Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution (UIDE)©

[InfiniteNow]

The sound of one man laughing: me! :cup:

 

 

http://www.schizophrenia.com/diag.html

 

Diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia (USA criteria)

 

Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):

 

 

Delusions - false beliefs strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: for example,

Paranoid delusions, or delusions of persecution, for example believing that people are "out to get" you, or the thought that people are doing things when there is no external evidence that such things are taking place.

 

Delusions of reference - when things in the environment seem to be directly related to you even though they are not. For example it may seem as if people are talking about you or special personal messages are being communicated to you through the TV, radio, or other media.

 

Somatic Delusions are false beliefs about your body - for example that a terrible physical illness exists or that something foreign is inside or passing through your body.

 

Delusions of grandeur - for example when you believe that you are very special or have special powers or abilities. An example of a grandiouse delusion is thinking you are a famous rock star.

[Zythryn]

I was indoctrinated with that explanation in grade school. I am a big boy now and i no longer regurgitate predigested information. Natural selection is a theory. I believe in intelligent purposeful evolutionary progressions - culiminating in human consciousness - which is still in the process of on-going development and will one day arrive at a transcendental state of God-Consciousness I came by that realization under my own steam.

It's my own theory and I am sticking to it.

 

It is your own theory?

 

Very good then MM, perhaps you can enlighten us then.

 

A theory comes from a hypothesis which is formed from observations. After the hypothesis is formed, it is tested. If it passes the tests it is then a theory.

 

I am curious about your theory and what tests have been performed to substantiate it. Also, what test results would be required to disprove it?

 

On the flip side, you could win a Nobel prize if you would publish the test results which disproved natural selection.

 

Or, is it possible this is all speculative opinion and not actually a theory (in which case you would have none of the above as it is not needed for an opinion).

 

Thanks for your time,

Mark

[Eclogite]

MagnetMan,

I do raise an eyebrow at a member of the illustrious Hypography staff choosing to imply (almost infer) that a plebian participant, such as yourself, is schizophrenic. However, it is not without provocation. I say this on two grounds.

 

1. You seem to impart many (most? all?) of your comments with an absoluteness that science, philosophy, experience and common sense, all suggest are more relative or uncertain.

This can be provocative, deflecting attention away from the proposition to the manner of its presentation. Is this what you desire?

 

2. You often adopt a patronising, dismissive tone. For example,

I am a big boy now and i no longer regurgitate predigested information.

or,

You will grow up one day.

Such remarks could be offensive to anyone who valued your opinion.

 

 

You do seem to have an unusual take on evolution. What is it that gave you the impression that it involved advancement to higher forms, as its primary attribute? The impression one is left with from a detailed study of the fossil record and a consideration of the mechanisms of genetic change is that it leads to fitter organisms that, by chance, are sometimes more advanced than before. In contrast, it always leads to organisms that are fitter for their existing environment. On what basis do you challenge this generally accepted position?

[IMAMONKEY!]

Heh.. youve gotta be kidding me. thats either complete crap or the whole human race is schizo. Creationists would be schizo, or so it would seem. Now im just 15 so to you guys my opinions probably dont mean anything though mods might insist otherwise (i dont believe that, im 15, i dont expect you to take me seriously), but somatic delusions sounds a lot like hypochondria. or is Hypochondria just a part of schizo?

 

Now... ive looked at the theory of UIDE or whatever it is called. I personally think it is sorta what ive believed in for the few self-conscious moments of life ive had.

 

Ive come to realize that there seem to be two main categories of people on this planet, of course there ar emany categories but for the sake of this post lets keep it at two. There are those who are thinkers, and those who simply react to the world around them, constantly changing. Ironically. I happen to be a thinker which is why i love the philosophy and humanity topics more than anything else.;)

 

My mother is an adapter. My father the thinker. I am a thinker and also one who adapts his thinking. My father and i use the term sociomorphic.

 

Now i personally believe there is an intelligent entity out there, a god if you will. He is outside of our universe but directly affects it through some sort of control. I dont think "god" is theuniverse, but just the controller of it. That is just a little too farfetched to believe for me.:)

 

I'm probably going to get flamed:hihi: :) :) ...

 

IMAMONKEY!;)

[IMAMONKEY!]

