise to intelligence. The properties of mechanics are invented explanations for effects involving motion. They describe a process by which inanimate, unintelligent bodies of matter might affect each other. Others can imagine the universe to be deterministic. They can observe that the universe produced life and intelligence. But, mechanics does not gain credit by the association they draw. It must be shown, by means of the theory and its mathematics from which is formed, to predict life and intelligence. At the least it should be able to explain itself. Mechanics can not even do that, let alone explain anything else. What is the mechanical substance from which the universe is formed? My opinion is that we do have free will and an analysis of our intelligent interpretive process will support this. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 My opinion is that we do have free will and an analysis of our intelligent interpretive process will support this.I understand your point that you think free will is self evident (my words, not yours.) It sounds like you agree with the support for mechanical determinism. Given those two elements, I don't understand how you can avoid being a theistic thinker. It seems to me that either we have determinism and no free will (i.e., atheism) and determinism and free will (i.e., theism.) How are you thinking about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted March 26, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 I understand your point that you think free will is self evident (my words, not yours.) It sounds like you agree with the support for mechanical determinism. Given those two elements, I don't understand how you can avoid being a theistic thinker. It seems to me that either we have determinism and no free will (i.e., atheism) and determinism and free will (i.e., theism.) How are you thinking about this? Great question. I need to write the answer. I won't be able to respond until late Tuesday. For a preliminary idea of how I think about this please see: http://newphysicstheory.com/Human%20Intelligence.htm. As for theism. I do say that insofar as human science is concerned intelligence is uncaused. If someone wishes to claim that God is the cause, then so be it. As for me, I avoid using words that leave the impression there is an super intelligent being. It is the 'being' part that I think goes beyond what can be determined by scientific analysis. When I imagine a cause for the intelligence of the universe, I do conclude it required a greater intelligence. I conclude this because it is limited. Also, it does not seem to be able to change itself. Therefore I assume it is incapable of being its own original cause. However, when conclusions go beyond the universe as we know it, I think there is nothing scientific to show in support. Miracles could be offered as proof, but I have none to offer. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Putnam Posted March 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 Biochemist, There will be a delay in responding about human freewill. I have decided I will write an essay about this to be added to my website. I have discussed some of what I think about human freewill at the webpage I cited. However, I want to write a more thorough treatment. I want to expand the concept of human freewill to show, what I believe is its relationship to the evolution of the universe. All things must be shown to have their cause in the operation of the universe, freewill is not an exception. I will try to show how I think freewill relates to the nature of the universe. Writing, rewriting and editing can take some time. I will return with it as soon as possible. Thank you again for your question. It is the kind of challenge that should have to be met. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 31, 2005 Report Share Posted March 31, 2005 James, I find your posts rather meditative and obscure. I can't think clearly of what you are trying to say. But I get the overall idea that this universe is undergoing an evolutionary process driven by a mysterious intelligence. But what are the properties of this intelligence? Does it follow a definite pattern? Are you saying that everything is conscious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 The answers about the nature of the universe are a part of us. Our intelligence gives us all of our answers. Any answers we will ever learn about the universe will be given to us by our own intelligence. Our full potential for understanding the operation of the universe is fully contained within our intelligence. Our potential for understanding ourselves is a part of understanding the universe. Since the universe came first we can anticipate that we will understand ourselves when we understand the universe. However, it is our intelligence by which we are made able to understand the universe. Therefore, paradoxically, we may also anticipate that we will understand the universe when we understand ourselves. James I "kinda" doubt that "Our full potential for understanding the operation of the uniververse is fully contained within our intelligence." At least there does not seem any indication of that fact coming at all so far! For every question answered by any field of study it does seem at least if anyone thinks about it new ones are created! And it certainly IS true thatmany problems and theories just can NOT be solved (i.e. They are non-computational. love and peace,and,peace and love,(kirk) kirk gregory czuhaip.s.a couple of papers that contain information that might be useful later in this discussion can be reached from the following urls:Cosmology Paper and,Uniqueness Of Earth but then again, maybe NOT!p.s.s.Incidently,Its NOT F=ma its, F=dp/dt, in other words force = the time rate of change of linear momentum which implies the isotropic symetry of mass in the universe! