Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, joigus said:

(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.)

Yes. So why make a weird analogy when we already have appropriate terms?

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Let's establish an isomorphism Φ :

You should have started there.

4 hours ago, joigus said:

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

Yes, you simply try to embed gibberish in a mathematical formula.

But I'm more used to talk about elementary particles or fields that candy and people to explain how the universe works. That's why.

4 hours ago, joigus said:

--yawn.

Stupid or ridiculous does not mean impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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

20 hours ago, Kartazion said:

You should have started there.

Why? You'd be equally clueless. You still are.

20 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Yes, you simply try to embed gibberish in a mathematical formula.

Exactly, to make a point. And you still don't understand, I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 2:43 AM, Kartazion said:

@zapatos @joigus @Phi for All

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:

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.

Why would you resurrect a thread in which you clearly struggled? 

I think I know, but I'd love to hear your excuse reason...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, joigus said:

Why? You'd be equally clueless. You still are.

No clueless of what? From the answer to my main question?

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Exactly, to make a point. And you still don't understand, I see.

I'm not trying to figure out how it works, but just getting a science expert answer to my main question. I opened this thread related to this one question.

48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why would you resurrect a thread in which you clearly struggled? 

I think I know, but I'd love to hear your excuse reason...

Ah yes of course I forgot that it is forbidden to write on a thread that is several weeks old.

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

He clearly just wanted to call joigus stupid and inept

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Shush, you're giving him a clue...

The clue is that these are just the words that are ridiculous or stupid. Surely not him. I clearly just wanted to call gibberish stupid and inept.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Yes, you simply try to embed gibberish in a mathematical formula.

Why is joigus’s question gibberish while yours is not?

2 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Ah yes of course I forgot that it is forbidden to write on a thread that is several weeks old.

There was no temporal component to the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The clue is that these are just the words that are ridiculous or stupid. Surely not him. I clearly just wanted to call gibberish stupid and inept.

The clue is, you don't understand the question...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kartazion,

You proposed the idea that an "intelligent world" rules our universe. Ok. What is that world? Where is it? How do you define its "intelligence"? How does it relate to "the universe". Why another "world" besides the world? You do not bother to justify at any length what you say, and not only you expect everybody to make a rational argument from it, but you get angry with me to the point of being insulting when I show you that your non-argument is vague at best, by substituting "intelligent world" for some equally ad hoc notion, shoehorned into the same question.

I think a change in your attitude is in order if you want to raise your standards a little bit and get people to respect you as a valid interlocutor.

I don't care for your insults, nor do I care for your neg-reps attacks. Nor do I care for your apologies, but if you want to offer your apologies, I will accept them.

I will keep trying to call on you to raise your rational standards.

--knock, knock, anybody there?

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why is joigus’s question gibberish while yours is not?

There was no temporal component to the question.

Ok.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

The clue is, you don't understand the question...

But what question are you talking about?

36 minutes ago, joigus said:

You proposed the idea that an "intelligent world" rules our universe. Ok.

No I ask the question of knowing if it is simply possible. This is not affirmative.

37 minutes ago, joigus said:

What is that world? Where is it? How do you define its "intelligence"? How does it relate to "the universe". Why another "world" besides the world? You do not bother to justify at any length what you say, and not only you expect everybody to make a rational argument from it, but you get angry with me to the point of being insulting when I show you that your non-argument is vague at best, by substituting "intelligent world" for some equally ad hoc notion, shoehorned into the same question.

Why make a big deal out of it for a simple question?

38 minutes ago, joigus said:

I don't care for your insults, nor do I care for your neg-reps attacks. Nor do I care for your apologies, but if you want to offer your apologies, I will accept them.

To say that words are ridiculous is not an insult.

41 minutes ago, joigus said:

--knock, knock, anybody there?

You know I'm here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 9:22 PM, Kartazion said:

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'.

Science doesn’t require the hypothesis, so why would it try explain? How would the universe look if this were the case?

 

Quote

Why make a big deal out of it for a simple question?

