Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Looncall]

'Substance' is a very dicey thing. If U235 is a substance, what is the energy produced in an atom bomb? Is that not 'substance'? In future we may even require a new definition of existence and non-existence (not joking).
Was he talking about any mystical nature? He was talking about sub-atomic forces.

Energy is not a substance, it is shorthand for the states of objects. The energy in nuclear fission turns up as the velocities of particles.

Beware of new-agey nonsense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And where does this mysitcal nature come from?

I didn't say nature was mystical, I said it was fantastically creative. As in amazingly creative. Like the Andromeda galaxy is amazing through a telescope. More amazing than our limited human notions of God, etc.

Feast your eyes on this and just take it in: HubbleSite - Picture Album

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It's your conclusion and so it reeks of your protectionism;

Protectionism of what, exactly?

Lots of things within the universe are demonstrably natural. Therefore, the universe itself must be natural

Would you care to name a few things within the universe that aren't natural or made from substances that occur naturally within the universe? I'm thinking that everything within the universe is derived from that which occurs naturally within the universe ... so I'm not sure how you're arriving at this "lots of" distinction.

Meanwhile, to illustrate your position on this issue, the best you can do is point to man-made items? That proves nothing.

Q. - What would a non-created universe look like?

ID is about much more than just an argument from familiarity, it's about solving the paradox of functional designs accidentally creating themsleves

By insisting that an eternal intelligence (that wasn't itself created) created everything?

It seems rather obvious that your alleged answer is nothing but another paradox that requires additional special pleading to keep it alive.

- by accident or design 'from nothing' is the same apparent paradox, yet here we are, so that is a wash. The capacity of chance v design is not even however.

Again, if you claim that a God (presumably your God) created everything... but wasn't obliged to create everything ... are you not still left staring down the barrel of chance?

ask nicely, no yelling

Who's yelling? If boldface is yelling, then isn't it safe to conclude that we've been provided with the tools to yell?

Meanwhile, I'll maintain that online yelling is indicated by persistent capitalization (which isn't an option on the toolbar provided by the makers of the forum).

But no need to take my word for it. Look:

Here
Here
Here
Here

The question was in bold-face because I've had to ask several times. Quite simple.

Hawking puts the odds at near infinity to one, hence the number of hypothetical multiverses that would be required to fluke this one. we agree.

How much is "near infinity?" Do you have an exact number for that?

 

[metis]

I didn't say nature was mystical, I said it was fantastically creative. As in amazingly creative. Like the Andromeda galaxy is amazing through a telescope. More amazing than our limited human notions of God, etc.

Feast your eyes on this and just take it in: HubbleSite - Picture Album

I used to use one of the Hubble pics of Andromeda as my screen saver-- it's amazingly beautiful.

BTW, brace yourself because our Milky Way is about to crash into Andromeda in just a short 10 billion years or so.

 

[godnotgod]

Here are some definitions I found for substance on dictionary.com. They make sense to me.

"that of which a thing consists; physical matter or material"

"something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere; that which receives modifications and is not itself a mode; something that is causally active; something that is more than an event"

Do they 'make sense' to you in terms of Newtonian or Quantum Physics? Doesn't Quantum Physics provide us with a radically different view of the world than what you have provided?

I do not think that intelligence qualifies as a substance under any of these descriptions.

Isn't that because those descriptions are arbitrarily superimposed over Reality from the very beginning?

I do not understand what you mean by "context or background" in your question.

We define 'planet', for example, via the space surrounding and containing it. 'Planet' cannot exist without the context of space. But the relationship is that 'planet' is in the foreground, while space is in the background. IOW, space, as nothing, is already present, and 'planet' appears within it. Likewise for substance. It is being detected as 'substance' against and within a context, or background, but one which is already present. A fish born into the background or context of the sea does not know he is in the sea. Likewise, we ignore the background of existence and focus on the foreground, which we see as physical objects.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

BTW, brace yourself because our Milky Way is about to crash into Andromeda in just a short 10 billion years or so.

Hopefully we'll all be enlightened by then.

 

[godnotgod]

like watches?

The intelligence manifested in watches is human intelligence sculpted by mind. Watches are merely following a predetermined, unspontaneous pattern. Watches are artifacts, products of past thought stored as memory; nature is not an artifact.

