Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

Yes we probably shouldn't stray too far from the topic here, but that sounds reasonable to me, & I think we agree in general that there is a lot more than simply religion involved in terrorism.

And the vast majority of people are just people as you say- but some of the things people do, and manage to inspire others to do, I just can't wrap my head around- so I can't pretend to understand it.

In the larger perspective, I have to think it all works out in the end, all part of a greater learning process, we can't really know good without knowing evil also?

Okay.
To me the universe is one consciousness, so it is, in effect, arguing with itself, fighting itself, punishing itself. That self of course is us. So the idea of a bigger greater picture is that. It is the parts that are cleansed for the sake of the whole, as they are one of the same. It is much like having a limb severed for the sake of the body.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Who cares about..........

I would like to add:

How is chaos, chaos?
How does chaos form patterns?
When you stop to think about it, if you only had the numbers ''1; 2; 3;'' then there are only certain combination they can be put in, obviously.
If we kept running a program though, to form new combinations, and the program could not stop, it would have to start repeating what it had already done. Thus patterns would have to appear.

If 123 was the first pattern to be reproduced for ex, then it would come up a certain number of times, which would form a pattern of 123's. But if the number combinations was infinite, how does one make patterns? (the 123 may never come up again). That seems to me to be a problem.

Thus it also seems that whatever the program is running, must be a closed system; it must have a limit. Otherwise, what is to say that 123 would even come up again!

It reminds me of your triangle within a circle. Simply put, you make more triangles on the circumference of the triangle (which does not go past the circle perimeter) which in turn makes the outer length of the original triangle a slightly different shape but also the circumference of it bigger.
As a fractal exposition, it could then carry on infinitely, so long as one could draw in a smaller line.
But the point: it is the same pattern that repeats, and it is a closed system (it cannot go past the boundary of the circle).

Problem:
If that is the case, then it is inevitable that a universe forms, and, if that is also the case, then as it would then repeat that pattern again at some point, you have to have even more universes just like ours!

Now looking at it as a singular problem, the odds of our universe are not so bad; but looking at it as a collective problem, the odds are perhaps worse. Why, after all, would such a closed repetitive system exist? if not only to bring about, existence, life and therefore intelligence. And.... hold your horses! ...... that takes us back to the OP!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Also, I might add further, If there is a closed system (a universe) then there is an open system, and that must be an infinite amount of universes. They do say that we do not use all the capacity of our brain. If the higher-consciousness is fractal, then it might be that each bubble-reality (universe) has it own 'slice' of the cake, but not the whole cake (much like our brain not using its full potential). Why is that? I can only think that if there are too many possibilities, nothing forms. With a closed system, things form.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who are the others? Is that government in US for ex? If so, is not Obama religious? If so who is the ''others''?

"Others" would be anyone who fits the description. You would be an example of someone who opposes acts of terrorism as matters of faith.

 

[Ouroboros]

Schroeder is a physicist.... so I take his word better than mine. He says you can't do it. I gave the link earlier. I can post it again, but if you search it with odds i think it comes up.

Well, the link I provided you was to a software engineer who created a monkey-simulator and produced Shakespeare's work, so unless he somehow faked it, I must trust a real experiment producing the result over the words by any physicist or otherwise.

Years ago, a woman mathematician claimed something about statistics that got all mathematicians in the world upset. They accused her of being wrong, but after some time, they realized she was right. The moral is, only trust a statistician to 99%.

I would be interested to know just how the computer does it randomly. It is after all programmed by man, programmed to be random. And computers are not animals. What if the animal, just by a whim, decides to bang his fist on it and bring up all sorts, or just keep clicking one. He might, out of interest go back to that again. How does a computer program do that? Any ideas? I am not convinced that the two are the same. A monkey is alive, a computer is Artificial Intelligence. It will have been programmed to have within it the chance of bringing about the sonnet for ex.... but that is not necessarily the same with an animal.

True, but you have to understand the spirit of the analogy of the monkeys rather than fixated on the physical monkeys and actual old typewriters. It was used as an metaphor for true randomness. Instead of saying "if we had a computer that randomly...", the story of the monkeys and the typewriters were just more fun to think about. Most monkey won't actually type randomly on the typewriter but more likely type certain series or favor certain keys. But that wasn't what the analogy was to be meant.

