The Nature of the Universe

[paultrr]

Welcome to the club of sorts.

[paultrr]

"Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat." (Anya)

 

I don't think Captain logic has ever steered this tugboat fully and besides who ever said the human race is logical? However, there is also a logic in the illogical and perhaps that it what all the mystery to life actually stems from.

[Smokinjoe9]

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.

 

Maybe our intellegence stems from one source, one intellegence. Maybe each of our own minds is a smaller piece of the whole, wait didn't they do that on Star Trek. Man, WE ARE THE BORG!!!!

[Eduffy80911]

Yes, and the evidence suggests that humanity has a finite amount of intelligence being divided up among an ever growing population.

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

WELL!!!

I personally believe that no matter how many FINITE minds you put together you will

still get a finite mind!

 

And MAY I ADMIT TO BEING A CHRISTIAN WITHOUT GETTING THROWN OUT OF THESE FORUMS?

 

Let us for now just perform a Gedanken experiment and assume this is true of someone. If you know of anything about the mind set that the people under its influence have, they try to convert others to the joy they experience because to do otherwise they feel could lead the other person to utter destruction and much pain if they continue to belive otherwise!

 

So you see although they are at peace with themselfs they are quite sad for what they think could very well happen to others.

 

Now back to physics! Has anybody got any prediction just when someone will have an experimental measurement and explanation for dark energy, dark mass; why and how an electron with mass, charge and spin can be a point particle, why the fundamental constants have the values they do (other than the anthroscopic principle). :xx: etc.

 

AND WHY some of you

still think mankind alone will have all the answers someday when we still have thousands of nuclear warheads ready to go at a moments notice and fret and fret about so-called "AXIS-OF-EVIL" guys maybe getting their hands on one or two of them?

 

one more question?

 

What country has the most weapons of mass destrution? ;)

 

the last question i suppose has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, it was just meant as a joke to share with the readers.

 

love and peace,

and,

peace and love,

(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai

Czuhai, the last name IS pronounced, chewHI !!!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Putnam:

I take the position that life and intelligence are not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect. My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point of view. I have no interest in arguing in favor of Special Creation or of events such as a world wide flood. I find myself almost isolated from both the mechanical scientific point of view and the prominant Creationist point of view. However, my position is that mechanics is not the key to understanding the operation of the universe. I believe we will learn the true nature of the universe by discovering and analyzing the nature of intelligence. I believe it is the single, important fundamental property of the universe. I do not claim to know of or even to conclude that it had an original cause. I presume that I stand alone with this view at least here within the Hypography Forums. If I do not, then I would appreciate hearing from others who agree.

I like your assumption, James. The reason I like it is because it sounds almost absurd so, to my way of thinking, it's worth looking at. If you're wrong, it should be pretty easy to prove and since you seem to know how to put one word in front of the other, if you couldn't find fault with it...well, maybe you're on to something. At the very least, perhaps I'll get an insight into intelligence.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Putnam:

I resubmit the five statements that I would make and would like to have evaluated by others. They are:

 

 

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

I offer the meaning of direction here to be an irreversible change from one state with a recognizable trend toward a new, future state. This definition can be modified by others. It should not be mine only.

I completely agree. You are basically taking fundamental phenomenon and saying that they result in irreversible change. You are not implying that they don't have a common cause, just that they can be used each by themselves to help you prove your point.

So, do you want to discuss why each represents an irreversible change or assuming that statement is correct, do you want to move forward from that point?

[questor]

James, have you presented us with a game that has already been played in many posts on this site?

your opening satement:

''The Purpose: To determine what is true, false or presumptuous about our current level of understanding about the nature of the universe.

 

It is my belief there is a general presumption that the fundamental operation of the universe is sufficiently and probably correctly described by theories that were formulated from a mechanical viewpoint. There is an ongoing search for a physics theory of everything that some feel may be within our reach. It is my impression that other important sciences are strongly influenced by the conclusions offered by theoretical physics. I see the result of this practice revealing itself in a mechanical line of thought passing from one science to another. When this line of thought reaches into analyses of life and intelligence, I see it revealing itself in ideas such as the mind and emotions are machine-like products of known, mechanical properties or causes.

 

I take the position that life and intelligence are not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect. My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point..''

 

when you say mechanical, do you mean mathematical?

when you say life and intelligence, which exist at a sub-atomic level, are you implying there is something undetected at their lowest particulate level?