ALso... Zythryn. Philosophy is not an exact science. It cannot be tested. By what you stated, then there are no theory's in philosophy other than those that bend into other sciences. This bends into another science, but a science that we know so little about that we can merely speculate.

 

IMAMONKEY!

[Zythryn]

ALso... Zythryn. Philosophy is not an exact science. It cannot be tested. By what you stated, then there are no theory's in philosophy other than those that bend into other sciences. This bends into another science, but a science that we know so little about that we can merely speculate.

 

Hello Imamonkey.

 

Personally, I agree with you completely. However, MM seems to argue in a style to indicate that his beliefs should replace scientific theories. And he is the one that used the term theory to describe his stance.

 

As for being 15, that certainly doesn't mean anyone should discount your opinion. I have met 15 year olds that are wiser than many older people :D

 

Mark

[FRIPRO]

FRIPRO, may I apologise for crediting you with a greater grasp of your subject matter than you actually have. That led me to post a very truncated version of a simple, yet elegant hypothesis, which seemed to have parallels with your own. I am sorry I was unable to convey this possibly important concept to you.

 

The notion is that God is an emergent property. Just as order and structure and complexity, in the form of galaxies and planetary systems, emerged from chaos and simple physical laws; just as prebiotic chemistry, then life, emerged from random chemical reactions and simple combinatory principles; just as more complex life forms and life systems emerged from this cornucopia of a biosphere; just as self awareness - consciousness - emerged from the complexity of the 'higher' life forms;so, in the far future, God may emerge from the complexity and the as yet unheralded emergent properties to come. Then God, recursively, with the emergent power (omnipotent) motivated by knowledge (ominscient) creates our Universe in the past.

 

Still, your right. It's just an idea. Silly really.

 

My friend-- I keep running into your threads! It seems we are at loggerheads about the Universe and its existant etc. I have come to accept some of your thoughts about UIDE But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

 

Here is my final thought on this (which I might add was tempered by your thoughts and so published ( In the EPOLOG) at the end of the manuscript: on http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html check it out!

 

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution (constant change)!

 

To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth is how Earth improves itself (a living organism) -- but in Space the Universe is in constant change eternally, the Universe is now, always was and will always be -- changing form only.

 

(UIDE)* Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution is the mechanics we all live by. Yes it is a theory, and it written to provoke thought and questioning the current theorys-- that may be wrong.

 

Man does not want to accept that the Universe is eternal -- because he has only 100 year (more or less) to understand it. So he looks to a god to do it for him![/i] FRIPRO

[Eclogite]

But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

No it doesn't. Read my frigging posts. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. Let me lay it out for you one more time:

1. I have no frigging idea whether or not there is a God, or a god, or lots of gods.

2. If there is a God (etc) I have nor frigging idea of his (or her, or its) characteristics.

3. I offered you a concept, not of my making, and not one that I subscribe to, that the Universe may evolve into a God.

4. I offered this concept, because it seemed to have similarities with your own ideas.

5. I do not hold with either of these two frigging viewpoints.

 

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution (constant change)!

This is not a complete sentence. For the love of God (subject to the earlier caveats as to its existence) what are you trying to say here? Try answering this question for once, not declaring that you see my point and have incorporated it in your writings. I don't have a frigging point, I'm just trying to understand yours.

Did you mean to write through evolution constantly changing? If not, what?

Man does not want to accept that the Universe is eternal -- because he has only 100 year (more or less) to understand it. So he looks to a god to do it for him!

;) :surprise:

[FRIPRO]

No it doesn't. Read my frigging posts. If you don't understand them, ask for clarification. Let me lay it out for you one more time:

1. I have no frigging idea whether or not there is a God, or a god, or lots of gods.

2. If there is a God (etc) I have nor frigging idea of his (or her, or its) characteristics.

3. I offered you a concept, not of my making, and not one that I subscribe to, that the Universe may evolve into a God.

4. I offered this concept, because it seemed to have similarities with your own ideas.

5. I do not hold with either of these two frigging viewpoints.

 

This is not a complete sentence. For the love of God (subject to the earlier caveats as to its existence) what are you trying to say here? Try answering this question for once, not declaring that you see my point and have incorporated it in your writings. I don't have a frigging point, I'm just trying to understand yoursthrough evolution constantly changi.through evolution constantly changi

Did you mean to write ng? If not, what?

