Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

100 years ago, what would the chances be of you and I discussing the "Big Bang" on the "internet" at "RF", "today" at roughly "2:15 p.m. e.s.t."?

With intelligence involved or without? Think about it... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sure. I think we can see and enjoy these mysteries of life, existence, and nature, like thinking of the moon as a reflection of rebirth and so on. It makes life more interesting.

Here's a thought for you when it comes to probability.

What are the chances that I'm writing this particular post to you at this exact moment in time? Consider, 1 of 6 billion people. My parents met each other and married and had me, 1 of 3.5 billion (or whatever the size back then). The chances I'm using this particular computer? 1 in billions made Macs. Chances of using the exact IP have right now? 1 in 2^32 (or less really considering reserved classes). And so on. And what are the chances I typed exactly these words and letters in this post? The chance is close to zero. All of it together, 1 in trillions-trillion-trillion-trillion chance. The chance is so small that it's basically zero. Therefore, should we conclude that this post must've been planned and thought out by God from eternal time and hence... he had a plan that you would see it, which means that it's true, and I'm right.

--edit

Have you seen this poster? What are the chances that you, specifically you, were born:

http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/what-are-the-odds_50290d9b95578_w1500.png

Thanks for the link... interesting.

Was it planned before? Not so much planned, as evolved within the Source of everything. When we separated we became that abstact concept, and created (eventually) everything we see. So yes, you HAD TO BE born. Now is that not great! YOU had to be born. Why? You are part of God. Is that not neat! Could it have turned out any other way? Yes. But it won't, even with all our freewill, because we always follow what has gone before.

I don't think though that the odds of a human can be compared with the one off universe. I guess that is the many worlds or multiverse idea though.

BTW, have you noticed that if you answer a few posts, your comments are put at the bottom of the page ( which is good) but then you might find the same post you commented on later on, on another page. Thus sometimes I am reading the same one, or I miss some.... rather annoying. Any ideas? (why am I asking you? haha... what are the odds of that... you started it! )

 

[Robert.Evans]

sorry unfinished thought!

so... hence apparent chaos resulting in a functional order, does not suggest random accident, lack of intent in any way. the opposite argument can be made, since we have 100% verifiable examples of intelligently designed, highly organized systems appearing utterly chaotic at a low level. (software represented by 1's and 0s,- movies represented by tiny pits on a dvd)- It's difficult to directly identify the fingerprint of intelligence, because the intended end result has been coded and compressed far beyond direct translation.

Exactly like the singularity, accident or not, it was quite literally a highly compressed self extracting archive of information, composed in such a way as to develop our consciousness. And just like the software, we know that corrupting the tiniest piece of information in the universal constants would have crashed the entire system. All by chance? not impossible, I just think there are many less extraordinary explanations.

This is neat: ''it was quite literally a highly compressed self extracting archive of information,'' I will try and remember that. The more I think about that, the more it makes sense.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't know what it is but aging physicists and mathematicians who have done excellent work in their youth seem to go off their trolley more often than people in other scientific fields. I've noticed this for a long time and wondered if it had something to do with them peaking in their career at a much younger age than folks in other fields.

Ok.
They can get to a point I suppose where they bring about a culmination of their ideas, some of which might be right and some of which might be wrong.... but surely with all their intelligence and experience, we should value them

 

[Robert.Evans]

Or we are finding we are adapted to a fine-tuned universe.

We have no idea what would be the case if any of the fundamental constants were different. If g, h, c, or Van der Walls force or the acid dissociation constants etc were different the universe might not exist. Or it might be unimaginably different. Who can say whether any of these things can even be altered?

Then there is the problem that if the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, where is it all?

It is possible that there is life elsewhere in the universe. It is also possible that we might one day fill it. The analogy would be then that the earth is the garden of Eden and the land is space, which at some point we would be cast into. So 'we' might populate it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It also reminds me of that American chess grand master, Bobby Fisher (I think), who went nuts.

And I can't help to think about one of my math teachers. She was brilliant, but very awkward. I had no problem with it... since I'm a bit of a geek myself, but man, she solved things on the whiteboard faster than we could copy it down. 10 steps ahead constantly. She had a watch that would beep every so often to remind her to change topics. She'd forget herself in the moment of solving. She was great. Unfortunately, I had to drop the class because of a water leak in our storage that had to take my full attention for some weeks.