That’s a dodge. The point here is that it’s not a simple question, because you have not clarified important points that are crucial for answering. It’s an ambiguous question. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kartazion said:

You know I'm here.

You still don't understand the argument that everybody else has understood. Got it?

You're still not here. As soon as you come around, tell me.

As Swansont said, you're dodging the questions and decided to get personal.

Some questions don't make sense. Examples (you seem to need a lot of help to understand):

Is the universe optimistic?

What is the genetic code of my wristwatch?

Does Jupiter's atmosphere like me?

What's the purpose of Mount Kilimajaro?

Understand a little better? --this one does make sense.

I hope so.

I expect not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I'm not trying to figure out how it works, but just getting a science expert answer to my main question. I opened this thread related to this one question.

In case you still haven't got it, your question was a damn silly question, it was meaningless, it was an affront to logic and common sense. If you still cannot see that I recommend you study for a bachelors degree in philosophy and the history of science. You can report back here when you graduate and apologise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, swansont said:

Science doesn’t require the hypothesis, so why would it try explain? How would the universe look if this were the case?

Like Darwin?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s a dodge. The point here is that it’s not a simple question, because you have not clarified important points that are crucial for answering. It’s an ambiguous question. 

5 hours ago, joigus said:

As Swansont said, you're dodging the questions and decided to get personal.

I understand. I'll clarify it.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

You still don't understand the argument that everybody else has understood. Got it?

So juste tell me what argument is it? I don't get it.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

In case you still haven't got it, your question was a damn silly question, it was meaningless, it was an affront to logic and common sense. 

I respect your opinion on the matter.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

If you still cannot see that I recommend you study for a bachelors degree in philosophy and the history of science. 

Ah ok. That much. Study for a bachelor's degree to understand this thread.

3 hours ago, Area54 said:

You can report back here when you graduate and apologise.

Apologize for what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe. 

I understand. The theory of everything at its limits.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Life, the Universe and Everything???

BTW, there is a correct answer, but you won't know that till you read it (hint hint)... 😉

Apparently I'm not the only one to ask myself the question. Thanks for the source.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

We have Darwin, without an intelligent agent. 

23 hours ago, swansont said:

How would the universe look if this were the case?

You wanted to ask me if in the case that the universe emanates from intelligence, what would it be like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe. 

Sorry , I don't follow the reasoning. How do you distinguish properties that can't be explained from parameter that are not yet explained? At what point would you stop looking for better models that could give an explanation? 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

If the universe was designed somehow, there would probably be some engineering parameters that can't be explained; they're just built into the universe. 

 

How can you possibly know this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Sorry , I don't follow the reasoning. How do you distinguish properties that can't be explained from parameter that are not yet explained? At what point would you stop looking for better models that could give an explanation? 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

How can you possibly know this?

!

Moderator Note

So you're not both holding your collective breaths, POVphysics turned out to be a sock of someone trying to get around the mod queue (put there originally because they couldn't support their assertions).

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Phi for All said:
!

Moderator Note

So you're not both holding your collective breaths, POVphysics turned out to be a sock of someone trying to get around the mod queue (put there originally because they couldn't support their assertions).

 

Live long and prosper!

14 hours ago, Kartazion said:

So juste tell me what argument is it? I don't get it.

Ad hoc explanations are weak, because you can substitute them for just about anything and they are essentially the same. It can be 17 balls of jello, or it can be an intelligent world, or it can be a pair of thinking shoes. Anything goes. Many ancient myths are like that.

They can also be extended ad infinitum (an intelligent world that rules another intelligent world, that rules another intelligent world, that...

that rules the universe). You can't tell the "good" theory from the "bad" one because they're all equally bad. They're all non-theories.

That's why we don't accept ad hoc arguments in science. Science has a built-in optimization algorithm.

Edited by joigus
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2020 at 4:13 PM, joigus said:

You proposed the idea that an "intelligent world" rules our universe. Ok. What is that world? Where is it? How do you define its "intelligence"? How does it relate to "the universe". Why another "world" besides the world?

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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?

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

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

Link to post
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.