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

## Recommended Posts

To my surprise science could never explain how the universe works if it is governed by some underlying intelligence. That would be misunderstanding the 'everything'.

Where are the limits of everything? Technological only?

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

Reference:

• Replies 84
• Created

#### Popular Posts

It's intellectual dishonesty coming from you. Only you mentioned the word mediation and you wrote it in your post. Prove me wrong. Try to be more careful with the terms and with the logic when yo

All right. I can continue then.   These are your words. It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but wh

-1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules. Really bad form, kartazion!

#### Posted Images

Unless that force wants to be undetectable.

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, QuantumT said:

Unless that force wants to be undetectable.

I do not understand. Because if this force is detected, how would you be if it is intelligent?

____________________

I prefer summarized like this:

Quote

The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains eleven-dimensional M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory (a theory, based on an early model of the universe, proposed by Albert Einstein and other physicists) may not exist.

It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.

How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe?

This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not?

If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe?

This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not?

If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how?

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kartazion said:

How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe?

Hawking worked in mysterious ways...

##### Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

If you read between the lines you see that God can also exist. To say that 'invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe', is ambiguous. This description does not say that it/he does not exist.

23 hours ago, joigus said:

Hawking worked in mysterious ways...

Why ? Quantum physics is not it? Mysterious?

The theory of everything should be able to answer:

- Yes, we can prove it. How?
- No, we can't prove it. Why?

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

I now understand why no one is answering correctly.

Kartazion

##### Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

I now understand why no one is answering correctly.

No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking:

Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything

It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO.

##### Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

Ooh, scary! Good thing we Deep State/Global Government to keep the general public in the dark.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking:

Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything

It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO.

Ridiculous as a metaphor.

The world that runs the universe I'm talking about is not a world made of candy and people. Don't tell me that extraterrestrials would be at the origin of the Big Bang.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

Ooh, scary! Good thing we Deep State/Global Government to keep the general public in the dark.

But no official announcement from that side I imagine.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

Why couldn't it be revealed?

##### Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Ridiculous as a metaphor.

It's not a metaphor; it's an analogy. Do you know the difference?

##### Share on other sites
14 hours ago, joigus said:

No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking:

Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything

It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO.

##### Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question?

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

It's only embarrassing for you. Because it shows you have an irrational dependence on an imaginary friend, for validation. No?

If you could prove that a god exists, I don't think it would change much for the general public; which god, which ethnicity, which gender etc...

##### Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No?

I now understand why no one is answering correctly.

I still would like to know why 'it would it be impossible to reveal to the general public'?

##### Share on other sites

I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public.

Edited by joigus
##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you could prove that a god exists, I don't think it would change much for the general public

All right. I can continue then.

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question?

It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.

26 minutes ago, joigus said:

I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public.

It's because you said it yourself:

I do not know why this commentary has disappeared from the thread. But is still present on your profile.

##### Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, joigus said:

I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public.

Mostly because; he/she/it has no idea what he/she/it is talking about..

5 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

All right. I can continue then.

Please do, however, I can't promise to shit in the right place...

Edited by dimreepr
##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.

-1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

-1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules.

Bufofrog... you are unable to prove that I said these words.

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Bufofrog... you are unable to prove that I said these words.

!

Moderator Note

It's there for all to read.  You added words to an attribution to make it fit your point, words joigus didn't say. That's fallacious and unethical. You need to take a vacation, and we need a vacation from such intellectual dishonesty.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.

Thanks @Bufofrog and @Phi for All for noticing and acting accordingly. I was asking --rhetorically-- and Kartazion removed the question words so that the rhetoric was changed.

Edited by joigus
##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Boo. Bad form. Really one of the worst offenses you can perpetrate on this site.

##### Share on other sites
• 1 month later...

I don't know what you're talking about.

Apparently the rhetoric you allude to, and that you thought you saw, is completely absurd and does not hold up.

Look, I reiterate with a simple definition in bold:

On 10/26/2020 at 12:40 PM, joigus said:

Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question?

These are your words which are stupid.

It's a total ineptitude to ask that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.

##### Share on other sites

@Kartazion. Here's the point. Apparently you're clueless.

Your question ( $$Q$$ ), rests on a notion. Let's call that notion $$W$$,

$$Q =$$ Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe?

$$W =$$ an intelligent world

Now, let's introduce another notion, equally arbitrary:

$$W' =$$ 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but which communicate so as to generate a meta-intelligence

(An intelligence that cannot be achieved by any of them, but by their mutual cooperation: Mind you, cells are stupid, but they manage to produce intelligence in a brain, so the analogy is not that far-fetched.)

Let's establish an isomorphism $$\varPhi$$:

$\varPhi\left(W\right)=W'$

$\varPhi\left(Q\left(W\right)\right)=\left(Q\left(\varPhi\left(W\right)\right)\right)=Q\left(W'\right)$

IOW, my question is your question disguised under an isomorphism. And I don't know how "stupid" it is. But it's your question.

6 hours ago, Kartazion said:

These are your words which are stupid.

--yawn.

Edited by joigus
##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×