Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 

 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


Extropia, Spike, excellent dialog. I enjoyed it very much.

RedQuist, excellent lecture by James Tour.

God (or no God) my head is aching!

There are several books out there that call into question the theory of spontanious atheistic creation: BIOCOSM and THE INTELLIGENT UNIVERSE.







Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/2/2019, 10:09 pm
12/2/2019, 9:44 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


Biocosm assumes the Big Bang theory is correct. It is as if somebody read Alan Guth’s comment about the idea of inflation making it possible in theory to create a universe in a laboratory and then turned that idea into a book. Problem is, it contains a major flaw in that it assumes the Big Bang theory is correct.

I don’t know how to set up Spiko’s experiment. Nor do I know how to build a particle accelerator or work a Z-pinch machine. I assume those who develop the theories I report on second or third-hand do have the requisite knowledge, particularly when the results of such experiments have been accepted by literally everyone save one nuisance on a runboard forum.



12/3/2019, 1:57 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


You're not a very good apologist for your religion.

---
Spikosaur, of the Uncircumcised Umbrella, Prophet to The Collectors, OA, RMC

Hail Apostle Paul
Praise to Founder Bunny
Glory to the Objects
12/3/2019, 2:37 am Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


Yes well nobody ever thought a beholder of a religious belief that conflicts with their own was good did they? No, they believe they are evil. Or deluded. Or both.

Meanwhile Darwinism remains the closest thing we have to an explanation for functional complexity, the universe continues to baffle Big Bangers and confirm plasma cosmology and God continues to be impossible to refute and therefore still offers something to those who are desperate to believe in that sort of thing.
12/3/2019, 4:55 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


I don't believe you are evil.

---
Spikosaur, of the Uncircumcised Umbrella, Prophet to The Collectors, OA, RMC

Hail Apostle Paul
Praise to Founder Bunny
Glory to the Objects
12/3/2019, 9:21 am Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
James Jaeger Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


As I have followed this argument and the talk by James Tour, it dawned on me that part of the problem with this discussion (as engaged in by hunams) might be our definition of the word "God."

In short, how can a finite mind define a term that represents an infinite mind?

If we can't effectively define the term "God," how can scientists, like Tour or any others, speculate that Life is a function of God or universal intelligence?

We don't even know if "intelligence" has anything to do with God -- we are just assuming it has. Maybe "God" is not "intelligent" at all, but something far beyond ... or nothing at all.

Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/3/2019, 10:26 pm
12/3/2019, 2:22 pm Link to this post PM James Jaeger Blog
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


If you read the book ‘A History Of God’ it becomes pretty clear that the statement ‘I believe in God’ has meant different things to different people at different times. Therein lies this concept’s greatest strength and greatest weakness. A concept as malleable and vague as ‘god’ can be retrofitted to suit whatever reality we observe. Is the sky filled with cosmic lightning and does Venus have a spectacular tail of fire (comparative mythology provides hints that our ancestors witnessed such things). Gods who throw lightning bolts and spit fire ‘explain’ such events. Does life seem quite harsh? It certainly did to the pioneers who built America. The Calvinist god, who was rather harsh and judgemental, fits in nicely with such an experience. Even if the universe seems godless one can say that there is a god, actually; one very good at hiding from us.

So ‘god’ is an explanation for everything.

Why does life exists? It’s a function of God.

Where did AIDS come from? God made AIDS

Why do I hate the taste of Brussels Sprouts? God made me that way.

I can go on and on providing ‘explanations’ like this. But an ‘explanation’ that can be retrofitted to any question is no explanation for anything. It’s just an admission of ignorance, no better than saying ‘I don’t know’ where AIDS came from or why life exists, only far more dishonest than a straightforward admission of ignorance.

Now you could say the same with a supposition like ‘Universe is eternal, it is in its very nature to exist and therefore any inquiry into its origins is nonsensical’. I might just as well have said ‘I don’t know why the universe exists or how it came to be’. But at least with the universe it makes its presence known every time we open our eyes and ears, every time we touch something or perform any kind of measurement whatsoever. We clearly can take Existence’s existence for granted. There’s no need to go that extra step and posit the existence of god (conveniently retrofitted to fit in with however Existence seems to us).
12/4/2019, 2:26 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


I will attempt to answer James' question and Ex's with one explanation.

While pondering a theory proposed by Stephen Wolfram, I realized a problem. He argues that everything we experience could be the manifestation of a cellular automaton. What I realized is that he takes for granted the substrate the automaton runs on. A cellular automaton typically has a simple rule, but the rule typically manifests on a computer that's function is vastly more complicated than the automaton itself. I realized this is a basic problem with how people perceive the universe. They are looking for simple rules, but fail to take into account all the problems involved in maintaining such rules. The typical fallback position is that these rules "just are". I realized that this fallback position is a rationalization, and not a very compelling one.

I started to think, Could there be some rule that exists independently of any substrate? Could there be something that is true anywhere and at all times without anyone needing to believe in it or any system to support it?

It occurred to me that there was such a rule. It is the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction. In human terms, the rule says that for any given proposition P, P is either true or it is false. I.e. there is nothing that is both true and false.

Then, I got to thinking about what this suggested about the universe. The demand that any proposition is either true or false requires that every possible proposition is either true or false. So, how many possible propositions are there?

If you just start thinking about everything you could think of as being either true or false, you quickly realize that the possibilities must be equal to the largest cardinal number. In other words, the possible number of propositions is equal the limit as n approaches infinity of Aleph (The symbol for large cardinalities) subscript n. This is an unimaginably uncountable level of infinity.