Watches are made, with intent and purpose. Nature grows, but without thought.

 

[psychoslice]

Such defeatism! I don't buy it. One shouldn't let the pathetic despair of the religious deprive us of hope.

That's what I was saying, the religious pretend they know all about the universe and how it got here, where in truth non of us really know anything.

 

[godnotgod]

Energy is not a substance, it is shorthand for the states of objects.
.

Is energy a state of an object, or is it a form of the object, as exemplified in E=mc2? IOW, energy is convertible into mass (of matter) and vice versa. One is not a property of the other.

 

[godnotgod]

That's what I was saying, the religious pretend they know all about the universe and how it got here, where in truth non of us really know anything.

Or maybe that we do know, but are pretending that we don't.

 

[psychoslice]

Or maybe that we do know, but are pretending that we don't.

Well not the religious that's for sure.

 

[Looncall]

Is energy a state of an object, or is it a form of the object, as exemplified in E=mc2? IOW, energy is convertible into mass (of matter) and vice versa. One is not a property of the other.

Wrong. Do your homework and look it up. Energy has no meaning in the absence of objects.

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong. Do your homework and look it up. Energy has no meaning in the absence of objects.

That's not what I was saying. I said that the one is directly convertible into the other and vice versa, as per the Laws of Conservation. Your statement is reversible, in that objects have no meaning in the absence of energy. What you originally said is that energy is a state of an object, implying that 'object' is the default condition, and that energy is a property of objects, eg; liquid, gas, solid are states of water. But for energy, it is, in reality, matter. An undocumented quote from Einstein states:

"What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.”

...and from Max Planck, who goes even further, we have:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

...and we know that niether of them are touchy feelie new agey agents of woo woo, don't we?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The energy in nuclear fission turns up as the velocities of particles. Beware of new-agey nonsense.

As I said, who knows about future and what more science will bring to us? At the moment it is Dark Energy and Dark Matter.What was substance, changed into velocities of particles. And that is not the end of it. Does it change back into substance (By way of atmosphere, rain ..)? It does not just vanish.

BTW, brace yourself because our Milky Way is about to crash into Andromeda in just a short 10 billion years or so.

We wont be there. Wikipedia says that in one billion years the sun would hot up to the extent that it would vaporise all water on Earth.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hopefully we'll all be enlightened by then.

Salvaged, delivered.

Wrong. Do your homework and look it up. Energy has no meaning in the absence of objects.

What when there were no objects? Are you up to New Age science? Not everybody is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's what I was saying, the religious pretend they know all about the universe and how it got here, where in truth non of us really know anything.

And it will be science that eventually provides the answers. Religion can speculate about the "why?", but it doesn't do too well when pronouncing about the "how?".

 

[godnotgod]

And it will be science that eventually provides the answers. Religion can speculate about the "why?", but it doesn't do too well when pronouncing about the "how?".

Both science and religion need to be put into the correct context in order for them to make any real sense, and that context is spirituality. It is the original spiritual experience that is the basis of all religion, though some have lost touch with that experience. And it is also the spiritual experience that fleshes out the scientific view. IOW, the scientific view is a limited view of Reality, while the spiritual view includes science in a way that gives it real meaning in that it merges the subject/object relationship into a single unified view. What I am saying is that, as good as science is, we have things backwards. The spiritual view provides us with an understanding as to the true nature of Reality, something science cannot achieve. Once seen, we can then turn to science comfortably and apply its lessons.

 

[Robert.Evans]

As I said, who knows about future and what more science will bring to us? At the moment it is Dark Energy and Dark Matter.What was substance, changed into velocities of particles. And that is not the end of it. Does it change back into substance (By way of atmosphere, rain ..)? It does not just vanish.We wont be there. Wikipedia says that in one billion years the sun would hot up to the extent that it would vaporise all water on Earth.

Interesting ending. 1 billion years to go... leave the planet or die.. it is a long time but does not sound it. One can only imagine what it might be like then if we are still alive up until that point. The weather I would imagine would be horrendous, and that would effect food production.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The spiritual view provides us with an understanding as to the true nature of Reality, something science cannot achieve.

Hmmm.

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm.

And the reason science cannot achieve it is because its method is dissection, reduction, and Reason. Nature is beyond Reason.