Either way, we then have to ask why it is that randomness then brings about patterns, do we not?
Why should it? Why should not random stay random? Why should it bring in patterns? It is an interesting thought though..... i suppose if you limit the amount of things you have, and therefore the patterns they can be put in, eventually they must bring about patterns (when comparing the whole and not the parts). This might well be how chaos works. This means then that each bubble-universe is its own closed system, which certainly fit with the idea that it is autonomous to the one before, and then ''that'' which we call God. Thus it gives complete liberty and when judged, means he is completely just, as he had no imput.
(the universes are infinite)

If you have a consistent pattern that repeats, then you don't have true randomness. In an infinite series of random numbers, theoretically, every conceivable number should come up some time, otherwise the series is loaded (like loaded dice) and is not truly random.

Let's say you have the number 0 to 9. You are going to create an infinite series of random picks of them. If only the number 0 to 8 shows up, ever, infinitely, then 9 isn't part of the set of numbers to be picked, so it's not truly random between 0 to 9, but random between 0 to 8. Also, we're supposed to expect an even distribution of the numbers, so after 10 million numbers, we should see each and every number occurring about the same number of times. If not, then it's also loaded. True randomness should be able to produce all number and somewhat evenly distributed. At least that's how I understand randomness.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

--edit

Before I go on though, my understanding is that Schroeder is a young Earth creationist who's trying to change science to fit 6-day creation in Genesis. And his CV doesn't really impress any more than any other scientist you can read.

 

[Sapiens]

Well, the link I provided you was to a software engineer who created a monkey-simulator and produced Shakespeare's work, so unless he somehow faked it, I must trust a real experiment producing the result over the words by any physicist or otherwise.

Years ago, a woman mathematician claimed something about statistics that got all mathematicians in the world upset. They accused her of being wrong, but after some time, they realized she was right. The moral is, only trust a statistician to 99%.



True, but you have to understand the spirit of the analogy of the monkeys rather than fixated on the physical monkeys and actual old typewriters. It was used as an metaphor for true randomness. Instead of saying "if we had a computer that randomly...", the story of the monkeys and the typewriters were just more fun to think about. Most monkey won't actually type randomly on the typewriter but more likely type certain series or favor certain keys. But that wasn't what the analogy was to be meant.


If you have a consistent pattern that repeats, then you don't have true randomness. In an infinite series of random numbers, theoretically, every conceivable number should come up some time, otherwise the series is loaded (like loaded dice) and is not truly random.

Let's say you have the number 0 to 9. You are going to create an infinite series of random picks of them. If only the number 0 to 8 shows up, ever, infinitely, then 9 isn't part of the set of numbers to be picked, so it's not truly random between 0 to 9, but random between 0 to 8. Also, we're supposed to expect an even distribution of the numbers, so after 10 million numbers, we should see each and every number occurring about the same number of times. If not, then it's also loaded. True randomness should be able to produce all number and somewhat evenly distributed. At least that's how I understand randomness.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

--edit

Before I go on though, my understanding is that Schroeder is a young Earth creationist who's trying to change science to fit 6-day creation in Genesis. And his CV doesn't really impress any more than any other scientist you can read.

The real point is that it doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. The "saying" is that if you take an INFINITE number of monkeys and have them bang on an INFINITE number of typewriters for an INFINITE amount of time ..." Since none of the infinites are actually possible it is only a "thought experiment" and the three infinites (monkeys, typwritters and time) make it definitional.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well, the link I provided you was to a software engineer who created a monkey-simulator and produced Shakespeare's work, so unless he somehow faked it, I must trust a real experiment producing the result over the words by any physicist or otherwise.

Years ago, a woman mathematician claimed something about statistics that got all mathematicians in the world upset. They accused her of being wrong, but after some time, they realized she was right. The moral is, only trust a statistician to 99%.



