PrimalMinister

I am not a Christian. I am just interested in peoples view of intelligence. Just point out where I am going wrong and take it one stage at a time. Am I am right or wrong with this statement? For something to become actual it must first exist as potential.

Explain?

The thing is, for something to become actual, it must first exist as potential. Something cannot come into being if it does not have the potential to do so. This means that intelligence existed as potential before it came actual so the moment the universe began it contained with in it intelligence. So intelligence has existed from the beginning. Even if you start with nothing, this nothing is something, the potential to be something. These means that intelligence must have always existed.

So the laws of nature came first and then intelligence emerges out of that?

Why is intelligent design unnatural?

But intelligence is part of nature and reality? It is natural?

When scientists talk about things being 'natural' do they consider intelligence natural or supernatural?

I am writing this post because I have a theory of everything however I don't really want to talk about it because I have tried previously and the conversation has not gone particularly well. So first I am going to address the moderators as they are the ones that seem to make the most comments. Look, I do not think you are stupid. Here I am, some chump off the internet with no credentials claiming to have made the greatest scientific breakthrough of all time. This is in your eyes, and I don't totally blame you as I am sure you have seen it before, very unlikely, and because of this you are very sceptical. However, if you treat every case with the same hand wavy attitude you may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you are anything like Laurance Krauss I will assume that you are very good mathematicians but poor philosophers, he has explicitly said you don't need philosophy, you just need math and measurement. And this is the thing, I have met some brilliantly intelligent people, incredibly intelligent, but they are let down by the fact they are not incredibly wise. And of course philosophy literally means a love of wisdom. It’s like the big bang, physicists have all these sophisticated mathematical arguments for it but philosophically it is absurd. So I do think you moderators are very intelligent. However, is that intelligence just based on knowledge? Are you just knowledgable or are you also imaginative? Can you put that intelligence to use in solving problems or can you just regurgitate the orthodoxy? I am not interested in you just expressing knowledge, I want to see creativity from you. First of all, my theory of everything, which I don't want to discuss, solves the major problem of physics. So I would like to talk about this problem, I would especially like to see what nonsense is spouted in trying to explain it or explain it away as if it is no problem. I would like to see you show the same scepticism to the big bang you show my theory. And this is the problem, it really is the major problem of physics and solving it leads to a theory of everything. The problem is why is reality mathematical, why does it have the laws it does. This is not explained in any way, shape or form by contemporary physics and the current crop of physicists just don't seem interested in it. Now I have heard all the bogus claims that science explains the ‘hows’ and not the ‘whys’ but this really just is nonsense. My theory clearly and unequivocally explains why reality is mathematical, why it has the laws it does, and it does it both physically and metaphysically. So the idea that science only explains the hows is nonsense, it is quite capable of explaining the whys too. Furthermore, if you do spend time philosophising on problems like ‘why’ you soon formulate ‘how’ questions that contemporary physics doesn’t explain. Consequently there are ‘hows’ about the standard model that are not explained. So I would like to start a discussion on the question why reality is mathematical, why it has the laws it does. It may start philosophical but I am hoping that by breaking the problem down it becomes technical. So why is reality mathematical, why do we have the laws we do?

I have a framework for a theory of everything, but trying to discuss is difficult with the nazi like moderators. This post is not to discuss it. This post is about one of the problems with physics it solves. What I really want is for the contributors to this thread to use their intelligence to actually solve the problem, then they can have the same insight that lead me to the framework. The problem is, 'how did the laws of the universe get everywhere'? At present, there is no explanation for this, do you have a credible explanation of how the laws of the universe got everywhere or could you solve the puzzle of how.

I have a framework for a theory of everything that is worthy of discussion except the moderators keep shutting it down. They say there is no evidence for it but there is, its just that the discussion is usually stopped before it gets there. I do not think our current scientists are stupid but their philopsophy is no where near the level of their mathematics, their philosophy is poor. Its all good and well trumpeting our successes, looking over our vast and comprehensive knowledge and being proud, but there are some problems with physics, things it doesn't explain. This is what is most interesting, these unknowns. But there is a problem with that, if physicsts are anything like Laurance Krauss then they are not interested in philosophical conumdrums, he believes you just need to do math and measurement. The thing is, these problems with physics are largely philosophical in nature, until you have a breakthough that is, then it becomes a matter for science. I am preparing a presentation of the framework and will probably release it this year. I would like to discuss it but actually I am more interested in what other people think, especially about the problems with physics. For example, as far as I can tell sciences answer to the question 'how did the laws of the universe get everywhere' is that they did as if by magic. I thought scientists did not believe in magic, however the laws of the universe are just magically everywhere according to the current philosophy of physics. They do not word it that way of course, but its what they are basically saying.

