Summations Only

Personally I'd say that you were trying to CREATE a gap to fill. Your whole argument assumes that existing explanations - even for the existence of atoms!!! - are so inadequate that simply assuming this entity is MORE plausible. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The laws of thermodynamics that set the direction of time seem pretty fundamental. I know you later argue, effectively, that they are emergent, but that's just our current state of knowledge, or perhaps even just of our terminology. Maybe the number of possible states *should* be considered a fundamental, rather than emergent, property of a system. Though we do have a number of hypotheses, there is so much we don't know of the causes of the Big Bang that I don't think we can know that homogeneity is "more likely." When we eventually discover the true causes we may find that low entropy is the only and obvious possibility, and we may well utter, as Huxley about evolution, how stupid we were not to have realized it.--Percy

So we have an alternate universe with similar but different physical laws to our own universe. Laws which allow eternal existence by virtue of there being no T=0. And residing in that universe we have uncreated intelligent being(s). Beings which are constrained by the physical laws of that universe in a similar fashion to the way we are constrained by the physical laws of our own universe (otherwise why would it matter whether that universe allows eternal existence or not?) It is this/these intelligent being(s) that are responsible for creating our universe. Presumably by utilising the physical laws of their own universe.........Is this all correct? Whenever something is proclaimed to be so mysterious that god should be inserted into it - It is very arguably a god of the gaps argument. A being residing in another physical universe where the physical laws allow for both eternal existence and the ability to create new universes (like ours) which are programmed for intelligence to evolve - Sounds more like advanced alien beings than any notion of an omnipotent god doesn't it? Frankly you have come up with something that sounds like a rival to Scientology rather than a basis for Christianity......

Okay sure I will answer your questions but first I would ask that you take a look at my comments to NoNukes in mssg#425, and I will direct them towards you since he seems to have wimped out.

Yes and the detection of such a signal would still have a transmitted, receptor, observer relationship. Else we would not be recognizing it.

What on earth is the basis of this comment? Have I been too slow in responding to some of your messages? Did I not stay up late enough last night typing posts?Have you been able to show specified information that could only come from God? Have you responded to my question of why arguments of exactly the same form as your argument that we've only seen Quantum fluctuations inside a universe are not also correct? Have you forgotten that the current discussion regarding quantum fluctuations addresses only one of the two complaints I leveled at designtheorist when you stepped in to defend his nonsense?I acknowledge that I don't respond to everything you might post, but compared to your own cherry picking, I believe I've done alright. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Using that definition, isn't the receiver pretty much of no function at all? I understand that ID proponents need a receiver to advance their theory that they can observe design, but in reality, even a laser beam intended for no use other than to destroy a target, if received by us would constitute a signal of the type you want to say is intelligence. Yet the object having a receiver in the relationship is an inanimate object not intended to respond other than by blowing up.

The explanation of why everything from atoms to intelligence exists is unknown. I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.

No real disagreement Percy, I'll just add some comments in case my post above was a bit unclear. Indeed, it probably should. One thing a lot of the quantum gravity theories (String, Loops, Causal networks, e.t.c.) have in common is that they all promote the number of possible states to being a fundamental property. So a lot of people would agree with you.I'm saying that current, verified physics does not do this and the number of possible states is not fundamental but derived. You might, and quite a few physicists do, think that this could be a flaw in current models. Again, this is what most people think. There is a tension between current physics and the arrow of time. Again since entropy is not fundamental under quantum field theory and General Relativity (which are current physics) and there is no selection mechanism for initial states (like that at the Big Bang), current physics would say all states are equally likely and since there are vastly more high entropy states than low entropy ones then, under current physics, a high entropy state is more likely.Of course this does not mean that a high entropy state is actually more likely. Quite probably there is some quantum gravitational effects controlling the initial state.However we don't have a quantum theory of gravity yet, so although almost all physicists would agree with you, the low entropy of the Big Bang is as of yet an unsolved problem. We still don't know why the universe has a preferred time direction even though many, including yourself, can guess at the probable form of the answer. That is, some deeper physics.

I've read your post. Here's the bit where you assume your conclusion. No it doesn't. No, I wouldn't be surprised. We observe it all the time. Bacteria send specific signals to each other and will react in specific ways on receiving the signals. They are not intelligent.Anyway, I'd still like answers to my questions.

quote:

---

The explanation of why everything from atoms to intelligence exists is unknown. I'm simply saying that IMHO the belief that the root cause was intelligent is more plausible than not.

---

That may be what you wanted to say, but you said a whole lot of things that are very different. Certainly you argued that it is implausible that atoms could form without intelligent direction. Quite frankly it is hard to avoid the conclusion that your idea of plausibility has a lot more to do with attempting to justify your beliefs than any considered analysis.