True, but you have to understand the spirit of the analogy of the monkeys rather than fixated on the physical monkeys and actual old typewriters. It was used as an metaphor for true randomness. Instead of saying "if we had a computer that randomly...", the story of the monkeys and the typewriters were just more fun to think about. Most monkey won't actually type randomly on the typewriter but more likely type certain series or favor certain keys. But that wasn't what the analogy was to be meant.


If you have a consistent pattern that repeats, then you don't have true randomness. In an infinite series of random numbers, theoretically, every conceivable number should come up some time, otherwise the series is loaded (like loaded dice) and is not truly random.

Let's say you have the number 0 to 9. You are going to create an infinite series of random picks of them. If only the number 0 to 8 shows up, ever, infinitely, then 9 isn't part of the set of numbers to be picked, so it's not truly random between 0 to 9, but random between 0 to 8. Also, we're supposed to expect an even distribution of the numbers, so after 10 million numbers, we should see each and every number occurring about the same number of times. If not, then it's also loaded. True randomness should be able to produce all number and somewhat evenly distributed. At least that's how I understand randomness.

I'll get to the rest of your post later.

--edit

Before I go on though, my understanding is that Schroeder is a young Earth creationist who's trying to change science to fit 6-day creation in Genesis. And his CV doesn't really impress any more than any other scientist you can read.

He is not for a young earth as far as I know. Check out his website and look for the 6days. He is speaking of how it works in relativity.... I find it fascinating. At the point of the big bang, or jsut after, time was different.

As for the monkeys, which are artificial, it would still like to know the program that runs it. If some thing is truly random, does it not mean that it also does not have to bring up a certain number? I mean if we say it has to, then how is it random? That brings about the patterns we see and the closed system I spoke of... again it is beginning to sound contrived. A program typing out something is one thing, but real life... I don't think so.

Dawkins tried one ( i do not know if it is the same program) where it randomly typed numbers, but be cheated by retaining any letter that would be needed later. The problem with that is it shows foresight, and as you know, evolution is not said to have any. That means that any letter that could be used later, would have to be discarded until its true time came up. So if you wanted the word ''discarded'' for example, the first letter you need is a ''d''. if an ''i'' come up, it is not kept, as there is no foresight. Now that makes it incredibly unlikely. You have to consider that not only do we want the first word, but then a space, and then the next word in order with another space, and so on. Anyway, he explains it on his site better than I. Perhaps you are right though, perhaps it is shown to be right now. I shall check into it if I get time.

 

[Ouroboros]

The real point is that it doesn't matter if it actually happened or not. The "saying" is that if you take an INFINITE number of monkeys and have them bang on an INFINITE number of typewriters for an INFINITE amount of time ..." Since none of the infinites are actually possible it is only a "thought experiment" and the three infinites (monkeys, typwritters and time) make it definitional.

Agree.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Supposedly computer programmer Jesse Anderson created a monkey-simulator, where he had some million artificial monkeys in a computer cloud, typing randomly, and producing Shakespear's works.

Shakespeare's works finally reproduced by team of computerised monkeys? | Daily Mail Online

Anderson's blog:
A Few Million Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare | Jesse Anderson

I can't confirm for sure that this is valid, but his website and information seems to be legit.

For instance, at 2:30 PST, 9/23/2011, they produced A Lover's Complaint.

