Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Koldo]

The reason they order is not explained. Chaos can form patterns, but why? Even dealing cards can form patterns. But why? If it is inherent and intrinsic to the universe, it is explained

The reason is that order appears to be inherent to the chaos.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I understand.....people sometimes make fun of me avatar too. But those things don't unclog themselves!

back in the day I was considered hi-res! I think I appeared about the same time you did? at least they haven't killed us off yet.

 

[metis]

It would be quite laughable to think it was ''accidental'' that is the point of the fine tuning argument. Intelligence is demanded for such an event. We would certainly demand it in anything we see here in our world. Why is it that we can accept that it is not needed for bigger things?

Except that an overwhelming number of cosmologists, many of whom have been researching the BB, say otherwise, and they are joined by also an overwhelming number of physicists. If a theistic creation is so obvious, why did this group somehow miss it, especially since most of them had a theistic upbringing according to Leonard Susskind?

Nothing in the science sense is virtual particles in a virtual vacumn. It comes from something (as a general term) and that takes us back through the many layers of consciousness and there own expression, until we enter the Holy of Holies, the Source of all life.

You are ignoring the possibility of "infinity", and this indeed fits into our experiences of multiple causes and effects going back as far as we can possibly take it. It's the concept of theistic causation that has no real evidence for. And if one stops and thinks about it, how is it even hypothetically possible that one could know that a deity or deities caused our universe?

It is about half and half, slightly more atheist being scientists.

Depends on how the question is asked. If "agnostic" is an option, then the largest plurality of scientists goes in that direction according to the survey's I've seen.

Listen, I am not an atheist but take the position that whatever caused our universe to happen I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. Call me "agnostic" if you prefer, and let me just say that I have vastly more questions than I have answers.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The reason is that order appears to be inherent to the chaos.

You could say the same for the 1's and 0's running this software, which would appear so chaotic yet inherently inclined to produce order-
same for the billions of apparently chaotic pits on a dvd. Neither suggests that creative intelligence is prohibited from having anything to do with that order.

 

[Revoltingest]

back in the day I was considered hi-res! I think I appeared about the same time you did? at least they haven't killed us off yet.

Let'm try....I & me shovel, you & yer cutlass...we shall vanquish all opposition!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let'm try....I & me shovel, you & yer cutlass...we shall vanquish all opposition!

I'll drink to that, I's better be gettin back to me skullduggery now .. yarrrrr.

 

[metis]

right, just that I and Hawking and many other atheists now agree it's staggeringly improbable- hence the multiverse theories

I would suggest that, based on what we now know about quantum mechanics, that the chance of there being a multiverse is quite high, and most cosmologists that I have read seemingly drift in that direction. However, whether we are the only universe or not does not answer the question of possible theistic causation.

after much mockery of the concept by atheists, we have validated a specific beginning to/creation of time, space, energy/mass as we know it and everything in the universe.
If some atheists STILL refuse to describe this as a beginning/creation event of any kind, that just underscores that it's the implication of the fact, not the word that is problematic?

We know when the BB happened but there's insufficient evidence for what might have happened before the BB. There are numerous hypotheses but not enough evidence to narrow it down. However, some cosmologists think that the current study of the "afterglow" may indeed provide some answers, possibly even within a decade.

believers in atheism like Hawking give their blessing to multiverse stories- which by their own words would 'make God redundant' if they were real

That would be a stretch either way, as I mentioned above. Hawking, even though he has labeled himself an "atheist" as of this year, doesn't negate the hypothetical possibility of there being a deity or deities, and neither do Dawkins or Harris. They label themselves as "atheists" because they don't believe in a deity, but the reality is that they are really agnostics, which can sometimes be construed as "atheists" depending on variable definitions of "atheism".

 

[Koldo]

You could say the same for the 1's and 0's running this software, which would appear so chaotic yet inherently inclined to produce order-
same for the billions of apparently chaotic pits on a dvd. Neither suggests that creative intelligence is prohibited from having anything to do with that order.

