It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Very simple math proves the existance of God

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: roth1
I think evolution is a fact. Everything evolves plants, animals, flu virus.


So do technologies, sciences, cultures... etc. The existence of evolution in biological domain doesn't prove that it is result of random mutation + natural selection, as neo-Darwinian theory hypothesizes. In fact in all other instances of evolution we can explain, there is intelligent process that guides it. After all, the new generations of software are not result of typing errors followed by elimination of non-functioning copies. That would be the dumbest algorithm possible to accomplish evolution.

Considering the sophistication of molecular machinery found in the cell, which is far beyond our techniques of molecular engineering, the most plausible conjecture is that the intelligence behind biological evolution is also vastly more sophisticated than intelligence guiding evolution of human products, such as software.

Further, since even that super-intelligence underlying biological evolution can't create physical particles and fields out of 'nothing' (or vacuum), then the intelligence which produced physical particles and fields out of 'nothing' must be far greater than even that one which is already far greater than human intelligence.
edit on 18-7-2014 by nightlight7 because: typo




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightlight7

originally posted by: roth1
I think evolution is a fact. Everything evolves plants, animals, flu virus.


So do technologies, sciences, cultures... etc. The existence of evolution in biological domain doesn't prove that it is result of random mutation + natural selection, as neo-Darwinian theory hypothesizes. In fact in all other instances of evolution we can explain, there is intelligent process that guides it. After all, the new generations of software are not result of typing errors followed by elimination of non-functioning copies. That would be the dumbest algorithm possible to accomplish evolution.


This isn't true. Matter and stars have evolved over time. Originally there was only hydrogen in the universe then the first stars formed, used a bunch of it and created helium. These stars blew up and created even heavier elements. Newer stars formed using heavier elements and the process repeated itself. There is no evidence to suggest that this is driven by intelligence. It actually appears very algorithmic in its nature actually.


Considering the sophistication of molecular machinery found in the cell, which is far beyond our techniques of molecular engineering, the most plausible conjecture is that the intelligence behind biological evolution is also vastly more sophisticated than intelligence guiding evolution of human products, such as software.


That's pure assumption based on flimsy premises through the watchmaker fallacy.


Further, since even that super-intelligence underlying biological evolution can't create physical particles and fields out of 'nothing' (or vacuum), then the intelligence which produced physical particles and fields out of 'nothing' must be far greater than even that one which is already far greater than human intelligence.


More assumptions.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog


Follow video above and you will see that is 7% of TOP scientist who believe in God. That 'top' scientist would be someone who is top in their fields and are members of academy of science.

Redefining "scientist" to mean a very specific type of person, rather than the general population of people who work in the field or are academically trained in it will inevitably end in biased results.

So, we have a biased survey from 1998 that says almost no scientists believe in deities, and an unbiased survey from 2009 that says about half of them do, but you prefer the invalid one, because it jibes with your personal opinion?

Nothing scientific about that, lol.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

It is not biased survey if it surveyed ONLY TOP scientist and provide results for ONLY TOP scientists.

It serves purpose of letting people know that higher your education, less likely you will believe in fairy tales. Nothing complicated and no conspiracy, just simple data.

Why do you insist to make a point that this survey include all scientist or that is somehow manipulating numbers. Did you watch video with Dr. Tyson? He also mentioned % of those who believe in God that have higher education, or just general education...

edit on 18-7-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog


It is not biased survey if it surveyed ONLY TOP scientist and provide results for ONLY TOP scientists.

It is biased, because "TOP scientist" is a subjective term, and you've attempted to paint all scientists with the numbers provided by a biased survey.

Look at it this way -- the smaller that your statistical sample is, the more likely it will be produce erroneous results. By limiting this sample to "TOP scientists", or those that belong to a professional association, there is almost certainly over representation by academics -- college professors. Academics tend to be more liberal that those in other occupations, and liberals tend more toward atheism than conservatives do. So your survey may reflect that higher education produces atheists (your belief) or it may merely reflect that one subset of "scientists" is more atheistic than the general population of scientists (my assertion, which is backed up by the non-biased survey that Pew did in 2009.)

