Back to the Future

Hey, define failure to me.

Are you thinking that sickness is a failure? Is indigestion a failure. What about a bad sprain, hunger, cold, pain, sadness, or loneliness?

In a perfect universe would all those and more be purged from the "design"?

If we were to eliminate all of those "failures" from life would it be better? How would you know?

If you never felt any of these emotions or sensations how would you differentiate what is good and from what would be your point of reference? In such a universe there would be no contrast to life.

In order to really understand good food you have to spit out some bad food from time to time.

I don't spit out anything that provides nourishment. Failure doesn't exist until we let it.

You haven't had some of my cooking. :)

Maybe the master designer is a latent virus.

For instance grey star, arthritis shall I give any other example ? Dwarfs, seldom diseases, the Spanish flue which killed half European population, Ebola, AIDS and many other which are not due to the fact that one eats more than normal.

We have to be coherent in our thinking. If we accept an "intelligent design", which I do not contest as possibility (every thing is possible) we have also to accept that the "designer" had a goal in mind which means he knew what he aims at with his design. This means that the designer knew from the start where he will land. This presumes an almost unlimited knowledge in advance and an unlimited intelligence since he went to not yet existing goals. This is the characteristics of a superhuman entity. If we accept that the final design has flaws then we appreciate the superhuman entity with human limits since our limited capability to think about -for us improbable events - leads to final errors. This is a contradiction between what we presume the designer to know and how we accept as result.

But as I already wrote some will answer that flaws are part of the initial plan!

I have to disagree.

If you found a flaw in my logic please explain it.

I am always ready to accept an other opinion provided there arguments I can understand in a logical way. The simple "not agree" is not one.

This does not mean that I am against your statement, I only want to understand the "why".

"...we have also to accept that the "designer" had a goal in mind which means he knew what he aims at with his design. This means that the designer knew from the start where he will land."

Not necessarily, if anything, our creator seems to have set up the material of the universe with it's physical laws and then sat back to watch what happens. The Quantum Cookbook provides evidence of chance.

"This presumes an almost unlimited knowledge in advance and an unlimited intelligence since he went to not yet existing goals."

This has bothered me for a long time because it implies knowledge and control of every quark in the universe but they all have multiple degrees of freedom so it would take multiple quarks to store the information for, and to handle each quark. Unless the creator is the universe itself.

I think this thread should be renamed to, "How Many Ways Can You Say, 'I Don't Know".

Or, "How many ways might it have been?"

I don't know. How many?

I'd say it's a coin toss, but it could also be infinite.

Incorrect.

'Certain' does not require 'constant' or 'invariable'. A probability of occurrence can be certain and knowable while still being time dependent or variable with respect to some other knowable condition.

1. You cannot produce something that is truly random with an algorithm. That is why "random" number generators (at least by the honest), are called Pseudo-random number generators.

2. Truly random/chaotic patterns will, by the very nature of their randomness, produce patterns that look purposeful.

3. Neither of the above statements proves anything one way or the other.

I suspect that if there is an intelligence behind everything, in order to protect the other asylum inmates, you would die as soon as you figure it

Let's consider this.

We are expanding our knowledge and abilities exponentially. Computers are at their dawn. It is easily conceivable that we will have incredible computing power in the next 100 years. The limit appears boundless.

Given that, would it be possible to simulate an entire universe on some advanced computer? The idea has a long history dating back to the 1960's by Konrad Zues and Edward Fredkin.

Let's imagine a super computer that could manage the task of simulating the whole population of humans (past and present) every though and sensory perception. The human brain can process about 10^24 operations over the course of 100 years. If we consider 100 billion humans have existed on Earth, we would need about a total of 10^35 operations to simulate every human thought since the roots of time.

With current technology we would need a computer about the size of our planet to reach that computational requirement. Obviously, we are just touching the technical abilities of quantum computing, so a machine that could simulate 10^35 operations in a few minutes is not outside the boundaries of possibilities.

That means that every thought pattern ever thought could be run by a machine in the matter of minutes from the time when we descended from trees if the machine was big enough.

Given the possibility that it can be done (and no doubt will be done some day in the future) how do we know we are not a society that is being run in a computer ourselves? How would we be able to tell?

Clearly, if this is possible it would certainly be by intelligence design. Are we real or memorex? Does it matter?

Such a simulation could begin with a simple set of equations that describe everything, much like the equations we are beginning to discover that govern the operation of our universe. If the equations are well described it would be possible to let a complete universe unfold in a simulation on some future super computer.

We already do this in a very rudimentary way now with weather models and and other models of physics and the quantum world. To imagine that at some point we would be good enough and have enough computing power to handle the computations, it is reasonable to believe that many simulated universes might be created and run as casually as we run video games today. Why not? Who would pass up the opportunity to play God when you could write the rules anyway you would like and then run and see what happens?