No disagreement on my part.

 

[Robert.Evans]

yes, a common rationale is, that 'lots of things in nature are automated, so why would the origins of the universe be any different?' and I understand that- it's the way I used to look at it too

but as you say- the problem gets bigger, not smaller. an automated watch factory is even further from being self explanatory than the watch.

In the end- the laws of nature being ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws... is a paradox unique to atheism, which can be solved if we do not utterly forbid the possibility of creative intelligence

I have not heard you speak before this thread that i recall, but I like your responses... interesting.

 

[viole]

Okay

I don't agree with the ending. This universe, in another form, has happened many times over. We can say, relative to us, that it is the higher-consciousness of God. So you words fit correctly. What does happen is just that. What comes about comes about through what has been before and is ever replenishing itself.
The first ''mess'' is the divine death of the saviour. This has happened many times over as there are more than one reality. Once we move into this realm of change, entropy is seen. Thankyou for the thoughts, they fit well, though I doubt you meant it as such.
The reason it happens here is because it has happened before.

I think all fine tuning arguments committ the same fallacy (of composition).the same fallacy many cosmological arguments suffer from. In a nutshell: it is logically unwarranted to apply things valid within a certain context to the context itself.

Consider a tipical teleological argument:

1) things do not assemble magically to create a car, therefore a car, even if I never saw one before, clearly points toward a conscious designer.

Now, the essential premise is:

1a) things do not assemble magically (or randomly, or by chance) to form a car.

And this is a valid premise. The point is that is not generalizable. It is an empirical evidence based on the fact that a set of atoms, or basic constituents, do not assemble, usually, autonomously to form a car.

But this is also a thermodynamcal statement. Since there are many many more (macroscospically indistinguishable) ways a set of atoms can evolve into something different than a car, then it is obvious that we should not expect a car, without introducing eternal factors.

This is the second principle in action. In an insulated system, things evolve naturally toward macroscopically indistinguishable states (viole's mess) because they are the vast majority of states a system can autonomously evolve to. It is a statistical principle ruling the evolution of many basic constituents, like gas. It does not work, for instance, with boxes containing only one constituent or atom, primeval or not.

But the second principle is also only applicable in a context that is not in thermal equilibrium. In a system in thermal equilibrium things can only evolve toward the same mess or towards less mess, for the current mess is already maximal and cannot be topped.

Ergo, premise 1a makes sense only in contexts not in therml equilibrium. That is in contexts like our Universe. Applying it to the context itself is unwarranted, unless the Unverse itself is contained in an encompassing Universe which is not in thermal equlibrium. But that would just delegate the problem to the encompassing Universe, for which there is no evidence, by the way.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Not quite sure of the ending. My point was that if the odds of this universe are so unlikley, to have more makes it even more unlikely.

If you have a billion sided die, and roll it a billion times, there's a billion chances that whatever number you wanted to show up might show up. The probability increases with more universes. Or, let's say that each multiverse is lined up on a numerical line, so universe 1 is die side 1. Universe 2 is die side 2. All the billion universes all represent each side of the die, that means one of them will have the number. Without chance. Without randomness. Only because of all things that can exist exists.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Just looking at our universe, there's much evidence for probability, mathematics, & logic being real & useful....& they work for people of all faiths or lack thereof. This god stuff though...instead of evidence it has only feelings of believers. And all of them have different feelings, eg, variation on the number of gods, variation on afterlife, variation on their god's power.

But it is the acceptance of something mindblowingly unlikely that is troubling.... also, when we consider God, we, being human and physical, expect to see something somewhere that we can hang a lable round and call it ''God'', much like we might do with a table or tree. It doesn't work that way though.

I am both an agnostic & an atheist. The former is the rigorous view, while the latter is speculative. You might call my atheism a mere "feeling". Good call....I agree, & that's why I don't trust it.

I don't see the existence of believers as evidence of what they beieve.