[Buffy]

when you say mechanical, do you mean mathematical?

when you say life and intelligence, which exist at a sub-atomic level, are you implying there is something undetected at their lowest particulate level?

Since James still lurks here, but does not post, I'll take a shot at answering these, although you *really* should read through all of the threads he posted to here and look at his website to get a full idea of what he's talking about (along with a lot of interesting counter-point from yours truly :lol: ):

 

"mechanical" means "uncaused": a key thesis of his theory is that the complexity of the universe cannot be explained by purely random combination, and that there is evidence in everything of an "original cause" that organized everything, and indeed everything in the universe contains the information necessary to explain its complexity. The implication is that nothing has been created since the creation. This is the essence of what he is talking about when he says "intelligence" that there is some inherent property--that is indeed undetectable or too complex for us to perceive--that contains all of this information about the universe. That is, at the big bang, all of our own human intelligence and everything we know was encoded and we are manifestations of that "original cause."

 

Channelling Prof. Putnam,

Aunt Buffy

[James Putnam]

Putnam: I completely agree. You are basically taking fundamental phenomenon and saying that they result in irreversible change. You are not implying that they don't have a common cause, just that they can be used each by themselves to help you prove your point.

So, do you want to discuss why each represents an irreversible change or assuming that statement is correct, do you want to move forward from that point?

 

Hi Steve,

 

I am certain they do have a common cause. I would describe them as different perspectives on the same fundamental cause. I had intended to move forward without analyzing them separately. I could do that, but am certain it would not be fruitful. It would require new fundamental definitions. Entropy does not need a new definiton; however, discussing it would require a different perspective on its interpretation with regard to order and disorder. I wouldn't try to present it as an introductory concept for discussing the nature of the universe. I am currently writing an essay on Entropy to add to my website. The purpose of the post you have answered here was to be able to move into an analysis of the orderliness of the universe. The first step was to establish that the universe is orderly. I was looking for a starting point that hopefully would not lead quickly into extensive defense.

 

James

[James Putnam]

When you say mechanical, do you mean mathematical?

when you say life and intelligence, which exist at a sub-atomic level, are you implying there is something undetected at their lowest particulate level?

 

Hi questor,

 

By mechanical I mean an analysis of the universe that relies upon theoretical physics for its foundational science. For example, electric charge is described as having two polarities or types of force that cause charged particles to accelerate either toward or away from each other. The effects are changes of velocity. I was referring to this type of theory as being mechanical.

 

James

[Kirk Gregory Czuhai]

James, have you presented us with a game that has already been played in many posts on this site?

your opening satement:

''The Purpose: To determine what is true, false or presumptuous about our current level of understanding about the nature of the universe.

==> and its my understanding that this is done by comparing the theory to the statistically measured fact with some expression of the correlation of the results of the operation. This approach the "scientific method" and its indea of having a control group can ONLY be hoped to hold for the next like experiment because i do not care if you have a google of coil tail flips that are heads in a row you still have a fifty fifty chance at a tail coming up not more or less provided the coin is FAIR!

and where is this fairness? not in the statistics used nor in the ability of observers to make non-bias observations and how good is the theory of PV=nrT once atoms are no longer thought of being pointlike or sooper-dooper perfectly elastic spherical balls of some small dimenison or the macroscopic state being something other that maxwellian? etc.

besides all my drivia up to this point NEVER FORGET A THEORY no matter how well its backed up by experimental evidence gives on only a CRUDE MODEL as to what is actually taking place.

and how could a finite being understand itself? although if we are thought to have been created in the image of an infinite being there are gaurenteed to be some strange parity breaking observations.

<=

 

It is my belief there is a general presumption that the fundamental operation of the universe is sufficiently and probably correctly described by theories that were formulated from a mechanical viewpoint. There is an ongoing search for a physics theory of everything that some feel may be within our reach. It is my impression that other important sciences are strongly influenced by the conclusions offered by theoretical physics. I see the result of this practice revealing itself in a mechanical line of thought passing from one science to another. When this line of thought reaches into analyses of life and intelligence, I see it revealing itself in ideas such as the mind and emotions are machine-like products of known, mechanical properties or causes.

DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!!!

I take the position that life and intelligence are (((( the only thing i can think of is perhaps he thinks some NONmachanical/NONmathematical theories will come along which are much more accurate in some way right?))) not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect. My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point..''

when you say mechanical, do you mean mathematical?

when you say life and intelligence, which exist at a sub-atomic level, are you implying there is something undetected at their lowest particulate level?

