Jump to content

Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything


Kartazion

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

A mysterious world that would make no sense to us. A quantum world, with bursts of energy which structures the particles thanks to the directing fields, intelligent or not.
The very structure of the universe what. A world that would be capable of generating billions of stars with phenomenal quantities of energy.

Can you imagine for a moment the size of our universe?

If so, then how much balls of jello would it take to generate such a universe?

At this point, I must conclude, either:

1) You are intellectually challenged

2) You are being purposefully disingenuous

3) You are in an altered state of conscience

I see no other possibilities.

Will you ever get my point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

Zero. We have a model that doesn’t require any.

I suspected it a little. That's why I found it a little strange this jelly story.

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

Will you ever get my point?

No. Not too much.

On the other hand as swansont puts it, we don't need a balls of jelly to make the Standard Model of our universe work. So I gave you the number n°* for this balls of jello story. It's because I'm used to talking about quantum or nuclear physics. That why.

 

guess

.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

If someone thinks an intelligent agent is required, they own the burden of proof conclusively showing this requirement

I will surely say nonsense, but would that not be there a form of 'intelligence' in the behavior of the Higgs boson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, iNow said:

4) Some combination of those 

I forgot that one, thank you. Apparently the intelligence that rules it all does it at the price of producing thickness at some places.

19 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

guess

I know what you did. You are easier to guess than a ball of jello. Let alone 17.

 

22 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I will surely say nonsense [...]

Agreed.

23 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

[...] but would that not be there a form of 'intelligence' in the behavior of the Higgs boson?

See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you proffered a similar scenario.

I didn't do it on purpose.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Where’s the evidence for it?

No evidence. But it is because of what you said that there are :

Quote

Zero. We have a model that doesn’t require any.

Zero candies in the Standard Model.


Did I answer correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I didn't do it on purpose.

No evidence. But it is because of what you said that there are :

Zero candies in the Standard Model.


Did I answer correctly?

You said “Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe.”

What part was accidental?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

You said “Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe.”

What part was accidental?

I answer as a novice. I do not see any constraint in this request. Just the part 'Science should be able to determine' in 'Science is able to determine'. Because science could, and this in my opinion, determine whether the underlying and canonical functioning of the universe is randomly distributed or not.

I saw that we were talking about a God particle linked to a book related to the Higgs boson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kartazion said:

I answer as a novice. I do not see any constraint in this request. Just the part 'Science should be able to determine' in 'Science is able to determine'. Because science could, and this in my opinion, determine whether the underlying and canonical functioning of the universe is randomly distributed or not.

“Randomly distributed” doesn’t describe the functioning of the universe. But that’s not the issue.

It appears to follow laws. If an intelligence were involved those laws still apply, so it doesn’t matter if an intelligence was involved; the intelligence doesn’t override the laws. Things wouldn’t look any different. So there’s no reason to think science should be able to determine this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, swansont said:

“Randomly distributed” doesn’t describe the functioning of the universe. But that’s not the issue.

It appears to follow laws. If an intelligence were involved those laws still apply, so it doesn’t matter if an intelligence was involved; the intelligence doesn’t override the laws. Things wouldn’t look any different. So there’s no reason to think science should be able to determine this.

But during a nuclear fusion for example, the distribution is done, and in terms of radiation, in a random or structured way?

Intelligence is being able to choose between several results where each of these paths are of course subject to the same laws.

Erratum. I spoke of radiation. I should rather speak of particle emission like the neutron for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

But during a nuclear fusion for example, the distribution is done, and in terms of radiation, in a random or structured way?

The distribution of what? How are you using “random”?

 

10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Intelligence is being able to choose between several results where each of these paths are of course subject to the same laws.

Erratum. I spoke of radiation. I should rather speak of particle emission like the neutron for example.

And yet these processes follow patterns described by statistics, exactly what you’d expect if there were probabilities in play, rather than some entity making a choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

The distribution of what? How are you using “random”?

We agree that when the sun shines, and by its nuclear fusion, photons are released and are distributed in space. Do you think for a moment that such and such a photon goes in such and such a direction how? Randomly? Or in a controlled way?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

And yet these processes follow patterns described by statistics, exactly what you’d expect if there were probabilities in play, rather than some entity making a choice.