It is the madness of King George I think. Now who is the king? All things evolve from something earlier... and it seems that high intelligence or perhaps inbreeding might be a factor. I find that interesting. Thanks for the thought, I have not thought about that for some time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So...... so far it seems the consensus is, either 'don't know' or 'yes' or 'no'. We make interesting points to discuss, but does anyone ever change their mind I wonder? Or do we come here with preconceived ideas that are not going to be shaken. Perhaps the reason for forums is to tell others rather than learn.... though I have to say I have learnt loads, but change of mind? Hmmmm....... on a few things perhaps, but mostly no.

I believe in God and therefore higher-consciousness being involved in everything. It answers all things, even why we have believers in the first place. It is a very simple answer. But my answer comes from the inner witness of the saviour in the first place, but I see this backed up in science, history etc.

I still fail, however, to see how such a complex thing as the universe could come into being as it is, with all its stars and planets, and us, and all the commodities that are on this planet, just waiting to be exploited by us, so called, intelligent humans. Sounds way to contrived to me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A scientists once explained why are face is the way it is. Ever thought about it? The answer went something like this~~ The eyes are above the nose which is above the mouth, for a very good reason. When we pick up food to eat, we see the food come to us, and then smell it before it goes in the mouth, thus don't eat anything that is bad. Even the tongue plays its part before we swallow. ~~
Again, too contrived. Why would it be that way? Evolution is no answer, as it only gives the mechanism of how it arrived at that state. But why? Why would it even have such possibilities in its arsenal in the first place? That is what fascinates me!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Keeping with the odds of everything being as it is etc, see what you think of this:

Moorhens are basically ducks as they live on water. But they do not have webbed feet, and they fetch food for their young. Their chicks, unlike mallards, would die without help. Now my question is this: How does the moorehen know it has to make a nest, sit to lay eggs, sit on the eggs, change with their partners to keep the eggs warm, build a nest, fetch food for their young etc etc? They are clever enough to do that, yet if they find food, they will go past the chicks, back to the nest where they were, to feed the chicks that follow behind them chirping (funny eh?) How is it they are clever enough to do one thing, build a family, but so dumb as to swim past the very thing they are trying to rear in the first place. I know the answer is going to be insticnt.... but that is not the answer I look for. How does the instinct arrive? From where? They would have to be in simpler forms, otherwise when they were birds or ducks or whatever, they would not survive. It has to work from the get go. So how does this instinct establish itself early on in the primordail development.

How can something develop something it needs, before it needs it, to have it when it then needs it in the future? And what did it develop it for in the first place? If it was needed, then what did it do before it had it? And if it did not need it, then why develop it?

Please keep it simple!

 

[Bunyip]

Keeping with the odds of everything being as it is etc, see what you think of this:

Moorhens are basically ducks as they live on water. But they do not have webbed feet, and they fetch food for their young. Their chicks, unlike mallards, would die without help. Now my question is this: How does the moorehen know it has to make a nest, sit to lay eggs, sit on the eggs, change with their partners to keep the eggs warm, build a nest, fetch food for their young etc etc? They are clever enough to do that, yet if they find food, they will go past the chicks, back to the nest where they were, to feed the chicks that follow behind them chirping (funny eh?) How is it they are clever enough to do one thing, build a family, but so dumb as to swim past the very thing they are trying to rear in the first place. I know the answer is going to be insticnt.... but that is not the answer I look for. How does the instinct arrive? From where? They would have to be in simpler forms, otherwise when they were birds or ducks or whatever, they would not survive. It has to work from the get go. So how does this instinct establish itself early on in the primordail development.

How can something develop something it needs, before it needs it, to have it when it then needs it in the future? And what did it develop it for in the first place? If it was needed, then what did it do before it had it? And if it did not need it, then why develop it?

Please keep it simple!

Well the behaviour evolves with the bird - why are yoy asking animal behaviour questions? How does that relate to the topic?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well the behaviour evolves with the bird - why are yoy asking animal behaviour questions? How does that relate to the topic?

It is all part of the improbabilty of the universe as a whole, not as a part. And anyway, I thought I made it clear that the bird would need it straight away, like brakes on a car.... we don't want them evolving as they go along

 

[Revoltingest]

To play devil's advocate perhaps, I could say that it is a mere assumption that you have such faith in processes and mechanisms in the first place, without recourse to ask ''why'' would they do that in the first place.