As we approach the abilities to create artificial intelligence in machines it opens the door to thinking or rethinking our own reality.

If we're to be soft simulations, I must have more bugs than Windoz, messing my life (lol). S.M.

Energy is intelligence...

Prove that.

I'll begin with a question, what is Intelligence? Here's what the Wiki says...

"Intelligence has been defined in different ways, including the abilities, but not limited to, abstract thought, understanding, self-awareness, communication,reasoning, learning, having emotional knowledge, retaining, planning, and problem solving.

Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in animals and plants. Artificial intelligence is the intelligence of machines or the simulation of intelligence in machines.

Numerous definitions of and hypotheses about intelligence have been proposed since before the twentieth century, with no consensus reached by scholars."

There is no definitive answer....But no one will deny that thought is an energy based process...The energy that we as humans consume to think comes from the sun therefore the thought process is an energy transformation process...The elements that compose this planet and our bodies all come from exploding stars, an energetic process...Everything that exists can be said to be some form of energy...Therefore thought is an expression of energy..and thought is the main component of intelligence...imo

You wrote, "But no one will deny that thought is an energy based process."

Agreed, but so is driving a car. The link between car and energy does not make the car energy any more than it makes a car intelligent.

One does not beget the other.

The car is an energy equivalent(E=MC²), the car is a product of intelligence(thought energy), an it runs on energy from the Sun, the fuel for the engine and the thought process of the driver and physical effort, all supplied with energy from the Sun...The car is intelligence in one form just like matter is energy in another form...

It is almost Spring and you are skating on such thin ice that I would just dial 911 now.

You can't extend the concept of intelligence to an inanimate object just because it is controlled by an intelligent creature any more than you can claim a rock becomes intelligent when it is thrown by a human or, for that matter, a rock becomes alive because it is thrown by an entity that is alive.

I just do not buy the argument and your own definition for intelligence set at the beginning of this post fails that definition.

Interesting but does not answer the question...

is the universe the product of chance or intelligent design?

The question has already been answered, whether or not you agree. The universe is not the product of intellligent design. Nor is it the product of chance alone; as post 6 said, there is more than just chance. But you have never acknowledged that point; instead, you keep reverting to the false dichotomy of chance vs. design. You simply refuse to learn anything.

To put it bluntly, your replies have been evasive, incompetent, and dishonest. I would suggest that you quit struggling with this. At the rate you are going, you will never succeed; and it seems that you don't even care. I have nothing further to request in your responses, but I will continue to comment on any you may offer. I think you are engaged in intellectual and spiritual vandalism, which I gladly oppose.

Solar

Thank you for your response, but being slow I seem to have missed your vote...

Is the universe a result of intelligent design or of chance?

The implication of intelligent design is religion based, I won't go there...However I believe that intelligence is an inherent part of the universe just like gravity. you only have to have the right conditions for it to show itself...

Chance.

Thanks for your response Lyn

I will not ask you to defend your answer to my question, as promised. but I must commend you on the fact that you responded with a definite conclusion. which the vast majority of your colleagues did not

Best Regards.

K

Hi Kay, Ive come late to this discussion, It appears that you have posed a question and you are also setting the standards of response, the answer has no proof one way or the other, but is a matter of opionion for the intervidual. As for the lodgic of a creater, one would have to concider that to be of a religious nature, and as for chance then you have to graple with the concept of infinty, given enough time are all things possible?

I find it interesting that only one species on this planet is concidered to be inteligent, is that by design or chance, so if a TV monitor comes into existance, is it designed, or a product of a long line of chances motivated by random thoughts that please us and feed the ego into thinking we created it?

Regards JD

Dear jd,

Thank you for your response.. I am not setting the standards for responses per se..

I am merely of the belief that intelligent design and random happenstance are mutally exclusive , my beliet may be somewhat "ill founded" as pointed out by commentator

Tornado, who made cogent points in defense of his position that argumnents for both sides are valid... I tend to favor a different appproach,viz. we have can openers because someone designed them. We have atomatic automobile trransmissions because someone designed them,but do we have a designer at the fundamental levels of life...

Yet at the Universal levels of life, we seem to be Quick to dismiss a designer!

It seems "fashionable" to dismiss an intelligent designer ie. first cause to our existence yet none of us would be considered rational if we said the "Can Opener" just came into being...of chance or necessatiy!

I am not taking a religious stance!!!!!!

I am simply appealing to REASON

I also am not asking members of thie forum to defend their opinions....merely, to state them....

All My Best

K

Kay,

Interesting? was everything predetermined from the beginning? Designed? Here is a link to a previous CR4 discussion, loosely connected, that questions the idea do we have free will? Was it all predetermined at the time of the BigBang?

I see your use of the word recognition, was a can opener created by the ego (self) or that part of the brain that we inherited from or ancesters that goes back to the beginning of time?