It is unreasonable to claim that 93% of scientists are atheists, since that has been demonstrated to be false. And outside of that argument, scientists who are theists are not necessary, or even generally, young Earth creationists, which is very much a minority view.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Newer stars formed using heavier elements and the process repeated itself. There is no evidence to suggest that this is driven by intelligence. It actually appears very algorithmic in its nature actually.

What is established is merely a consistency with previously observed regularities, as captured by our present natural laws. But these laws are fundamentally statistical (quantum field theory) i.e. like statistical laws of traffic ebbs and flows. You could "explain" like that the rise and evolution of new buildings -- by counting how many trucks came in and if the number is consistent with level of truck traffic on previously observed construction sites you could declare OK, I explained how building are evolving -- when number of loaded construction trucks converging at a location is above this level, then buildings come out. Or with evolution of software, you could count how many keystrokes were typed and if the figures are consistent with amount of source code characters, you can declare, the software evolves by having such and such levels of keystrokes typed... etc.

That's pure assumption based on flimsy premises through the watchmaker fallacy.

No, it's the lack of any explanation and mislabeling of handwaving and just so stories as the explanation. You could equally well "explain" that software evolves by having right numbers of keystrokes consistent with number of changes in the source code happen by chance at the offices of software companies.

Yes, there are mutations underlying evolutionary changes, just as there the changed characters of source code underlying evolution of software. These are necessary, but not sufficient causes of evolution. In either case, that kind of superficial consistency doesn't mean the changes are random and aimless, unguided as neo-Darwinists insist. Their dogma is as much of a science stopper as as the medieval church "explaining" God did it, end of story. With neo-Darwinists, it is the chance did it, end of story.

create physical particles and fields out of 'nothing'
More assumptions.

Oh, so you think it is more plausible to assume that creating universe with all its energy-matter as we know it, from non-matter-energy, is a trivial thing to do, requiring no extraordinary intelligence or capability, or even none at all, everything is the just way it is because that's how it is. I guess, de gustibus non est disputandum.

edit on 18-7-2014 by nightlight7 because:



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: nightlight7

The difference being that scientists use this thing called evidence to make their predictions. Sometimes those predictions don't pan out like they thought they would when new evidence comes to light and they modify their theories. Star formation, theory of evolution, and any other universal process that facilitates change over time from less complex to more complex (evolving) all have mountains of evidence behind them. With star evolution, we can literally watch it happening by looking further and further away from our planet at different stars.


Oh, so you think it is more plausible to to assume that creating universe with all its energy-matter as we know it, from non-matter-energy, is a trivial thing to do, requiring no extraordinary intelligence or capability, or even none at all, everything is the just way it is because that's how it is. I guess, de gustibus non est disputandum.


I think that we have zero evidence to say one way or the other, so the answer at this point of time is, "I (we) don't know." Any other answer involves making unfounded assumptions. I'm agnostic, I don't make assumptions about things without evidence. If there isn't enough evidence, the default answer is "I don't know." Contrary to the picture that you are trying to paint, the answer ISN'T "It doesn't exist." That is just as assumptive as your position.

By the way, the Big Bang isn't the point when the universe was created, it just changed states. And no, we don't know why. Yet.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nightlight7

The difference being that scientists use this thing called evidence to make their predictions.


Well, you can have theory that if you count and observe the keystrokes being typed at certain offices at Microsoft, you can "predict" how many changes and what kind will there be in the new version of Windows. But that doesn't mean the keystrokes are result of aimless, random process (e.g. due to electrical noise in the nerves of programmers). That kind of "theory" is in essence no different than the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution -- the two sets of changes, whether those of genetic code and phenotypes, or keystrokes typed at Microsoft and new Windows versions, are consistent, and the first changes are aimless and random, but the second changes follow once the first are given.

I find that kind of "theory" of software evolution (random keystrokes happening due to noise in the nervous systems that control the fingers typing, followed by trial & error weeding out of non-functioning output) as vacuous as I do the analogous neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightlight7

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nightlight7

The difference being that scientists use this thing called evidence to make their predictions.