It appears I was right from what I can see. They are taking the randomness out of random. If you think it right, look on his site, and if you like, read The Science of God. It is very informative... right up your street I would say.

~~~~~~
''Any letters matching small portions of Shakespeare’s writing are plucked out and formed into his plays, poems or sonnets.''

Read more: Shakespeare's works finally reproduced by team of computerised monkeys? | Daily Mail Online

 

[Ouroboros]

He is not for a young earth as far as I know. Check out his website and look for the 6days. He is speaking of how it works in relativity.... I find it fascinating. At the point of the big bang, or jsut after, time was different.

Perhaps I just got him wrong. It was something I read somewhere that suggested that he was into trying get the 6-day creation to fit within science.

As for the monkeys, which are artificial, it would still like to know the program that runs it. If some thing is truly random, does it not mean that it also does not have to bring up a certain number? I mean if we say it has to, then how is it random? That brings about the patterns we see and the closed system I spoke of... again it is beginning to sound contrived. A program typing out something is one thing, but real life... I don't think so.

Real life? Well, the multiverse, or pre-big-bang, we're talking about 5-dimensions, 6-dimension, or n-dimensions. Maybe there are an infinite number of dimensions? That fits with your fractal idea. Fractals contains infinite patters and combinations. If the underlying reality consists of infinite dimension of infinite possibilities, it means that there must be at least one place were all parameters are exactly the way we have it in our universe.

Dawkins tried one ( i do not know if it is the same program) where it randomly typed numbers, but be cheated by retaining any letter that would be needed later. The problem with that is it shows foresight, and as you know, evolution is not said to have any.

Actually, that's not completely wrong. Evolution is: 1) random mutations to produce variation and 2) selection from the pool of variations that are not unfit to continue to produce. What he did was an example of "natural selection" which is very much part of evolutionary theory.

And this could be for universes as well. Only the universes that are fit will exist.

That means that any letter that could be used later, would have to be discarded until its true time came up. So if you wanted the word ''discarded'' for example, the first letter you need is a ''d''. if an ''i'' come up, it is not kept, as there is no foresight. Now that makes it incredibly unlikely. You have to consider that not only do we want the first word, but then a space, and then the next word in order with another space, and so on. Anyway, he explains it on his site better than I. Perhaps you are right though, perhaps it is shown to be right now. I shall check into it if I get time.

Well, you're partially right. Selecting isn't totally random, but we can't say what forces produced the universe, if there were natural and mathematical properties that are eternal in themselves that forces the randomness to specific conditions (fractal algorithm), and then perhaps there are other levels and conditions that can exist that we just don't know about. The way we can consolidate both our views would be to agree that whatever "fractal" algorithm that's behind the randomness/selection is basically "God's nature". It's the integral and eternal fact of reality and/or God that's necessary, at least for our existence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Christian Medical Comment: Why Richard Dawkins’ typing monkey theorem is a load of nonsense

more on the same

 

[Ouroboros]

''Any letters matching small portions of Shakespeare’s writing are plucked out and formed into his plays, poems or sonnets.''

Oh. I see. Right.

Well, it could be a natural selection in the multiverse. After all, the "fine tuned" argument suggests that only the parameters of this universe can produce this kind of universe, so any other kind of universe would be "selected against" while our universe would be "select for".

 

[Ouroboros]

Christian Medical Comment: Why Richard Dawkins’ typing monkey theorem is a load of nonsense

more on the same

Got it.

Seems like analogies easily are misunderstood and refuted based on the content instead of the meaning though.

The idea of the typing monkeys is really about having an infinite number of possibilities. If you have an infinite number of possibilities, there should be at least one possibility there that is the one you want or need. That's kind of what infinite means (no end). It's really a form of tautology. The monkey analogy might be insufficient to produce the image of infinite into people's minds.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps I just got him wrong. It was something I read somewhere that suggested that he was into trying get the 6-day creation to fit within science.

He does make it work with science, but not in a 6 day as we see it, but as the early universe when time was different.... since then, time has stretched.

Real life? Well, the multiverse, or pre-big-bang, we're talking about 5-dimensions, 6-dimension, or n-dimensions. Maybe there are an infinite number of dimensions? That fits with your fractal idea. Fractals contains infinite patters and combinations. If the underlying reality consists of infinite dimension of infinite possibilities, it means that there must be at least one place were all parameters are exactly the way we have it in our universe.