However, there is an additional problem. Not only does every proposition have to be either true or false, but its truth or falsehood cannot contradict any other proposition's truth value. Studies of logical systems have shown that that they are rife with problems having to do with internal contradictions. Moreover, it has been shown that no system that a human can imagine is complete. All such systems lead to questions that cannot be resolved within the system. This is Kurt Godel's famous incompleteness theorem.

What I propose is that the very problem of existence calls for a "choice" of the logical system that all of existence must follow. Logical systems devised by humans can afford to be incomplete because they only have to address problems that humans are interested in. However, the system that describes the universe must be complete. Otherwise it cannot meet the demands of existence. Therefore, this choice must be so vast and so intricate that the choice itself is equivalent to a thought of uncountably infinite scale and complexity. This "thought" is God.

With this idea in mind, it becomes clear that, as James suggests, God is not an intelligence, but something far more difficult to wrap one's mind around. God is an infinitely vast and complex choice function that maps possibility to actuality. However, when one grasps the scope of this choice function, one realizes that it contains every aspect that we would call intelligence or consciousness. It is not less than intelligence. Intelligence is a subset of this choice function.

Kurt Godel, along with his incompleteness theorem, also made a proof of the existence of God. I believe that he may have been on a track similar to the one that I am on. Moreover, I suspect that some day very soon, someone or something will develop a proof that is satisfactory to everyone. They will recognize that existence itself is equivalent to a logical system that, in order to be complete, must be infinite in every respect.

Once this proof is made, people will accept that there is a higher "thought" that governs them all and they will henceforth act accordingly.

Last edited by Spikosauropod, 12/4/2019, 4:01 am


---
Spikosaur, of the Uncircumcised Umbrella, Prophet to The Collectors, OA, RMC

Hail Apostle Paul
Praise to Founder Bunny
Glory to the Objects
12/4/2019, 3:35 am Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


>A cellular automaton typically has a simple rule, but the rule typically manifests on a computer that's function is vastly more complicated than the automaton itself<

CAs don’t have to run on computers. It is convenient to use computers because they can cycle through the recursive alogorithms quickly enough for our minds to perceive the results as ‘coming alive’. I used to have such a program on my iPad and it was fun to fill in random ‘cells’ and then sit back and watch as all kinds of shapes flowered and wandered over the scene. But the same thing could have been accomplished with pencil and paper or pebbles on a chessboard. Still, that would have required my manually manipulating the pieces and I guess Spiko would say I can’t just take my complexity as given if we are trying to explain how functional complexity came to be.

It seems to me that any successful attempt to explain functional complexity cannot compound the problem because if it does the problem is not solved. So, appealing to an ‘infinitely vast and complex choice function’ that pre-exists and is the prime mover of all else gets us nowhere, even before you then go and apply the word ‘god’ with all the nonsense rituals and superstitions that come with such a concept.

There has only ever been one decent attempt to explain functional complexity. Spiko talked about computers. My iPad is a very sophisticated computer but it did not come into existence spontaneously. It was the latest generation of a family of computers. If you trace that lineage backwards, you will find earlier computers that were not quite as sophisticated. If we try and imagine an iPad coming into existence from scratch we come up against a fantastically improbable coincidence (an impossibility by all practical intents and purposes). But if we imagine the iPad as part of a generation of computers, built from a foundation of knowledge that has been gradually building in complexity, now the step from pre-existing knowledge to the iPad is not a miracle, just a reasonable advance from what we already know.

Now there are differences between how tech evolves and how life evolves but the key insight remains. You can avoid appeals to greater complexity in order to explain complexity by positing not one gigantic miraculous chance event (‘life appeared as if conjoured into existence by god’) but a long series of small steps, each step modest enough for it to be possible for it to come about by chance. And of course each step in this sequence of cummulative selection need not be what we finite beings who think ‘one in a million’ is infinitesimal is remotely possible, but what can happen in a universe of quadrillions of galaxies and billions of years (maybe even an eternity.

So Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace were the only people who came even remotely close to successfully explaining how functional complexity came about. All else has been hand-waving appeals to miracles.
12/4/2019, 5:04 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

It seems to me that any successful attempt to explain functional complexity cannot compound the problem because if it does the problem is not solved. So, appealing to an ‘infinitely vast and complex choice function’ that pre-exists and is the prime mover of all else gets us nowhere,


The way I set this up can create a misinterpretation. I am not saying that an infinitely complex choice function is the source of complexity. What I am saying is that an infinitely complex choice function is inherent to the system.

Allow me to present an analogy. The Pythagorean theorem seems to be more complex than the axioms that are used to prove it. The first time the Pythagorean theorem was proven, someone might have gotten the impression that the proof made it true. Actually, the theorem was always true. That truth is identical to the axioms that were used to prove it.

The way the human brain works causes us to continually look for simple rules to explain complex things. Consequently, we look for simple axioms to prove things like the Pythagorean theorem. However, this results in a misunderstanding of how reality works. Reality is not bottom up or top down. It is a set of equivalencies. We use simple axioms to prove the Pythagorean theorem, but we fail to realize that the Pythagorean theorem also proves the simple axioms.

Similarly, the infinitely complex choice function is equivalent to the most fundamental truth of existence: the law of non contradiction. We can call this choice function anything we like, but since it contains every possible definition of God, we may as well call it that.

God is not an explanation of anything. God is inevitable. God is truth. God would be true even if we were not here and did not observe the complexity around us. Even if I were not attempting to explain anything, God would still be the explanation. God has no logical complement. That God may not exist is simply a meaningless statement.

---
Spikosaur, of the Uncircumcised Umbrella, Prophet to The Collectors, OA, RMC

Hail Apostle Paul
Praise to Founder Bunny
Glory to the Objects
12/4/2019, 1:36 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top