Well if not, you not only have a universe which is very improbable, you have billions of deluded people (instead of a few) that have been for thousands of years. One might think that if we were mere apes and luck had created all this, that we might well be deluded about many other things. How then, I might ask, would we ever come up with nuclear power?

Since we don't know the probability of either, there's no comparison to make.

There are many odds that have been given, some on this thread by wiser ones that me.

To be inquisitive is fine. But if one has a great desire (or need) for an answer, one might leap to & embrace a dysfunctional one. Pons & Fleischmann (the cold fusion guys) know about the perils of trying to make a bad theory fit the data.

But if one is skeptic, one might also ignore too much. How's that for a riposte.. haha

Wouldn't the luck ("too good to be true") argument apply to a god too? What are the odds against our having this benevolent designer creating this commodious & wonderful universe for us? Again, the probabilistic argument just has no merit so long as we've no comprehensive set of quantitative premises from which to reason.

But we are part of him, his consciousness. In a deeper way, it is us who are the fundamental building blocks to what we think of as God. When you speak of him, you speak of you. It is just that he is the higher part of that existence, just as there is people in a company. And the reason we are here is because of many things.

No doubt smart guys with giant chess club sized brains have attacked the problem. But no one has ever presented a quantitative argument which doesn't fall apart upon closer examination.

Closer examination by who? It would take one equally as smart to do that. I don't qualify on that level, anymore than I am qualified to say evolution is wrong.

No matter how much we learn, there is always the question of "why" regarding some deeper cause. This cycle of questioning can never end. To not know is to be our perpetual state. This does not mean that "God did it.".

It does not mean he ''is'' not either. The questions are there to lead us to him. Man goes after many schemes though.

We have a thorough understanding of walls & how they come about. The cosmology of multiple universes is far less understood. A better analogy for you would be evolution, which has a powerful theory explaining its emergence from life.

No. Seeing no evidence of this supernatural intelligence, I disbelieve in it. But seeing much evidence of self organization of elements in the natural world, I'll go with that.

But you can't see your own intelligence or consciousness... or anyone's. Do you not believe in them? False argument I think. We are created in teh Image of God. That which is us as humans is invisible just as God is. See? (Though I have to add, there is a thread showingthat they can map out possible thoughts now through a swimming cap on the head with electrodes. It is not really showing consciousness though, only the workings of it, and only on a basic level. I think it will be bad if they do... they will only start controlling everyone then... robots!)

Luminaries in the world of science aren't correct just because they're popular. When their reasoning is sound, then they deserve credence. But when they give opinions without an evidenced cogent argument, then their opinions are no better than yours or mine. Remember, we heathens have no prophets to deliver truth unto us.

But if we do not consider their thoughts to be realtive, are we not doing them a diservice? Surely their own standing of knowledge means we should give them some credence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's definitely an attractive idea. But could it be explained by monkeys on typewriters?

haha, no!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, the moon is one of those many aspects of nature that was once considered somewhat.. surplus, extranenous?- there's a better word- but we had no idea how fundamental, crucial it was to life on Earth in so many ways.

this isn't the cheeriest time of year for most of us in the Northern Hemisphere, I think not just because of the light, but that we withdraw even more from nature? Moving from a large city to the country was something that got me thinking more about creation, being able to see the stars/ milky way.

It would be interesting to know if peoples beliefs show any drift from season to season...

You know, if the higher-consciousness is fractal in action, and therefore repeats what it already is, even if more in error, then the moon can be seen as the saviour, as it mediates between the sun (God) and us Earth (mankind). Also, Islam is said by some to be originated from Moon worship, which has been seen at times as feminine. The saviour was seen as the red-heifer (a female young cow) and there is only one way a man can be seen as feminine! Yet it fits.

 

[Ouroboros]

is beauty itself
that they were walking there. All along the new world naked,
cold, familiar wind -

- The Kurzweil Cybernetic Poet program

 

[Robert.Evans]

If you have a billion sided die, and roll it a billion times, there's a billion chances that whatever number you wanted to show up might show up.

''might'', but also might not. There are nigh on a billion chances that it would not. When you get to the billionth one, would you stake your house on it?