Actually, that's not completely wrong. Evolution is: 1) random mutations to produce variation and 2) selection from the pool of variations that are not unfit to continue to produce. What he did was an example of "natural selection" which is very much part of evolutionary theory.

And this could be for universes as well. Only the universes that are fit will exist.

Noooo.... my understanding of it is that you can't take a letter and 'save it for later'. Evolution does not do that as it does not have foresight. do you see? That is what these programs seem to have done... recognised something they need and chosen it.... but NOT in order. at that rate, you could publish anything!

Well, you're partially right. Selecting isn't totally random, but we can't say what forces produced the universe, if there were natural and mathematical properties that are eternal in themselves that forces the randomness to specific conditions (fractal algorithm), and then perhaps there are other levels and conditions that can exist that we just don't know about. The way we can consolidate both our views would be to agree that whatever "fractal" algorithm that's behind the randomness/selection is basically "God's nature". It's the integral and eternal fact of reality and/or God that's necessary, at least for our existence.

Okay..... my concern is with the idea with the monkeys. He also did one with ''me thinks it's a weasel''.... where Dawkins pc chose whatever was to be needed (foresight) which NA does not have. See the problem?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Got it.

Seems like analogies easily are misunderstood and refuted based on the content instead of the meaning though.

The idea of the typing monkeys is really about having an infinite number of possibilities. If you have an infinite number of possibilities, there should be at least one possibility there that is the one you want or need. That's kind of what infinite means (no end). It's really a form of tautology. The monkey analogy might be insufficient to produce the image of infinite into people's minds.

I don't know if infinity does mean that anything and everything will happen. If I want --and I stress, I WANT-- a certain number, lets say 1 to a million, in order, sequencial, without prestoring numbers, I have my doubts if that would ever happen, not even in infinity. I know it has the same odds as any other set of numbers on one scale of thought.... but on another, the odds are horrendous, as that is the ONLY outcome that I will allow. You see, there are TOO MANY ways of getting it wrong. You could get all the way up to the last one, one shy of a million, and then get a seven. That would be wrong, start again. In this universe with these laws, without intelligence guiding it, no way will it happen..... thoughts?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am beginning to wonder if there can be another universe like this at all. Science however thinks that the multiverse might exist. It appears that they also might have different laws within them, which is questionably then whether, as M. Kaku puts it, we might one day find a worm hole and fly through into one. If the laws of the universe are different, we might be obliterated as soon as we enter!

But my thinking is this (at the moment): lets say our universe is a scale of numbers, let's say 1 to 10. Only in that order , 1, 2, 3 etc to 10 will our universe exist. Now, we can say that another universe has the scale starting from a 2 up to 10 with the 1 on the end. The next could start at 3, and so on. If we take these numbers on a scale of infinity, then clearly each universe would have its own correct range of numbers in its correct order, and therefore exists as it has to exist, and the universes would be infinite in number. But that still means that there is only ONE way to form our universe.

So it is still a problem. The fine tuning argument is still there. Although it allows for our universe on the grand scale of things, we now have to have a reason why this random energy can change into different universes, all of which are different. Why would they be? Why not all the same? I think it is likely that there will be similarities in some, but in others they will be completely different, perhaps so differnet we could not even detect them.

It makes sense if they are all different if it is evolving consciousness, as that is basically thought processes. Even we have different thoughts- so why not different universes? Though it is possible if it is infinite, that OUR multiverse are all very similar- so that we could move into them.
We then have the possibility of our own Self being able to be infinite and within each one, again a fractal thought process which is dividing many times over. As it divides, it is like a cell which replicates and divides, endlessly on.

I shall look into this ''monkey'' and ''weasel'' thing and perhaps start a new thread.

 

[Sapiens]

...

Dawkins tried one ( i do not know if it is the same program) where it randomly typed numbers, but be cheated by retaining any letter that would be needed later. The problem with that is it shows foresight, and as you know, evolution is not said to have any. That means that any letter that could be used later, would have to be discarded until its true time came up. So if you wanted the word ''discarded'' for example, the first letter you need is a ''d''. if an ''i'' come up, it is not kept, as there is no foresight. Now that makes it incredibly unlikely. You have to consider that not only do we want the first word, but then a space, and then the next word in order with another space, and so on. Anyway, he explains it on his site better than I. Perhaps you are right though, perhaps it is shown to be right now. I shall check into it if I get time.