That is an opinion, an opinion can change. The idea that the universe is a virtual reality machine composed of tiny generic polymorphic machines is not unscientific and its solves some of the problems with physics, namely the most important, why it is mathemathical or how the universe gets reality to conform to mathematics. This is the theory of everything scientists are looking for, except its only half the story, the other half is the story of life.

Actually, you can do more than that. You can look at the problems physics hasn't solved and come up with solutions. Interestingly enough it turns out you can't explain why reality is mathematical with an equation. About as much as scientists have for dark matter.

What exactly is the scientific concept of the universe at the moment, that it is a meaningless accident? To have a purpose, to be for life.

In his book A universe from nothing Laurance Krauss admits he doesn't why it is mathemathical, and you have not explained it with that sentence. You are welcome to expand.

Trivial smatterings of life is not what this framework predicts, in fact life is the main show and is a bit more, not a lot more, sophisticated than the picture current science describes. The physics bit is a bit of an anticlimax because it basically describes a virtual reality machine of infinite size composed entirely of tiny generic polymorphic machines that generate reality. I think its what David Bohm was trying to get to with his holomovement The universe and reality are not the same thing, the universe is real, reality is virtual. I don't believe the big bang happened, it stinks, inflation, dark matter and so on are just the modern version of circles within circles, added to make the theory work and not because of some underlying reason. Its a mystery as to why reality is mathemathical but 'why' is a bit philosophical, consequently the question unanswered by physics is how the universe gets reality to conform to mathemathics. Aren't most theories speculative. I am interested in what scientists would think of a theory of everything that describes a universe with a design (but no designer/creator).

Well in my framework its quite simple, it exists for life, for life to experience its wonders. Its just that the circle of life is a bit more, and only a bit more, sophisticated than the picture currently painted by science. I mean is it really a surprise we are here, in a universe that is both infinite in extent and age, everything that could have possibly happened has happened, and because its infinite, everything that can and has happened, has happened an infinite amount of times, nothing is new. Young universe scientists have this restricted view that they are the first to ponder these problems but in an infinite universe there must surely be, even if it is a low amount, an infinite amount of life. Furthermore, at least some of this life, its had an infinite amount of time, has evolved up to the maximum level of sophistication the universe can support, reaching the metaphorical end of the universe, the completion of knowledge. So is it any surprise that it is for life? Look at what we can do and where we are going futurewise. That we by chance evolved is nonsense, human beings existed as potential (their design) before we existed actually. Even if you believe the young universe human beings, all life, all technology we have created, existed as potential the moment the universe was created. We should not be surprised that the universe is for life.

I have a framework for a theory of everything , it solves unanswered questions about physics, namely 'why' reality is mathematical. Scientists have had a lot of success with the idea that reality is mathematical but interestingly, why it is mathematical still eludes them. This gives me an interesting perspective. The framework clearly, self evidently, describes a universe that has a design, without a designer in sight. It does not need nor does it support the christian/islamic idea of God, in fact the framework will be the final coffin in the slow death of these religions. But it will also interestingly prove that despite claims to objectivity, scientists have their beliefs. There is a chance I am not correct, its only a framework, but after 15 years its likely I have realised out how the universe works on the most fundamental level. Design: purpose or planning that exists behind an action, fact, or object. My framework describes a universe with a purpose, therefore a design. But there is no sign of a designer/creator because the universe is immortal, eternal therefore you can only talk metaphorically about beginnings, ultimatly there was no beginning, therefore no creator/designer. So its possible for the universe to have a design without a designer.

Are you saying that it is impossible for the universe to have a design and it is a mere accident for sure?

My question was what would be the reaction if it did have a design, not whether it was true or not.

The theory of everything could state that the universe has a design without being designed. For example, if the universe is immortal, eternal, then there is no need for a creator as it was not created. But its possible that it could still have a design. The universe has always been more sophisticated than us, I think we are only just beginning to realise how sophisticated it is. Young universe scientists kind of live in this bubble where they are under the impression that they are quite possibly the first life to ever ponder these problems.

What would happen if the theory of everything that physicts are looking for proved the universe had a design (but no designer). How do you think scientists would react?

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.

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?

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?

So if intelligent design is effectivily 'where is the line' why is it not science?