Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

Not that ground. That's why words can't explain it. The substrate. The ground of being. The framework of existence. Tao. What time and space is made of.

Ahh....me understandy now.

Sure, or maybe we all agree but language is the barrier that causes confusion.


I don't agree with the fine tuning, even though it comes from some scientists. There are also scientists who point to the discrepancies and unbalance as the explanation. If it all was perfectly tuned and ordered, all galaxies would be lined up in perfect harmony, and the balance of matter, energy, antimatter, etc would all be equal, but it's not.

That would depend on what you call ''perfect''. They do not have to be lined up in a row to be perfect do they? Yet I understand I think. To me it is evolving consciousness, which you probably know, but I still think that the universe is incredibly improbable when you consider 'this' universe

I kind'of agree. I understand the concepts you're getting at and agree with them, it's the words that confuses the transfer of the concepts between us. That's why I think we are on the same level here. Words created the conflict.

Words can also be seen as the logos which is part of God, the thinking part if you like. So that phrase of yours could work on many levels.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I was hoping you would like it. See, I think we do have a very similar view.

The emblem you have of the snake that eats its own tale is like the cyclic idea of the universe, if indeed it recycles into other universes. I say it does, though I also think that there are universes that have nothing in common with us, yet might, in some way, still be seen as physical.... much like a fish out of water.

The idea of everything being consciousness is seen in scripture, even if not that clear, but OH how so interesting that people like Goswami, Hagelin Lanza etc speak in similar terms. Goswami says that QM makes it clear and that we need a paradigm change.... but it is not accepted as of yet. That is difficult for mainstream science which must be, correctly, evidence based.

 

[Ouroboros]

The emblem you have of the snake that eats its own tale is like the cyclic idea of the universe, if indeed it recycles into other universes. I say it does, though I also think that there are universes that have nothing in common with us, yet might, in some way, still be seen as physical.... much like a fish out of water.

I see the snake as the symbol of the eternal force or energy. It's not just universes recycling, but all things at all levels. It's the symbol of unity of all things in change. A circle is the perfect fractal. Infinite number of tangents, yet finite circumference and space. The infinite meets the finite.

The idea of everything being consciousness is seen in scripture, even if not that clear, but OH how so interesting that people like Goswami, Hagelin Lanza etc speak in similar terms. Goswami says that QM makes it clear and that we need a paradigm change.... but it is not accepted as of yet. That is difficult for mainstream science which must be, correctly, evidence based.

Agree.

 

[Koldo]

well we are both skeptical of multiverses, I agree with Krauss on Hawking 'If your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

but forbidding the cosmic lotto tumbler, and creative intelligence, leaves you with a one off fluke, a first time hole in one... on every hole on every golf course on the planet. There's no easy answer, which is what makes it such an interesting topic of debate

Every possible universe is nothing more than a hole in one on every golf course on our planet.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I see the snake as the symbol of the eternal force or energy. It's not just universes recycling, but all things at all levels. It's the symbol of unity of all things in change. A circle is the perfect fractal. Infinite number of tangents, yet finite circumference and space. The infinite meets the finite.


Agree.

I don't recall if you believe in the savoiur or not (Christ/Mashiyach). Is that where we differ I wonder? It is interesting that the serpent is seen in Genesis and other places in the OT

 

[Robert.Evans]

Every possible universe is nothing more than a hole in one on every golf course on our planet.

Which means what?

This universe is still very unlikely... yet here it is. So what gives? How does it come about if it is so unlikely in so many ways....and that is what science says not me as such, though I agree.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't recall if you believe in the savoiur or not (Christ/Mashiyach). Is that where we differ I wonder? It is interesting that the serpent is seen in Genesis and other places in the OT

The copper serpent in OT was the symbol of healing, just like the medical symbol of Caduceus (or more accurate symbol which is the Rod of Asclepius--single snake). The snake was also a symbol of wisdom and knowledge. It was probably that symbolism that is shown in Genesis rather than the devil. The morning star is a symbol for the fallen angel in OT, but Jesus in NT. Just wanted to throw that out there.