:hihi: :shrug:

 

Yes, I did mean:"through evolution constantly changing." Every time I read these strings it seem that some one, or a computer is changing the text and spliting it into seperate thoughts, and we loose the question, and the answer!

 

I looked up "frigging" could not find it in the dictionary!

 

Regards Thank for the enlightenment.

[Eclogite]

I looked up "frigging" could not find it in the dictionary!

Considering a Google search for dictionary: friggingreturns over 80,000 hits, I suggest you need a new dictionary.

 

Thank you for finally answering a direct question with an almost direct answer.

 

Here is another one. Since you are defining evolution as nothing more or less than change, what is the point of the redundancy in your sentence:

 

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through evolution, constantly changing!

 

which becomes, using your definitions,

 

We earthmen must then consider the concept that the Universe is now,always was and always will be, through change, constantly changing!

[IMAMONKEY!]

i htink what he meant to say was evolution constantly changes us.

[Eclogite]

i htink what he meant to say was evolution constantly changes us.

But he has defined evolution as change. Therefore your interpretation (which I agree seems the most likely) comes out as change is constantly changing us.

Well, yes, and so.......

 

FRIPRO may have an interesting idea here (or he may not). I am trying to get him to express that idea with some clarity and precision, so that the rest of us have some chance of understanding it. It is likely that English is not FRIPRO's native language, which complicates matters, but encourages me to persistence (if not patience) in trying to get to the roots of his thesis.

[arkain101]

My friend-- I keep running into your threads! It seems we are at loggerheads about the Universe and its existant etc. I have come to accept some of your thoughts about UIDE But it seems to boil down to a disagreement about the Universe and whether a god created it, or the Universe will create a god?

 

Well, Considering how finely tuned the universe is. The Evolution sure did start out at a very very advanced state that is so perfectly and finely tuned it is well beyond our own accuracy.

Whether you call this design a universe in state of evolution or a god, either way looking at the details of its characteristics, it is of godlike perportions..

 

The Extreme Precision of Physical Constants

Unless the force electromagnetism takes on a particular value, molecules won't happen. Take the nucleus of an atom. There's an electron orbiting that nucleus. If the force electromagnetism is too weak, the electron will not orbit the nucleus.

 

Electromagnetism

 

There won't be sufficient electromagnetic pull to keep that electron orbiting the nucleus. If electrons cannot orbit nuclei, then electrons cannot be shared so that nuclei can come together to form molecules. Without molecules, we have no life.

 

If the force electromagnetism is too strong, the nuclei will hang onto their electrons with such strength that the electrons will not be shared with adjoining nuclei and again, molecules will never form. Unless the force electromagnetism is fine-tuned to a particular value, the universe will have no molecules and no life.

 

Strong Nuclear Force

 

We also have a problem in getting the right atoms. Now take a neutron and a proton. Protons and neutrons are held together in the nucleus of an atom by the strong nuclear force, which is the strongest of the four forces of physics.

 

If the nuclear force is too strong, the protons and neutrons in the universe will find themselves stuck to other protons and neutrons, which means we have a universe devoid of Hydrogen.

 

Hydrogen is the element composed of the bachelor proton. Without Hydrogen, there's no life chemistry. It's impossible to conceive of life chemistry without Hydrogen.

 

On the other hand, if we make the nuclear force slightly weaker, none of the protons and neutrons will stick together. All of the protons and neutrons will be bachelors, in which case the only element that would exist in the universe would be Hydrogen, and it's impossible to make life if all we've got is Hydrogen.

 

How sensitive must this strong nuclear force be designed for life to exist? It's so sensitive that if we were to make this force 3/10 of 1% stronger or 2% weaker, life would be impossible at any time in the universe.

 

Mass of the Proton and Neutron

 

We also have a problem with the protons and the neutrons themselves. The neutron is 0.138% more massive than the proton. Because of this, it takes a little more energy for the universe to make neutrons, as compared to protons. That's why in the universe of today we have seven times as many protons as neutrons.

 

If the neutron were 1/10th of 1% less massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so many neutrons that all of the matter in the universe would very quickly collapse into neutron stars and black holes, and life would be impossible.