Biology structures particles according to the genetic code of DNA and cannot do otherwise. Yet the result in the form of living or organism beings is however endowed with intelligence and can decide what he wants to do as he wishes and without there being any rules and laws. How do you explain that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

We agree that when the sun shines, and by its nuclear fusion, photons are released and are distributed in space. Do you think for a moment that such and such a photon goes in such and such a direction how? Randomly? Or in a controlled way?

The overall pattern is random, so the emission is isotropic.  

 

8 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Biology structures particles according to the genetic code of DNA and cannot do otherwise. 

Yes. The results of chemistry are not random. If you mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, you primarily end up with H2O and not some random combination of the atoms.

 

8 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yet the result in the form of living or organism beings is however endowed with intelligence and can decide what he wants to do as he wishes

Not sure how we made the leap all the way over to biology, but evolution explains this. 

 

8 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

and without there being any rules and laws. How do you explain that?

Oh, there are still rules. Can you float without assistance, just because you wish to? Can you run 100m in 3 seconds? You can’t “do as you wish”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

The overall pattern is random, so the emission is isotropic.  

But the emitted photon can arrive at a final destination location in a premeditated manner.

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. The results of chemistry are not random. If you mix hydrogen and oxygen and add a spark, you primarily end up with H2O and not some random combination of the atoms.

But just a random gas expansion.

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not sure how we made the leap all the way over to biology, but evolution explains this. 

They are neither more nor less than elementary particles agglomerated in motion.

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

Oh, there are still rules. Can you float without assistance, just because you wish to? Can you run 100m in 3 seconds? You can’t “do as you wish”

I didn't mean to say that we can defy the laws of physics. But just that we are arbitrary in our decisions. We have the choice to run or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But the emitted photon can arrive at a final destination location in a premeditated manner.

How can you show this?

6 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But just a random gas expansion.

Gas expansion follows laws.

6 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

They are neither more nor less than elementary particles agglomerated in motion.

More, I would say

6 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I didn't mean to say that we can defy the laws of physics. But just that we are arbitrary in our decisions. We have the choice to run or not.

So? How does free will imply an intelligent agent running the universe? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, swansont said:

How can you show this?

Simply because some of these photons reach us here on earth to interact with the electron of matter encountered.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Gas expansion follows laws.

Yes the famous fluid mechanics.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

More, I would say

Can you give me the relevant example which adds the more?

6 hours ago, swansont said:

So? How does free will imply an intelligent agent running the universe? 

It is not our choices that make the universe work this way. I want to make it clear that the universe follows the rules that it owns, and AFAIK only living beings are endowed with this free will. The universe does not give itself the choice and follows the stages of evolution until us. It is these stages of evolution that I suspect to be not hazardous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Simply because some of these photons reach us here on earth to interact with the electron of matter encountered.

How does that show premeditation?

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Can you give me the relevant example which adds the more?

Biological beings are literally “more than elementary particles agglomerated in motion” There are more and different interactions than you have between elementary particles (e.g chemical bonds) There is the emergent behavior that you mentioned. 

 

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It is not our choices that make the universe work this way. 

That’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with our choices.

 

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I want to make it clear that the universe follows the rules that it owns, and AFAIK only living beings are endowed with this free will. 

You have yet to establish that the laws of the universe are equivalent to free will. You just made an argument against this notion.

 

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The universe does not give itself the choice and follows the stages of evolution until us. It is these stages of evolution that I suspect to be not hazardous.

Again, irrelevant. The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with whether the universe can make a choice.

Not hazardous? What does that mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It is not our choices that make the universe work this way. I want to make it clear that the universe follows the rules that it owns, and AFAIK only living beings are endowed with this free will. The universe does not give itself the choice and follows the stages of evolution until us. It is these stages of evolution that I suspect to be not hazardous.

Ironically, evolution depends on hazards; it's not a choice, it's an explanation. 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kartazion said:

But the emitted photon can arrive at a final destination location in a premeditated manner.

Meditated by whom? Can you write something that makes some sense for a change?

