Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, some obviously are believers, but theistic theory and science theory are not at all the same. Theistic theory is not based on deriving objective evidence, but scientific theory is entirely reliant upon it.

agreed

I'm afraid you're making up you own "cosmology" and "physics" as infinity is definitely in the theoretical running. I can give you a short list of books on cosmology that you might find interesting, so let me know if you're interested.

thankyou for the offer

Provide even one shred of evidence for this, please.



Provide even one shred of evidence for this, please.

Haha.... funny. It is spiritually discerned from the supreme-consciousness that we are made from and are... but then you knew I would say that... didn't you? Oh I know, I forgot to say it was my own word... haha

 

[Revoltingest]

It is... but I am asking how is that possible if there is no intelligence involved.

That might require the study of stochastic processes for a better understanding of emergent properties. It's beyond the scope of this thread to go into that. (And besides, I'm far too rusty to explain even the miserable understanding I once had.) Do nitrogen molecules need intelligent direction to behave in an organized fashion regarding temperature, volume & pressure? Some people might say yes, but I see statistical mechanics at work. I'm not telling you there cannot be intelligence guiding everything, only that it's not the most compelling explanation.

 

[metis]

It is... but I am asking how is that possible if there is no intelligence involved.

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."?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Roger Penrose calls string theory a "fashion," quantum mechanics "faith," and cosmic inflation a "fantasy." He is a dottering contrarian who loves the limelight.

Even if his calculations were correct, this sort of retrospective statistical analysis if foolish and he knows that. It like one of the old mechanical Japanese Pachinko machines, if you calculate the odds of any specific path for the ball from top to bottom you'll see that it is virtually impossible for it to get there, but knowing that it is in a slot at the bottom you realize that the actual odds are just one out of the number of slots at the bottom, all those pegs are just randomizers that effect what final slot the ball falls into.

If you were to comment, I thought you might find fault with him.. haha. I can only go off hsi words, and many others, that all say the same thing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Very true.

Actually, we do know that we need sunshine. Winter depression is a real thing (D-vitamin deficiency). There are organisms that follow patterns of the moon cycle. Then we have the tides, and the distance of the moon, it doesn't follow a circle but an ellipse, means that its gravitational pull varies. It's not strange to imagine that some lifeforms are susceptible to those changes (water and weather already is).

Good.
Did you know the Moon can be seen as a reflection of the saviour, just as the ancients use to think it was a god? it is no surprise then, I think, to say that it has such an effect on us.

 

[Revoltingest]

v
We do have probability of certain things in this universe, and it is scientists who give these figures not me.

Unless I missed, it, the probability calculations were about monkeys typing sonnets. To show that something which hasn't happened is very unlikely to happen just isn't germane.
And so far, there have been no calculations regarding the probability of a universe resulting in life, or the probability of a supreme being doing it.

 

[metis]

Haha.... funny. It is spiritually discerned from the supreme-consciousness that we are made from and are... but then you knew I would say that... didn't you? Oh I know, I forgot to say it was my own word... haha

Why is it funny? If I make a statement of "X" on matters that very much in the scientific realm that you might question, is it really that unreasonable for you to ask for some evidence?

You claim basically that there's a cosmic consciousness, and yet you really think it's funny for someone to ask for some evidence that such a consciousness of that type even exists?

I'm sorry I asked a scientific question.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But that is not the point... life does exist.

It's very much the point. I think your argument rests on the assumption that life was a requirement or forgone conclusion, but there is no valid reason to make that assumption.

 

[Ouroboros]

Good.
Did you know the Moon can be seen as a reflection of the saviour, just as the ancients use to think it was a god? it is no surprise then, I think, to say that it has such an effect on us.

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

 

[Yerda]

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

Probablility of 1.

Thanks for that link.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, because other numbers might "win" as well.

Live here on Earth evolved under the conditions that were present here, but that doesn't mean that life forms couldn't evolve under some differing conditions elsewhere.

alter the universal constants infinitesimally- you don't even get space/time- no such thing as time and space for anything to happen in, far less sentient life to ponder it...

you can stare at a bucket of sand for 100 billion trillion years, it's never going to get bored and develop thought, that has to be written in from the get go. by chance? perhaps, but the odds are far far less than one in a billion

 

[Sapiens]

snotty ad hominem attacks are always a lot easier than respectful counter arguments, thanks for a prime example..

It was a perfectly appropriate response to willful misunderstanding, no?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And?

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.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It was a perfectly appropriate response to willful misunderstanding, no?

At the very least I think it makes for a more interesting forum if we assume everybody here is honest, intelligent and capable of critical thought- I think you are.

 

[Sapiens]

If you were to comment, I thought you might find fault with him.. haha. I can only go off hsi words, and many others, that all say the same thing.

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.

 

[Sapiens]

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 excellent examples of the problems with retrospective statistics.

 

[Sapiens]

At the very least I think it makes for a more interesting forum if we assume everybody here is honest, intelligent and capable of critical thought- I think you are.

I make exactly that assumption and maintain it until proven wrong by willful ignorance and repeated logical fallacies.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

It's true, without that mediation, the Earth would tumble chaotically, complex life on the surface would be impossible- I think it's one of the greatest barriers to there being another 'Earth' we were talking about the staggering odds of the universe as a whole, but even within that, our planet is extraordinary, the more we learn the more we appreciate that- in all science, the trend has been towards exposing ever more extraordinary fine tuning needed for our existence. Not the other way around

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I make exactly that assumption and maintain it until proven wrong by willful ignorance and repeated logical fallacies.

he reiterates the same logical rationale that the vast majority of humanity, including many of our greatest scientists, have used to conclude that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

Either we are all intellectually inferior to you, or you are missing something, which do you think is more probable?

 

[Sapiens]

he reiterates the same logical rationale that the vast majority of humanity, including many of our greatest scientists, have used to conclude that chance does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

Either we are all intellectually inferior to you, or you are missing something, which do you think is more probable?

Based on the evidence it seems clear that you are half right. Do you really want to fasten your harness and have an intellectual potlatch to determine which half; and who has the best right to an argument from authority?