The probability increases with more universes. Or, let's say that each multiverse is lined up on a numerical line, so universe 1 is die side 1. Universe 2 is die side 2. All the billion universes all represent each side of the die, that means one of them will have the number. Without chance. Without randomness. Only because of all things that can exist exists.

Firstly we have to assume the universe are there. Secondly, the fact that the fine tuning argument says that this universe is very improbable, means that it is less likely that any other potential universe has formed. If it has, and has in a way that we would recognise it, then the odds of this universe just got worse. If they are not like this one, (which is likely) then they fall under their own laws, which may not include life, or at least not as we would know it (Jim). But this universe would still have a very unlikely chance of existing.... and yet it does!

 

[Robert.Evans]

is beauty itself
that they were walking there. All along the new world naked,
cold, familiar wind -

- The Kurzweil Cybernetic Poet program

I search it, interesting.
One, how does it work? Is it a random program that recognises words or preprogrammed. And two, what the heck did you post it for... haha

 

[Revoltingest]

But it is the acceptance of something mindblowingly unlikely that is troubling....

What is the probability of life arising in a possible universe, & this life pondering its existence? Have no answer? Then I don't buy the improbability argument.
We do have some common facts to work with.
1) We're here in this universe.
2) We cannot see what came before.
3) We cannot objectively observe any larger reality.
4) This raises many questions.
Everything else is just untestable speculation.

also, when we consider God, we, being human and physical, expect to see something somewhere that we can hang a lable round and call it ''God'', much like we might do with a table or tree. It doesn't work that way though.
Well if not, you not only have a universe which is very improbable, you have billions of deluded people (instead of a few) that have been for thousands of years. One might think that if we were mere apes and luck had created all this, that we might well be deluded about many other things. How then, I might ask, would we ever come up with nuclear power?

Now your getting into the are of evolution resulting in intelligent life. That's not luck. That's a stochastic process, which has probability as merely one of several components.

There are many odds that have been given, some on this thread by wiser ones that me.

None meet my rigorous standards though.

But if one is skeptic, one might also ignore too much. How's that for a riposte.. haha

Did I ever claim to have the truth?
No....just speculating.
Besides, I'd prefer a repast.

But we are part of him, his consciousness. In a deeper way, it is us who are the fundamental building blocks to what we think of as God. When you speak of him, you speak of you. It is just that he is the higher part of that existence, just as there is people in a company. And the reason we are here is because of many things.

Those are very poetic & lofty claims, but not amenable to objective treatment. Translation: Too airy fairy for me.

Closer examination by who? It would take one equally as smart to do that. I don't qualify on that level, anymore than I am qualified to say evolution is wrong.

I'm more about the quality of the argument than the credentials of the proponent. Anyone, even the most lettered luminary, can have a loopy opinion.

It does not mean he ''is'' not either. The questions are there to lead us to him. Man goes after many schemes though.

I continue to say that I cannot disprove the existence of gods.

But you can't see your own intelligence or consciousness... or anyone's. Do you not believe in them?

To "see" would include observation by other method. Intelligence & consciousness are observable, & to some extent even measurable.

False argument I think. We are created in teh Image of God. That which is us as humans is invisible just as God is. See? (Though I have to add, there is a thread showingthat they can map out possible thoughts now through a swimming cap on the head with electrodes. It is not really showing consciousness though, only the workings of it, and only on a basic level. I think it will be bad if they do... they will only start controlling everyone then... robots!)
But if we do not consider their thoughts to be realtive, are we not doing them a diservice? Surely their own standing of knowledge means we should give them some credence.

Perhaps consciousness is nothing more than the "workings of" consciousness.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The reason is that order appears to be inherent to the chaos.

Yes, I agree, but that is troubling if one does not believe that consciousness is fandamental in the process to begin with. I mean, why would it be inherent?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I agree, but that is troubling if one does not believe that consciousness is fandamental in the process to begin with. I mean, why would it be inherent?

Why can't it be inherent?