Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About PrimalMinister

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In science, computing, and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs, without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is "opaque". Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain. The universe is a black box, phycists dont understand how the universe is implemented. To 'read the mind of god' we have to crack the black box, cracking this black box will explain why the universe is mathematical and will lead to a theory of everything. All the other problems of physics are minor, this is the major problem and the one at least some phycists should be working on.
  2. The problems mentioned would be small science as referred to in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that is, the belief is that we have the basic model right and it just needs tweaking. I think dark matter, energy, flow, radiation and so on are actually just a modern version of circles within circles, continually trying to fix something that is fundamentally wrong. I think the big problem with physics is why reality is mathemathical. We have had great success with the idea that reality is mathemathical but why it is still seems to illude us. These is interesting for me because I don't believe that is magically mathematical, there surely must be some sort of logic, some reason or reasons why it is mathemathical. So why do you think it is mathematical? If why is too philosophical, how is the universe getting reality to conform to mathemathics?
  3. When I read about physics I cannot help but think that phycists maybe barking up the wrong tree, as outlined in an article titled 'Is Theoretical Physics Wasting Our Best Living Minds On Nonsense?'. They don't seem to be answering what is surely the most important question, in fact phycists like Laurance Krauss don't think its important at all, he seems happy to just take it for granted. So my question is what is the deepest mystery of physics and why is it so?
  4. So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?
  5. We have evidence of the design process of laptops, laptops were designed by us. I am not so interested that, I guess that is the job of intelligent design proponents (which is what I am asking). Its just that I have looked at intelligent design and it seems to all boil down to this point, where is the line. But its often presented as something different from people disparaging intelligent design, I just wonder whether they have honestly looked at it. There is clearly a line, its just undefined, but isn't it legitimate to ask where that line is? Creativity is a strange creature in science, its there but not really acknowledged. Like in evolutionary theory, creativity is the mutations, random, but at the same time creative. Evolution via natural selection cannot be the whole answer. Natural selection is a passive attribute of the universe, not an active one, its not creative, its the mutations that are creative. These natural process people talk about are all passive attributes of the universe, that is how science defines them. All of them. Modern science is not about creativity, none of it, its all about passive attributes of the universe. To borrow a concept from a different culture, scientific models are inherently Yin like (from the Yin and Yang of the Tao), they do not describe creative processes, they can't, by design they are not creative. Creativity exists in the universe, we are creative, we are evidence the universe supports creativity. But is the universe as creative as we are? Not according to our models which model only the passive attributes of the universe. But creativity creeps in, its just not really discussed. But its there.
  6. Look, I am not saying there is anything supernatural, there isn't. But if you exclude life, and just look at the actions of the universe, there is no combination of natural forces that could create a laptop, natural forces are just not that creative. That means there is a threshold, a line above which, the universe cannot create. A laptop is evidence of that, it crosses that line.
  7. Do you mean what happens if someone finds out natural processes can create laptops?
  8. I am not interested in a designer, that is not the point of my question. My question is, is it legitimate to ask where that line is, because there is a line. Intelligent designers exist, we are intelligent designers, my evidence for intelligent designers existing is us. Whether there is a God or not, there isn't, is irrelevant.
  9. No, I am saying surely a laptop cannot be created by natural processess, which means there is a line which natural processes (excluding life) cant go beyond. You say the line doesn't exist when it clearly does, the universe is not creative enough to create a laptop by itself, so a laptop crosses the line. The line is there.
  10. So natural processes (excluding us, intelligent agents) can create laptops? What combination of the wind blowing, lightening striking or other natural processes are going to create a laptop. I don't believe in any God nonsense but intelligent agents exist, we are intelligent agents.
  11. My question is, could intelligent design be legitimate if it actually did some science? For example, a laptop has the signiture of intelligent design, no one would say that a laptop is the product of natural forces, it quite clearly has an intelligent agent(s) behind it. Surely it is legitimate to ask where the line between natural forces and intelligence is? I don't think intelligence design proponents do any science regarding where this line is, but there must be a limit to natural processes after which something becomes the product of intelligence. I am not an intelligent design proponent, I am just curious. A lot of stuff I read about disparaging intelligent design doesn't seem to mention this, even though it seems a legitimate question to ask. So would intelligent design become legitimate if studies they did clearly defined that line so it could be applied to real world examples to see if they are the product of natural causes or intelligence?
  12. We are told that spacetime bends and warps in the presence of mass. If we remove this mass does the spacetime straighten out again? If so what causes this.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.