You misunderstand everything, genetics, evolution, infinity and Dawkin's experiment, but then ... what else is new? Weasel program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ouroboros]

He does make it work with science, but not in a 6 day as we see it, but as the early universe when time was different.... since then, time has stretched.

But why? We can do that with any number. We can find ways to fit 34, 758, 992, or whatever. So it's just no meaning to do that. Anyway. That's his prerogative.

Noooo.... my understanding of it is that you can't take a letter and 'save it for later'. Evolution does not do that as it does not have foresight. do you see? That is what these programs seem to have done... recognised something they need and chosen it.... but NOT in order. at that rate, you could publish anything!

Actually, "letters" are produced in evolution and "saved" for later. Not intentionally, but many mutations are harmless or non-functional. They stick around for a long time without harm, so there's kind'a something like that actually happening, but that's for another discussion. That's how evolution works. Production of variation (mostly harmless), then selective pressure reducing the non-fit. (More than 90%, actually 98%, of the human DNA is non-coding genes, i.e. not used at all to produce polypeptides, they're dormant.)

I thought the discussion we had was more about the fine tune universes rather than how evolution works though.

Okay..... my concern is with the idea with the monkeys. He also did one with ''me thinks it's a weasel''.... where Dawkins pc chose whatever was to be needed (foresight) which NA does not have. See the problem?

I don't think a fine tuned universe has to be foreseen. It's enough to produce enough number of universes to eventually get to a functioning one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know if infinity does mean that anything and everything will happen. If I want --and I stress, I WANT-- a certain number, lets say 1 to a million, in order, sequencial, without prestoring numbers, I have my doubts if that would ever happen, not even in infinity.

I disagree. It depends on the infinite set.

I know it has the same odds as any other set of numbers on one scale of thought.... but on another, the odds are horrendous, as that is the ONLY outcome that I will allow. You see, there are TOO MANY ways of getting it wrong. You could get all the way up to the last one, one shy of a million, and then get a seven. That would be wrong, start again. In this universe with these laws, without intelligence guiding it, no way will it happen..... thoughts?

In an infinite set there's an infinite number of finite series.

But I think I'll leave this discussion for now. Got things to do. We'll pick it up again later at some time.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

exactly, I had no idea of the number, yet I somehow new it was fairly unlikely, I don't have absolute certainty, I acknowledge my faith, do you?

Please explain how you plug faith into a scenario where the odds are known. Thanks.

yes- IF you had an infinite number of chances. I agree with Krauss' opinion on this 'If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

I also agree with Hawking on Krauss ' That moron couldn't theorize his way out of a bowl of custard'

You've opted to introduce Krauss and then dispense with Krauss. So I'll ignore the entire tangent.

...

Meanwhile, isn't it readily apparent that some people's "theory" relies entirely upon an Infinite Probability Machine? That they opt to refer to this machine as "God" doesn't make their alleged "theory" any more clear, does it?

Or is God not infinite?

Because there are certain universal constants, values inherent to physics which determined the formation of space/time- and we can calculate mathematically how extraordinarily tight the tolerances are, the slightest bit off, and space time immediately collapses- it's not really a controversial observation these days- how to account for it is more the question.

You've cited the alleged narrow margins for the existence of space/time, but I still fail to see how that supports the notion that a non-temporal/non-spatial supernatural intellect was behind those "narrow" margins. Setting that aside and assuming that it was a disembodied mind somehow existing outside of space/time ... would you care to explain how decisions get made outside of space and time?

sure life could be everywhere in a theoretical universe, and they all could be called roger. In the only universe we are aware of existing, we are alone as far as we know- this is consistent with being the primary beneficiaries of that creation.

Aren't we the only known "primary beneficiaries" no matter what? Claiming that the entire universe was the intention of a God (a god? Multiple gods? A trillion gods named Roger?) seems the very pinnacle of hubris.

again there are an infinite number of misses, creating a self extracting archive of information that develops it's own consciousness is not an easy thing to do, people have been trying for a while. If it was, we could simply generate endless mathematical algorithms in a computer, sit back and wait for one to introduce itself.

You must mean "creating a man-made self extracting archive of information that develops it's own consciousness," correct? And if you're resorting to citing man-made examples to explain that which isn't man-made ... aren't you already comparing apples and oranges?

direct evidence? the exact same amount as for the cosmic lotto machine, so that's a wash. What is not even, is the capacity for each to create the world we see around us...

If it's a wash ... then it's a wash. You've failed to demonstrate that "Goddunnit®" has any explanatory power whatsoever. Sorry.