Oh, you're being so hard to educate, fella.
First, to observe physical laws requires no faith at all. Tis inductive reasoning to assume that if something is observed to happen in all places & times without exception, then it will continue to happen. Think of gravitational attraction of masses....does it take faith to expect that when I wake up tomorrow, gravity will continue working as it has? No, of course not.
Second, "Why?" is a fine question. But the argument from believers amounts to "It must be answered! And if science doesn't do it, then our answer is true!" This is an unhealthy conclusion from excessive desire. Ignorance is a wonderful thing to accept.

Complex things that we see need intelligence.... why do we not apply to everything until proven otherwise?

This is an objective fact for some things we observe (eg, televisions), but is mere opinion for others (eg, galaxies).

 

[Robert.Evans]

Okay, to put it more in line with the universe question, Why would atoms evolve the way they did to form everything we see around us?
Atoms have no solidity in them (even though science at one time thought they did) and yet they form through forces, solidity, matter. Yet matter, as matter, does not really then exist. Why does it have such a deceptive looking nature?

Why does the sun appear to come up over our heads on a flat land? Why does it deceive us this way?

How can a body be made of trillions of cells that make up one human being, which is not apparent from the off?

It is almost as if there is something inherent within the visible universe, and -we might say- honest side, and then the less honest side -which is invisible- and yet appears to be the real reality behind it all. Why is there a feeling of deception there? If we assume that the whole universe is an expression of consciousness, then this would seem to be explained.

Just some simple thoughts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Oh, you're being so hard to educate, fella.
First, to observe physical laws requires no faith at all. Tis inductive reasoning to assume that if something is observed to happen in all places & times without exception, then it will continue to happen. Think of gravitational attraction of masses....does it take faith to expect that when I wake up tomorrow, gravity will continue working as it has? No, of course not.
Second, "Why?" is a fine question. But the argument from believers amounts to "It must be answered! And if science doesn't do it, then our answer is true!" This is an unhealthy conclusion from excessive desire. Ignorance is a wonderful thing to accept.

This is an objective fact for some things we observe (eg, televisions), but is mere opinion for others (eg, galaxies).

You always seem to say that desire is the reason that we believe in God. If it is from a human perspective, then that is wrong. It is God given.
And I don't think that ignorance is a wonderful thing. We asks questions of many things, this is just one.

Your questions are no different than mine, it is just yours are reflected more carnally (if I can put it that way)

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, to put it more in line with the universe question, Why would atoms evolve the way they did to form everything we see around us?
Atoms have no solidity in them (even though science at one time thought they did) and yet they form through forces, solidity, matter. Yet matter, as matter, does not really then exist. Why does it have such a deceptive looking nature?

Why does the sun appear to come up over our heads on a flat land? Why does it deceive us this way?

How can a body be made of trillions of cells that make up one human being, which is not apparent from the off?

It is almost as if there is something inherent within the visible universe, and -we might say- honest side, and then the less honest side -which is invisible- and yet appears to be the real reality behind it all. Why is there a feeling of deception there? If we assume that the whole universe is an expression of consciousness, then this would seem to be explained.

Are you asking about how the physical laws (that we know of) cause matter to behave as it does, or why the physical laws & matter exist? The former looks fairly well understood, but the latter is unknown.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It would also appear that the invisible things (atoms, cells, consciousness etc) are the important ones. Yet we take so much stock by the visible (for obvious reasons) yet ignore the invisible in our everyday goings on. Do you see what I drive at perhaps?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Second, "Why?" is a fine question. But the argument from believers amounts to "It must be answered! And if science doesn't do it, then our answer is true!" This is an unhealthy conclusion from excessive desire. Ignorance is a wonderful thing to accept.

Exactly. I think part of the problem is that people can find uncertainty and not knowing very uncomfortable, so there is a tendency to settle on an explanation prematurely.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How does the instinct arrive?

The instinct develops over millions of years of evolution.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Exactly. I think part of the problem is that people can find uncertainty and not knowing very uncomfortable, so there is a tendency to settle on an explanation prematurely.

No it is spiritually discerned. There are many realities, so we are, funnily enough, all right and all wrong at the same time.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The instinct develops over millions of years of evolution.

I know that. You are not answering the question.