My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point..'', but i do not know if Jesus and God would agree!!! ARE THERE NO OTHER INFINITE MINDS PUTTING STATEMENTS FOR MILES AROUND HERE ! YEAH YOU ARE HERE ARE YOU NOT? THANKS! you have my permission to ignore this post if you want with absolutely no hard feelings!:rainbow:

:Guns: :rainbow: :angel: :Guns:

[James Putnam]

Hello Kirk,

James, have you presented us with a game that has already been played in many posts on this site?

your opening satement:

''The Purpose: To determine what is true, false or presumptuous about our current level of understanding about the nature of the universe.

 

I worded this statement so that it would be respectful of other opinions. Restating it from my own point of view: The current level of understanding about the fundamental nature of the universe consists of falacies. Theoretical physics consists of mechanical substitutes useful only for solving mechanical problems and offers us a low level, grossly inadequate, misleading interpretation about the nature of the universe. Physicists propose fundamental mechanical forces where there should instead be fundamental properties with the potential to produce life and intelligence. We do not need their forces to understanding the universe. What is needed is to discontinue this quest to define the universe by proposing mechanical ideas. For me, this is not a game.

==> and its my understanding that this is done by comparing the theory to the statistically measured fact with some expression of the correlation of the results of the operation. This approach the "scientific method" and its indea of having a control group can ONLY be hoped to hold for the next like experiment because i do not care if you have a google of coil tail flips that are heads in a row you still have a fifty fifty chance at a tail coming up not more or less provided the coin is FAIR!

and where is this fairness? not in the statistics used nor in the ability of observers to make non-bias observations and how good is the theory of PV=nrT once atoms are no longer thought of being pointlike or sooper-dooper perfectly elastic spherical balls of some small dimenison or the macroscopic state being something other that maxwellian? etc.

besides all my drivia up to this point NEVER FORGET A THEORY no matter how well its backed up by experimental evidence gives on only a CRUDE MODEL as to what is actually taking place.

and how could a finite being understand itself? although if we are thought to have been created in the image of an infinite being there are gaurenteed to be some strange parity breaking observations.

<=

 

It is my belief there is a general presumption that the fundamental operation of the universe is sufficiently and probably correctly described by theories that were formulated from a mechanical viewpoint. There is an ongoing search for a physics theory of everything that some feel may be within our reach. It is my impression that other important sciences are strongly influenced by the conclusions offered by theoretical physics. I see the result of this practice revealing itself in a mechanical line of thought passing from one science to another. When this line of thought reaches into analyses of life and intelligence, I see it revealing itself in ideas such as the mind and emotions are machine-like products of known, mechanical properties or causes.

DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR THIS TO HAPPEN!!!

My point is that this has already happened. Scientific analysis of the nature of the universe relies upon physics theory for its foundation.

I take the position that life and intelligence are ...

(((( the only thing i can think of is perhaps he thinks some NONmachanical/NONmathematical theories will come along which are much more accurate in some way right?)))

The mechanic facade that obscures our view of the true nature of the universe must be removed. The mathematics will stay. Mathematics is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. The need to solve problems for mechanical purposes will remain.

... not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect. My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point..''

when you say mechanical, do you mean mathematical?

when you say life and intelligence, which exist at a sub-atomic level, are you implying there is something undetected at their lowest particulate level?

There is definitely something that is undetected at the lowest particulate level. It is not something to be added on top of current descriptions of natural causes. It is that which will replace the mechanical substitutes that are currently offered as being natural causes. It is that which will allow us to comprehend how the universe has evolved to include recognizable (by us) life and intelligence.

My view is definitely a minority or perhaps even a singular point of view. It is not a Biblical point..'',

but i do not know if Jesus and God would agree!!! ARE THERE NO OTHER INFINITE MINDS PUTTING STATEMENTS FOR MILES AROUND HERE ! YEAH YOU ARE HERE ARE YOU NOT? THANKS! you have my permission to ignore this post if you want with absolutely no hard feelings!

This thread is not about Jesus or God. It is about understanding the existence of life and intelligence within this universe. These are the properties that represent the nature of the universe.

[thordaddy]

I would suggest the definition of direction to be the absence of misdirection with misdirection being explicitly false instruction.

[questor]

James, i agree with you that there seems to be an underlying force or bundle of forces underneath the currently observable and mathematically provable ones.

a couple of caveats:

1. could it be we don't yet have the observational technology to detect forces which we may someday understand?

