Summations Only

quote:

---

Your thinking is linear. The explanation I gave gives a theory that is consistent with current scientific theory, or probably more accurately scientific speculation, of the rationale for an eternal being.

---

Of course it is not "linear" thinking yep that you object to- it is thinking about the question of how a God could exist at all that you are desperately trying to avoid. Indeed your "explanation" explains nothing - it is a transparent excuse for avoiding the issue. Which I suppose is better than the self-contradiction of your earlier argument.Indeed I think we should put you forward as good evidence for atheism. The mere fact that you are reduced to the desparate clutching at straws we see here demonstrates the irrationality of theistic belief in a way that would be hard to do by intellectual argument.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

That's not the point. My point was that if, for you, a super intelligent being, eternal or anything else, can exist without requiring intelligent design, then there is no reason for you to express incredulity at anything else you mentioned existing without intelligent design. I don't express incredulity at intelligence existing without requiring intelligent design, and neither do you. So what is your basis for incredulity at anything else existing without being intelligently designed?

Greene raises this point so he can later explain why it *isn't* possible to go either direction in time. If you continue reading past page 145 and on through the section on entropy that begins on page 151 you'll understand why time can't flow in either direction. Sure, some equations like f=ma work equally well in either time direction, but the universe obeys *all* its laws (including entropy), not just some of them. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise (which was wrong anyway), and time doesn't need to extend infinitely in both directions to be infinite. The set of positive integers is infinite, even though it has a beginning point.--Percy

quote:

---

The perplexing thing is that no one has discovered any such law. What's more, the laws of physics that have been articulated from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today, show a complete symmetry between past and future. Nowhere in any of these laws do we find a stipulation that they apply one way in time but not the other.

---

quote:

---

The known laws of physics actually declare-contrary to our lifetime of experiences - that light coffee can separate into black coffee and white cream

---

It turns out that Percy is correct, but it is also the case that even a careful reading of the quoted paragraph seems to foreclose the possibility of any laws of physics disallowing a reversal of time. "[T]he laws of physics ...from Newton through Maxwell and Einstein, and up to until today" seems like a comprehensive state of all of physics. So where is the hole?There is no $#%& hole. Greene's explanation is a convincing, entertaining and useful tale of probability, thermodynamics, and other concepts put together to explain entropy. In fact, I think pages 155 and forward include one of the best explanations of entropy I have seen in a popular science book. But Greene's use of the term "second law of thermodynamics" gives the deceit away. How is that not part of physics between Newton and now?Obviously it is. The modern treatment of entropy is early 19th century physics. Can we simply call thermodynamics chemistry and math rather than physics? Grrr... Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would love nothing more. I’m pretty sure though, that someone will complain we are off topic somehow, but let’s give it a shot.If we can't agree on what evidence might look like then we won't agree that it is "backed up," so first let me ask you a couple of questions regarding the detection of intelligence. Do you agree with marine biologists that say that one intriguing way to detect intelligence in dolphins is to try and determine if their chirps and whistles have specific meanings? And do you agree with SETI scientists that say a good way to detect intelligence from other worlds would be to look for a bandwidth being transmitted at a very specific narrow band frequency? Or to look for flashes of light in a specific millisecond range, indicating a possible engineered laser?I’m going to assume that your answer would be yes, having the scientific mind that you do. So this demonstrates at least two different sciences we can look to that are searching for intelligence from non-human life forms. The question here of course is, is there anything about these two entirely different kinds of sciences that are similar? One could argue that there is. They both appear to be looking for specified information. That is to say, they both are looking for something that is arranged in a certain way for a particularly intended purpose. The chirps, clicks, and whistles of the dolphin, or the specifically narrow bandwidth frequency, or a specifically fast flash of light from deep space.In fact one could argue that specified information is the biggest clue to detecting intelligence. The very definition of specificity incorporates words like purpose or intent. It’s almost redundant to even say, but you’d be surprised at how many I’ve encountered that don’t make the connection. Of course anything with an intent or purpose must have an intelligent source. Therefore we know for certain that when we observe specificity that we are observing something with an intelligent source. We can say this with certainty because we have never observed (physically) anything of a specified nature form apart from intelligence.So this of course raises the question of how do we tell for sure if something is specified? What criteria can we use to say something is specified? There are three things that are required to be present at one time. There must of course be the transmission of information (transmitter), there must be the independent reception of the information (receiver), and thirdly the observer must be able to make the connection that the information used by the receiver is completely independent of the transmitter and that only that information arranged in that order will initiate the response. An example would be a key and a lock. The key transmits the information to the independent lock tumblers and the observer recognizes, though independent of each other, only the specific carving arrangement on the key will open the lock. Likewise when a marine biologist suspects specified information might be present in the sounds that a dolphin makes, he or she begins to look for specific patterns of sounds made between them that initialize certain responses. Only those specific patterns of sounds will initialize that response.Sometimes the observer is both receiver and observer, like when he looks at Mount Rushmore. He sees the patterns carved out into the mountain side and recognizes them from a completely independent experience. If a SETI scientist were to detect a very narrow bandwidth frequency coming from deep space he or she would recognize that frequency from an independent experience that frequencies this narrow are only known to be artificially generated and not naturally forming.So I'll stop here to see if you are in agreement with what specificity is, how it is detected, and that it is one of the best ways (not the only way) to detect intelligence?