I suppose but frankly that is more detailed than what I’m suggesting. Let me try it another way. Here is the on line definition of universe.

quote:

---

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

---

Now for instance does this include dark matter and dark energy? Is there more to our universe that we don’t perceive with our 5 senses? So I’ve not sure what terminology to use. I’ve used the term universe in the same way that Scientific American did but maybe that isn’t the term that should be used. If there is more to our universe than what we perceive with our 5 senses then maybe I should be suggesting an expanded idea of our own universe, when I suggest that our universe, as we think of it, is an emergent property of a greater reality without knowing what term to use for the greater reality itself.Frankly I’m just looking at possible ways to marry science and theology which is the topic of this thread. From a theoretical science POV we have this.1/ As SA says, An Entire Universe May be Silently Interwoven With Our Own.
2/ There is much scientific speculation about additional universes and dimensions including other possible time dimensions.
3/ Time is a variable dependent on speed/gravity.
4/ QM tells us that particles don’t take on the form that we perceive until we perceive them and then creates the history to make that happen
5/Science tells us that what we perceive is only about 4.5% of our universe.From a Christian POV1/ God is eternal
2/ God interacts with us which in some sense makes Him co-locatedAll I’m doing is trying to speculate as to how these things might all fit together assuming that the Christian POV is accurate. I don’t think so. If my Christian beliefs are accurate, then there has to be a consistency with good science. I’m not rejecting any current science and I’m speculating as to how science might have an impact on theology, which as I say is the question that seems to be being asked in the OP. I think when we talk about alien beings we are talking about life in our universe that is directly perceivable to us. All I’m saying is that as science suggests that there might be other universes or dimensions that aren’t perceivable to us and may have a different set of laws, (physical or not), than we do. That makes it consistent with Christian thought, which is not to say that it proves anything. It is at this point speculation. Maybe someday it will be less so.Edited by GDR, : Submitted by mistake prior to previewing

In this thread you have cited (your interpretation of) concepts in modern theoretical physics as compatible of your view that an eternal intelligent being resides in some alternative universe. Things like universes that lack a T=0 and the laws of physics being non-directional in time.But unless the intelligent being you are proposing is constrained by the physical laws that are present in the alternate universe in which it resides why would such a universe need to allow for eternal existence anyway?Is the eternal intelligent being you are proposing constrained by the physical laws of the universe in which it resides? Or not?If it is constrained - I wouldn't call that a god. I'd call it an alien from another universe obeying a different set of physical laws.If it isn't constrained - Why bring up universes whose physical laws allow eternal existence as at all relevant to anything?

But what you said originally was an "intended purpose".Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

akgtjlsasjzgmslriutasgsugskgajlahajlajaehklhu
quierounatazadecafeconcremayazucarporfavor I have already gotten the message that this thread is drawing to an end, and have consoled myself with the fact that I probably will never get to discuss the actual evidence here because of the dragging. I understand that you don't want to answer me with a straight answer, and I understand why.So here is my new point to this discussion. Scientific evidence for intelligent design gets stonewalled by the "big bouncers" at the door before it can ever even make it inside to the "dance floor." And the reasons for the stonewalling have nothing to do with science at all. Normally I here the objection that looking for non-human intelligence is not a scientific en devour. And yet I can show at least two sciences that clearly do exactly that. The next objection I usually here is that looking for intelligence in marine animals or extra terrestrials is somehow different than looking for intelligence in the design of the universe and life. So I point out that the methodology used is exactly the same. No one can ever seem to explain why looking for specified narrow bandwidths, or dolphin sound patterns is a good way to hunt for intelligence, but looking for specified information in the laws of physics, DNA molecule, and arrangement of the cosmology is not. And the target is the receiver. The point I am making with the "transmitter, receiver, observer" scenario is that this is how specified information is DETECTED. We look for something that has an intended purpose. I once found a very old rusty wrench berried in my yard. I knew immediately by its shape that it was fashioned for an intended purpose. It was not a shape that occurs naturally, and a previous unrelated experience I had with tools gave me the recognition response needed to immediately determine it was the product of intelligence. In order to detect intelligence, there has to be a source of the object, bandwidth, or sound (transmitter). Then there must be an intended reason for the object, bandwidth, or sound (receiver). And finally there must be someone to make the connection that the object, bandwidth, or sound was meant for that reason (observer). Without these three ingredients, specificity can exist, but it can not be detected.An example: at the beginning of this post there are two seemingly meaningless lines of letters. Actually the first line is. It is merely random meaningless letters. But the second actually has specified information. You may have not recognized it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If you speak Spanish then you know what it means. You have a recognition response that is completely independent of that line and you become both the receiver and the observer.