2. if there are such forces, why was a minor planet picked from the billions to present them? as yet, there is no evidence that there is intelligence

elsewhere.

3. if such forces do exist, would they not have a supernatural nature?

meaning that they could not be explained as phenomenae ruled by physical laws as we know them.

you are trying to present a theory which i have tried to argue on several threads. i hope you have more luck than i did, because most people cannot separate the idea of a creator from their own ingrained ideas of the God of

man-made religions.

[dad2bkmj]

i recommend going to http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm, you can listen to it or get a printable verson. it's a long read but i found it very informitive.

[James Putnam]

James, i agree with you that there seems to be an underlying force or bundle of forces underneath the currently observable and mathematically provable ones.

Here I would avoid the use of the word force. The reason is that it represents a mechanical idea of the nature of cause. In my own work I have used the word but only when working to disprove theoretical physics. Also, I think the word underlying understates the case for what is actually occurring. There are only two properties of the universe that we can know of first hand. They are intelligence and information. This is why I have suggested to others in one or more of my past messages that it is revealing to consider the fact that we receive all information via photons. The point is that intelligence is not underlying, it is the whole thing.

a couple of caveats:

1. could it be we don't yet have the observational technology to detect forces which we may someday understand?

Here again I would avoid the use of the word force. Not only does it imply a mechanical nature, but it suggests that whatever it is technology could be used to detect it. The nature of the universe is defined by intelligence. We are naturally able to detect that by our own intelligent properties. Observational technology is only capable of detecting changes of velocity and patterns in changes of velocity. Changes of velocity are sufficient for mechanical analysis, but not sufficient for predicting or analyzing life and intelligence. There is unity in this universe. There is a single cause for all effects. It can be represented mechanically for mechanical purposes; however, for the purpose of understanding the nature of the universe, it must be not be artificially limited to mechanics. It must be viewed as the cause for change of velocity, life and intelligence. Mechanics is wholly incapable of meeting this requirement.

2. if there are such forces, why was a minor planet picked from the billions to present them? as yet, there is no evidence that there is intelligence

elsewhere.

Lets allow that the Big Bang is correct and the universe is perhaps 16 billion years old. This means that the earth has been in existence for 1/4 of that period of time. It could not have been in existence until after many stars had existed long enough to form sufficient quantities of the heavy elements from which it is formed. My point is that the earth actually appeared relatively rapidly considering all that had to occur. I do not think that the appearance of the earth represents an exception. I see not reason to assume that it is the only such planet or even the first such planet. If it occured here, then I would expect that this is an indication that it has occurred a in a great many locations, many perhaps long long ago and far far away. It is true that we have not detected evidence of other intelligences. However, if they existed even one or more billions of years before this earth, there are vast distances that make communication over this period of time impossible from almost all of the universe. Life has existed on earth for most of its existence, yet we sent out radio signals only about a hundred years ago.

3. if such forces do exist, would they not have a supernatural nature?

meaning that they could not be explained as phenomenae ruled by physical laws as we know them.

Intelligence is not a force. Force is not natural. It is a mechanical invention of the mind. I cannot accomplish anything by simply declaring this to be true. The mechanical interpretation of the universe is far too strong a belief. So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence. Both of these can be done. Once the belief that mechanics defines what is natural is disposed of, we can begin to finally investigate the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the evidence that intelligence is not natural? We know it exists. It is the only thing that we can know exists for certain. Mechanics cannot account for it. Only intelligence can account for intelligence. If this is not clear, then I will endeavor to make it clear.

you are trying to present a theory which i have tried to argue on several threads. i hope you have more luck than i did, because most people cannot separate the idea of a creator from their own ingrained ideas of the God of

man-made religions.

First I will point out that zero null points in physics equations cannot define the origin of the universe. There are no physics equations that begin with nothing as their premise. It does not matter whether one believes in mechanics or intelligence, the origin of the universe presents the same challenge for all. It does not matter whether one believes in a Creator or not. No one escapes the fact that there is no way to account for a cause for the origin of the universe. Everybody is challenged by Creation whether or not they believe in a Creator.

 

I am not trying to define the nature of God. I am trying to define the nature of intelligence. It is the nature of intelligence that will reveal to us the nature of the universe. I am not relying upon luck, that is why there is a new physics theory at my website. It is there for the purpose of freeing us from the quagmire in which we are presently stuck. We need to be freed so that we may begin to progress in understanding the real nature of the universe.