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 "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. I find your interpretation of the bible unsettling...I am not going to turn into a preacher, so don't stop reading yet! This is my take. The actual statement is, Man was created from the dust of the Earth. If you believe the single cell(green slime) theory then there is nothing incorrect about this statement at all, it's in the way you interpret it.As I see it there are alot of statements in the bible that go hand in hand with science, it is just that they had a different way of saying it then, than we do now. I see Newton and Einstein in the same way, they were on the right track, just not advanced enough to get it right and --viola' theory is born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 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 think James is sort of saying it is more incomplete than inaccurate, or maybe I'm way off.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokinjoe9 Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 -- "Let there be light" and BOINK light appears. This abracadabra (to do with words) nonsense is 100% humanism at it's worst. I can't help myself, I have to admit this statement sounds alot like today's Big Bang Theory......I know this seems like it shouldn't be in this thread but, I think James is correct just using mathmatics won't get us where we want to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 well f=ma could be accurate if you wish to limit yourself to non-relativistic thinking and non-changing masses, but why?NOT TO SAY ADVANCED PHYSICS IS (((ANY))) HELP AT ALL!!! a physics FAQ which contains SOME physicsand probably will show just how useless advanced physics is in this discussion!at least I think so!love and peace,and,peace and love,(kirk) kirk gregory czuhaip.s.things in the physics world have only gotten WORSE since this FAQ was constructed!!! :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Also, why do a lot of people in these scientific forums have trouble accepting a divine creator?Cannot one contemplate an INFINITE intelligent mind with a finite mind?A mind or something beyond our comprehension like that can and did create space-time and mass and energy as we know it and do not know it?love and peace,and,peace and love,(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 Also, why do a lot of people in these scientific forums have trouble accepting a divine creator?A lot of us *don't* have any trouble with the notion of some sort of creator. OTOH, most of us who you are attacking see no relevance of a creator to a scientific analysis of the universe. What's wrong with that?"Acceptance" is a loaded term, and leads to the notion of "belief without evidence" which is not scientific. If you want to interpret calling religious beliefs "unscientific" as some how an affront to religion, that's your problem. Some of us are religious and belive completely in science: "the creator" "pressed the start button" but does not "interfere directly" nor did she "program in intelligence". Interpreting this view as "non-religious" is your opinion and the way you communicate that opinion can be interpreted as saying that belief is "invalid" and should not be accepted as religious. Why would you say that? Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paultrr Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 A lot of us *don't* have any trouble with the notion of some sort of creator. OTOH, most of us who you are attacking see no relevance of a creator to a scientific analysis of the universe. What's wrong with that?"Acceptance" is a loaded term, and leads to the notion of "belief without evidence" which is not scientific. If you want to interpret calling religious beliefs "unscientific" as some how an affront to religion, that's your problem. Some of us are religious and belive completely in science: "the creator" "pressed the start button" but does not "interfere directly" nor did she "program in intelligence". Interpreting this view as "non-religious" is your opinion and the way you communicate that opinion can be interpreted as saying that belief is "invalid" and should not be accepted as religious. Why would you say that? Cheers,Buffy I agree basically with Buffy on this one. In short, the nature of the universe is that it exists. The part that science tries to answer is the how it came about to exist as we see it. The problem we face in science is that there are aspects of how it came about that stem back to a point we simply have no way to directly view or observe. We have theory out there on how it could have all started. But theory in at least the field of physics requires observation and experiment for support. As such it does take more than math where a theory in a sence can support itself. Some of this may forever be beyond our ability to get absolute support on. Yes, in theory that does perhaps leave room for some external creator in some people's minds. That's their choice. But as an honest scientists I'd say the current evidence out there does not tend to support the existance of such a being unless it was the type of Creator who starts something and simply let's it work itself out. That brings one to something each individual has to ask himself or herself, is such a God worth worrying about? Einstein,like myself tended to the no answer. As do most of the rest of us who are agnostic. I also like Buffy's reference to Her. In the end run I perfer that myself and consider nature(impersonal as it is) as our creator with the personal aspect being something that evolved in higher forms like ourselves. We've always tended to call nature Mother Nature and thereference to her fits well. The Indians tended to have it right also with Mother Nature and Father sky. We are a product of both. By the way, Buffy. You wouldn't be a bit of a techno pagan at heart would you? I rather like that term when it was coined a bit on the old Buffy show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffy Posted April 24, 2005 Report Share Posted April 24, 2005 By the way, Buffy. You wouldn't be a bit of a techno pagan at heart would you? I rather like that term when it was coined a bit on the old Buffy show.Totally! "Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat." (Anya) Cheers,Buffy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.