When it comes to Jesus, as a historical person or symbol, that's another discussion.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Go ahead, please do.

I don't think it would work here, but I might start a thread in the Science and Technology forum.

 

[Koldo]

Which means what?

This universe is still very unlikely... yet here it is. So what gives? How does it come about if it is so unlikely in so many ways....and that is what science says not me as such, though I agree.

Add up the probability of every possible universe and you will have 100% chance to have one universe.
That is, if at least one universe had to come up in the first place.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Every possible universe is nothing more than a hole in one on every golf course on our planet.

alter the universal constants infinitesimally, and you land in one of an infinite number of bunkers, i.e. you fail to even get space/time for any event to happen in, far less develop sentient life to debate the meaning of it.

 

[Koldo]

alter the universal constants infinitesimally, and you land in one of an infinite number of bunkers, i.e. you fail to even get space/time for any event to happen in, far less develop sentient life to debate the meaning of it.

And... so what?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And... so what?

so... every possible universe is NOT a hole in one, there are a practically infinite number of shots that would miss, hence the number of shots or 'multiverses' you'd need to fluke this one

 

[Koldo]

so... every possible universe is NOT a hole in one, there are a practically infinite number of shots that would miss, hence the number of shots or 'multiverses' you'd need to fluke this one

That's pretty much the problem with your reasoning.
Notice your word of choice: miss.

Someone trying to hit the shoot on this hole ( our universe ) would be the same as a creator.
There is no possibility to miss because there is no one trying to hit the hole that represents this universe.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That's pretty much the problem with your reasoning.
Notice your word of choice: miss.

Someone trying to hit the shoot on this hole ( our universe ) would be the same as a creator.
There is no possibility to miss because there is no one trying to hit the hole that represents this universe.

If you saw the word 'help' washed up on a deserted island beach, we know the waves could have washed them up that way just as easily as any particular random pattern,
there is no 'hit or miss' for the waves, so do you assume this is the most likely explanation?

 

[Koldo]

If you saw the word 'help' washed up on a deserted island beach, we know the waves could have washed them up that way just as easily as any particular random pattern,
there is no 'hit or miss' for the waves, so do you assume this is the most likely explanation?

Once again the watchmaker argument...
I have already explained the problem with it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again the watchmaker argument...
I have already explained the problem with it.

use any argument you please, either it was an accident, or creative intelligence that created the word, which do you think, and why?

 

[Koldo]

use any argument you please, either it was an accident, or creative intelligence that created the word, which do you think, and why?

I think it was an accident. Although that is not the word I would use.
Why? Because I see no reason to believe in a creator. I see no evidence for its existence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it was an accident. Although that is not the word I would use.
Why? Because I see no reason to believe in a creator. I see no evidence for its existence.

an accident created the word- help? I hope you don't work for the coast guard!

 

[Revoltingest]

Proof comes from God, not man. But evidence can be given, one of which is the fine tuning arg..

The fine tuning argument just isn't convincing though. I've yet to see a rigorous probability argument for (or against) it.

 

[metis]

Do you really mean that? I find that hard to believe. Even if we ignore the cement that would have to mix, now on earth do you think that it could land in the right bond and with a cavity and an inner block wall, on a foundation, level, true, even if without a roof. You are not serious I hope. That is the dumb argument of: Given enough time monkeys will type out a sonnet. No way! They're monkeys! haha

Yes, I believe it's hypothetically possible as do most cosmologists and physicists. So, apparently you believe they also are "not serious".

BTW, your analogy is actually flawed in that you're having things put together that already are fully made, whereas what we're dealing with are formations of sub-atomic particles, or even the basic components of these particles (strings?), eventually coalescing into larger particles, and then eventually into mega-matter.

I for one cannot have such a possibility as some other possibility.

That's your choice, and after all, you could be correct.