This "meditation" involves the wave equation. Why do you call it meditation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Meditated by whom? Can you write something that makes some sense for a change?

A creator. Some call him/her/it God.

9 hours ago, joigus said:

Why do you call it meditation?

Are you confused a bit there?

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ironically, evolution depends on hazards; it's not a choice, it's an explanation. 

Can you give me a source of your claim, namely the fact that evolution depends on hazard?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

How does that show premeditation?

It is indeed the aim of my main question to find out; if we can determine it by science or not.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Biological beings are literally “more than elementary particles agglomerated in motion” There are more and different interactions than you have between elementary particles (e.g chemical bonds) There is the emergent behavior that you mentioned. 

The chemical bond? What does it make of the chemical bond its particularity if it is not that particles bound or agglomerated as I indicated above?

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s irrelevant, isn’t it? The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with our choices.

That's what I'm saying. It is not our choices that make the universe work this way.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

You have yet to establish that the laws of the universe are equivalent to free will. You just made an argument against this notion.

The same. It is indeed the origin of these laws of immutable physics that ultimately lead us to be able to make choices in life.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Again, irrelevant. The divide is between some intelligence, somewhere, running the universe, and the absence of that. Nothing to do with whether the universe can make a choice.

The universe does not make a choice. It follows the laws of physics. So where does the origin of our free will come from? The universe is only the visible part of what constitutes us. And it is thanks to nuclear fusion (among other things) that we subsist here and now.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Not hazardous? What does that mean?

Hazardous of hazard (chance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Are you confused a bit there?

No. I know where I'm going, and I know where you're going. Confused by an idea that was discarded as superstition in the Ionian islands 26 centuries ago? Why should I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Can you give me a source of your claim, namely the fact that evolution depends on hazard?

This is central to evolutionary theory. You will likely have heard the somewhat trite summary of natural selection as "survival of the fittest". The fittest are those having the genes that, on average, best equip them to survive the hazards of their environment. Consult any relevant textbook for details. Without stresses placed on organisms by hazards their could be no meaningful selection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, joigus said:

No. I know where I'm going, and I know where you're going. Confused by an idea that was discarded as superstition in the Ionian islands 26 centuries ago? Why should I?

10 hours ago, joigus said:

Why do you call it meditation?

Simply It's because I never call anything mediation. Where did you get that word from? Have you confused it with the word premeditated?

9 minutes ago, Area54 said:

This is central to evolutionary theory. You will likely have heard the somewhat trite summary of natural selection as "survival of the fittest". The fittest are those having the genes that, on average, best equip them to survive the hazards of their environment. Consult any relevant textbook for details. Without stresses placed on organisms by hazards their could be no meaningful selection.

Indeed the word was badly chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

It is indeed the aim of my main question to find out; if we can determine it by science or not.

But you can’t or won’t properly frame the question. 

 

Quote

The chemical bond? What does it make of the chemical bond its particularity if it is not that particles bound or agglomerated as I indicated above?

Chemical bonds are not the same as the interaction between elementary particles.

 

Quote

That's what I'm saying. It is not our choices that make the universe work this way.

That was never in question, or one of the options under discussion.

 

Quote

The same. It is indeed the origin of these laws of immutable physics that ultimately lead us to be able to make choices in life.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. All these non-sequiturs only serve to disrupt and distract.

 

Quote

The universe does not make a choice. It follows the laws of physics.

Right. Which makes this another distraction. 

 

Quote

So where does the origin of our free will come from? 

Can you please focus on the topic that you introduced? Open a thread on free will if you want to discuss free will.

 

Quote

 

Hazardous of hazard (chance).

Not really the clarification I had hoped for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Indeed the word was badly chosen.

@Area54 Sorry, I was wrong. That was not what I meant as a sentence.

I will answer you correctly. Thank you

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you can’t or won’t properly frame the question. 

 

Chemical bonds are not the same as the interaction between elementary particles.

 

That was never in question, or one of the options under discussion.

 

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. All these non-sequiturs only serve to disrupt and distract.

 

Right. Which makes this another distraction. 

 

Can you please focus on the topic that you introduced? Open a thread on free will if you want to discuss free will.

 

Not really the clarification I had hoped for.

Ok.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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.