I think it then follows that intelligent design did not create all that exists, but rather, a complex random process that may or may not predituremine the outcome based on its origin.

Regareds JD.

Dear jd

Thank you for your response

If you will take a moment to review my initial thread post you will find that is not neccessary to defend nor fortify one's position in this thread but merely to state it..

I am seeking the thoughts and opinions of CR4 members and contributors on this topic

I thank you for your response,and respect your opinion, whether I agree with it or not...( my agreement is immaterial..as my disagreement is equally immaterial...your opinion is all that matters and it needs not to be exploited,nor defended)

The voices in support of an 'intelligent designer' appear to me to be very consistent in their high level of discomfort with the possibility that either the universe may not have a beginning (may have always existed in some form (more people seem to have a problem any possibility of time lacking a beginning than time going on forever, but that is another subject)) or that it began without the handy work of a sentient super-being.

.

If they are happy with their discomfort, then I think their explanation goes along way toward furthering that discomfort.

.

I say that because the idea of an 'intelligent designer' (or sentient super-being) provides nothing that solves the problem of either existence without beginning or coming into existence without the handy work of a sentient super-being.

If the universe was born of an 'intelligent designer' then intelligent designer(s) must have either always existed or came about without the handy-work of intelligent designers.

.

That solves nothing. It only moves the problem back far enough that one might accept an explanation like,

'It is not for us to question or know the origins of the creator, now eat your peas'

.

The line of thought used to support the idea of an 'Intelligent Designer' can be used to similar efficacy to support the idea of a 'Diligent Plagiarizer'

.

I mean, if parsimony is your yardstick, certainly we can come up with better myths. How about 'The Celestial Milling Machine from the Future that Sacrificed Itself by Traveling to the Beginning of Time to Make Everything (possible) '.

I know it needs a more catchy name, and I haven't even begun to choreograph the ceremonies and various postures of obeisance, but you have to admit it at least answers the question. It may not be right, but it is at least as close as any of the other myths.

Truth,

You seem to state a position, without taking one...

Perhaps I am misguided or confused, but what, exactly is your position?

The crux of the thread is for contributors to state their opinions, beliefs, and intuitions or conclusions with no need to defend or support them...

Thanks for your response,

k

There is a theory which states that if anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

Douglas Adams

42 is the answer.

I forget the question.

I too believe "both" is the most likely answer. I do not however, believe in a supernatural deity.

The question is moot. There is absolutely and unequivocally no need to answer it.

If there is an intelligent designer, he/she/it has left no evidence that he/she/it designed the universe. We will find no evidence in support. There are numerous religious reasons, our own free will being the most prominent, for an intelligent designer to obfuscate evidence of he/she/it's work. So why bother looking?

If it's due to chance, then why bother looking?

If you have a need to believe in a god, an intelligent designer, or what-not, don't bother looking to science. As I said, you will find no evidence. Instead look at people. The good, the bad, the ugly, the what-have-you, you are more likely to find your answers there. Faith doesn't need science nor does science need faith (other than the obvious faith in one's own senses).

1. "If there is an intelligent designer, he/she/it has left no evidence that he/she/it designed the universe. We will find no evidence in support."

2. "There are numerous religious reasons, our own free will being the most prominent, for an intelligent designer to obfuscate evidence of he/she/it's work. So why bother looking?

Surely, the first part of the quotation is an overstatement. The fact that we have found no evidence says only that we have found no evidence, nothing more.

The second part is conjecture

Well stated, my friend ,as lack of evidence,does not neccessarily,constitute "evidence of lack"

Must a designer leave evidence, or a trail to His recognition; who desined the mechanical can opener, the automatic automobile transmission, the Pez candy dispenser, the Stapler, the zipper?

The designers seem to be somewhat"lost in the shuffle" and chance and/or inevitability seems to prevail..

In response to your # 1 point The designer seeks not to ;provide evidence or "garner accolades ... but merely to find a need and fill it.

I love discussions with fellow Pennsylvanians.

I could live anywhere in the entire world, and I CHOOSE to live in Pennsylvania

Leaving evidence is not a prereqisite for design intelligence.

I can design a mechanical can opener that successsfully opens a can of beans 99.9% of the time...

You can use this can opener, daily, to get your beans, and not be aware of me, my name, or my work.

I merely designed a "functional" can opener..

I am unkown to you.

But my workmanship, is fundamental to your feeding ....

In all those discussions one factor is usually neglected : the time !

We can not understand with a span life of less than 100 years times in the range of tenth of millions.

I feel we can encompass great periods of time,viz. 1000 yrs.,10,000 yrs.,1,000,000 yrs.

but my personal feeling is that "Infinite Regressions" tend to elude us!!!

And Theories based on "infinite regressions" are more subject to scrutiny, albeit "head scratching"

Thank You so much for your responses,

They are most valued,

K