I suppose it depends on your use of the word "natural." If that word is being used to describe only those things which are physically possible, then yes your computer is of natural origins and the opposite of natural in this usage is supernatural. But if natural is used to describe those things which are formed by random unguided processes and laws of physics, then the opposite of naturally formed becomes artificially or intelligently formed.This is why I prefer not to refer to God as a supernatural being. Many in these debates love to flip flop the use of the word natural and so God magically becomes an entity that is beyond what is possible to exist. But if He is refered to as the Supreme being then it doesn't matter. He then becomes the greatest of all that is possible rather than being beyond what is possible.

No matter how you phrase it - To claim that intelligence originated when an intelligent creator created intelligence is obviously silly.Either intelligence requires an intelligent creator, in which case it's turtles all the way down, OR intelligence doesn't require an intelligent creator - In which case you don't really have an argument. You really need to read up on the role of entropy in the arrow of time. I have no idea what you mean by "infinite existence"...? First you talk about an infinite existence based on backwards and forwards in our "time line" (to use your phrase) and then say that this creator intelligence doesn't exist in our "time line" and is instead "eternal".This seems contradictory. Fits what? Without wanting to be rude the only thing it seems to fit is some rather confused and contradictory assumptions. I'm saying, for example, that a single celled zygote which grows into an embryo which grows into a fetus which grows into a baby which grows into a conscious, inventive, opinionated and intelligent adult human being is an observed instance of simple -> complex.I'm saying that a similar simple -> complex evolutionary process accounts for the origin of intelligence in living organisms (e.g. humans).And ultimately I am saying that (to use your phrase) "fundamental particles to intelligent life" is similarly simple -> complex process in a way that....... TADAAAA - I'm a super unimaginable-to-your-puny-human-mind intelligence and I just exist....is not.So I'm saying the simple -> complex position is evidenced in a way that the TADAAAA position isn't.

I hope everyone else doesn't mind but everyone has roughly the same criticisms so I'll just reply to Percy's post. I'm certainly not in a position to argue the details of science with you or anyone else around here for that matter, but that wasn't the point that I was trying to make. Yes, we live in an entropic world and that is the reason that we experience time or change the way we do.Mathematically, as I understand Greene, time should be able to flow in either direction which of course for us it doesn't, and Greene does give the reason for that. I'm only suggesting that the mathematics point to the possibility of a non-entropic existence.Here is a quote from the website of Julian Barbour

quote:

---

Closely related to this work is my study of time. Mach remarked It is utterly beyond our power to measure the changes of things by time. Quite the contrary, time is an abstraction at which we arrive through the changes of things. Thus, time as such does not exist but only change. Much of my research has been devoted to the implications of this insight. I have shown how, alongside the relativity of motion, the notion of time as change can be built into the foundations of dynamics. In fact, this idea is contained in a hidden form within general relativity. Its potential consequences for the yet to be found quantum mechanics of the universe are profound. The quantum universe is likely to be static. Motion and the apparent passage of time may be nothing but very well founded illusions. This is the thesis of The End of Time (books), which is aimed both at the general reader and physicists.

---

I only quote this as from what I read "time", or the way we experience change, is one of the biggest puzzles physicists face.Many scientific theories such as "string theory" suggest that there additional time dimensions. Also as I pointed out with that headline from Scientific American we may be interwoven with other dimensions or universes.The point of all this is that the idea that eternal or non-entropic existence in another dimension or universe isn't inconceivable scientifically. Therefore the concept of an eternal god who doesn't need an intelligent designer is conceivable scientifically.Of course it doesn't prove anything but it does give the start of a possible answer to the question of who created the creator.

RE--Put it the other way - did it have a supernatural cause?--See my reply to NoNukes on the same questionEdited by Just being real, : No reason given.

RE--What has your "goddidit" hypothesis ever led to the discovery of?--I thought we were discussing the theory that the universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation? If you want to talk merits of belief in a supreme being verses merits of QFT, then lets talk virtually every university, educational system, hospital, and charity organization, being birthed from belief in God. But I know, that's a whole nother thread.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

We are. See Message 402 and Message 394Well as competing theories of creation one is evidenced by a theory that has proven it's worth in terms of making accurate and reliable predictions. And the other isn't.So (to put it mildly) one of the possibilities under consideration can be considered superior to the other. Whether true or not what does that have to do with quantum fluctuations in a thread titled - "can science say anything about a creator god?". Because none of the things you list have anything to do with either scientific or god based modes of "creation".

What you're missing is that you aren't offering ANY explanation of how this incredibly complex entity could exist. All you're doing is hand waving.It's pretty clear that you know that your position is rationally indefensible, that's why you don't even attempt to really address the issue.

So where exactly are you suggesting this godly intelligence exists? Within the (backwards and forwards) time of our universe that began at T=0?Did god begin at T=0 too......?

Yes, I know it wasn't the point you were trying to make. But it was the point that was wrong. This, too, is wrong. True, but Greene was writing about this universe, and you were wrong about what Greene was saying about this universe.Your argument is rather fluid and ambiguous, but you almost seem to be arguing that if something could be true of some other universe, then it could also be true of our universe.--Percy

Assuming that God exists would you really expect that anyone could answer that question? I can't and I'm not trying to. The only point that I was making was to attempt to show that the question of who created the creator involves a question of time. Our minds only work in terms of past present and future and therefore for anything to be created its creator would have to exist before its creation.As I said we have a poor understanding of time. We experience it in one dimension. If we only had one spatial dimension we would have no understanding of what it would mean to live in a three dimensional universe. I'm suggesting that science tells us that other dimensions of time are possible but from our single dimensional view point we have no concept of what they would look like.I am only saying that in a universe with more than 1 time dimension it is possible to have an eternal existence, which would not then require a creator as it would mean that it just always was.