 

If we made the neutron 1/10th of 1% more massive than what we observe, then the universe would make so few neutrons, that there wouldn't be enough neutrons to make Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, etc. These are the elements that are essential for life. So, we must delicately balance that mass to within 1/10 th of 1%, or life is impossible.

 

Electrons

 

With electrons we see an even more sense of the balance. In order for life to exist in the universe, the force of gravity must be 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 40th power) times weaker than the force of electromagnetism. It's essential that the force of gravity be incredibly weak compared to the other three forces of physics.

 

Gravity

 

Yet planets, stars and galaxies will not form unless gravity is dominant in the universe, so the universe must be set up in such a way that the other forces of physics cancel out and leave gravity, the weakest of the forces, dominant.

 

It's necessary for the universe to be electrically neutral. The numbers of the positively charged particles must be equivalent to the numbers of negatively charged particles or else electromagnetism will dominate gravity, and stars, galaxies and planets will never form. If they don't form, then clearly life is impossible.

 

The numbers of electrons must equal the numbers of protons to better than one part of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 to the 37 th power). That number is so large that it's difficult for laymen to get a handle on it. So I compare that number with another very large number - the national debt.

[Eclogite]

Weak Anthropic Principle.

[ughaibu]

What do these ideas propose as the intelligence behind the design?

[MagnetMan]

It is your own theory?

 

Very good then MM, perhaps you can enlighten us then.

 

A theory comes from a hypothesis which is formed from observations. After the hypothesis is formed, it is tested. If it passes the tests it is then a theory.

 

I am curious about your theory and what tests have been performed to substantiate it. Also, what test results would be required to disprove it?

 

On the flip side, you could win a Nobel prize if you would publish the test results which disproved natural selection.

 

Or, is it possible this is all speculative opinion and not actually a theory (in which case you would have none of the above as it is not needed for an opinion).

 

Thanks for your time,

Mark

 

Natural selection only reveals the physiological advantages of environmental adaptation. It does not deal with the inspirational quantum leaps that result from each mass change of consciousness, especially in relation to the supernatural acceleration of human consciousess.

 

After studying animal behavior (ethology) I invested a further thirty years in the field making detailed observations on each of the foundational stages of the evolution of human consciousness. Much of my studies have been documented on camera and broadcast on television programs world wide. Tens of millions have seen these programs since 1966, with never a word of disgreement. (A moving picture replaces ten thousand words)

 

My discoveries and conclusions are published in a book entitled; Psyche-Genetics. It concludes that the current state of the mass consciousness is on the eve of graduating beyond a teenage mentality of scientific determinsm and rebellious religious protest and is entering a Nuclear Age mindset that presages our first stage of young adulthood. It preducts two further stages of human evolution, into stages of Mastership and Sagehood, when our evolutionary cycle will end.

 

Many millions of New Agers are already plugged into the sober responsibilities of enviromental clean-up and looking ahead into the complex challenges planet management. The ethic of this 5th paradigm shift of consciousness, is that of egalitarian global stewardship and not the immaturity of materialistic competitions.

 

Psyche-Genetics, even in its draft form, is a seminal work that represents an entirely new appreaciation of the dual nature of the social and spiritual evolution of human consciousness. It is the only theory that explains the meaning and purpose of our existence from both a physiological as well as a metaphysical perspective. It takes us from our Stone Age animistic infancy to a future state of transcendental Cosmic sagehood - revealing each logical sequential step of the way forward.

 

Its spiritual revelation is based on the metaphsyical potentials inherent within the nuclear equation. Since consciousness exists, it must be a fundamental attribute of atomic radiation.

 

If there is to be a Nobel, I am afraid it will have to be post-humus - the date calculated by simply tabulating the time I am presently spending in just getting the current teen-age mindset to let go of an indoctrinated mindset, and be more reverential towards ancestral developmental stages - and, via that hindsight, take a clearer peek at what lies down the road.

 

[Eclogite]

I think there may be two reasons you are not getting your message across:

 

1. Too many big words irrelevantly and irrationaly applied. (You are correct: I should heed my own advice. MM, you are waffling.)

 

2. The message is wrong.

 

I think it is probably a mixture of both and would be happy to justify my position on either or both points if you wish.