Well, you can have theory that if you count and observe the keystrokes being typed at certain offices at Microsoft, you can "predict" how many changes and what kind will there be in the new version of Windows. But that doesn't mean the keystrokes are result of aimless, random process (e.g. due to electrical noise in the nerves of programmers). That kind of "theory" is in essence no different than the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution -- the two sets of changes, whether those of genetic code and phenotypes, or keystrokes typed at Microsoft and new Windows versions, are consistent, and the first changes are aimless and random, but the second changes follow once the first are given.

I find that kind of "theory" of software evolution (random keystrokes happening due to noise in the nervous systems that control the fingers typing, followed by trial & error weeding out of non-functioning output) as vacuous as I do the analogous neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.


Except that we KNOW that keystrokes in microsoft are being guided by intelligence. We DON'T know if evolution is guided by intelligence. Just because you can produce an example of something similar being produced using intelligence doesn't mean that all like processes are guided by intelligence. Again this is the watchmaker analogy that I just got done telling you is a fallacy. It's also know as a false analogy.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Except that we KNOW that keystrokes in microsoft are being guided by intelligence. We DON'T know if evolution is guided by intelligence.

We actually know even more -- whenever there is an observed process of evolution for which we do have an explanation, we always find that there is an intelligent process underlying and guiding that evolution (via control of the boundary & initial conditions of the system being transformed; our natural laws require those numbers to be put in by hand, before the differential/integral equations representing natural laws can making specific prediction about what a system will do).

We also know that if we wanted to form an all star team of experts able to replicate from scratch the products of molecular engineering observed in cells, working from basic atoms & molecules, we would need the brightest of the brightest for the team. Even then, they wouldn't even know how begin to engineer a single live organelle from scratch (from simple atoms & molecules), let alone the whole live cell, to say nothing of trillions of live cells harmonized into a live organism. But then, to also make such organisms not just live, but self-reparing and self-improving (i.e. able to evolve), requires yet another far greater level of intelligence and expertise in the team.

Imagine intelligence needed to have Windows OS, that not just works right when released, but self-repairs in case of damages or bugs, plus it improves itself as the conditions and users' needs change. It is far harder to build a system that not only works as initially built, but that it also transforms and adapts to unanticipated situations, all without further intelligent input (which was needed for the initial, functioning system).

All that is evidence, too, a major clue about the nature and capabilities of the process responsible for life and its evolution. It also makes it perfectly clear that the neo-Darwinian handwaving about the magic chance, has nothing to do with it. All the clues point toward an underlying intelligent process, a vast computation extending down to Planck scale, operational at all times and all places from inside of what we call elementary particles (the latter are a form of technology designed & produced by that underlying computational process). Our present natural laws are merely a few of the outermost regularities of the far more sophisticated and purposeful detailed pattern being computed.

edit on 18-7-2014 by nightlight7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightlight7
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Except that we KNOW that keystrokes in microsoft are being guided by intelligence. We DON'T know if evolution is guided by intelligence.

We actually know even more -- whenever there is an observed process of evolution for which we do have an explanation, we always find that there is an intelligent process underlying and guiding that evolution (via control of the boundary & initial conditions of the system being transformed; our natural laws require those numbers to be put in by hand, before the differential/integral equations representing natural laws can making specific prediction about what a system will do).


That is making a stretch. There is no evidence of intelligence involved with evolution.


We also know that if we wanted to form an all star team of experts able to replicate from scratch the products of molecular engineering observed in cells, working from basic atoms & molecules, we would need the brightest of the brightest for the team. Even then, they wouldn't even know how begin to engineer a single live organelle from scratch (from simple atoms & molecules), let alone the whole live cell, to say nothing of trillions of live cells harmonized into a live organism. But then, to also make such organisms not just live, but self-reparing and self-improving (i.e. able to evolve), requires yet another far greater level of intelligence and expertise in the team.


You are comparing human intelligence and reasoning to the reality of the universe. You are also assuming that the intellectual capacity to contemplate the ENTIRE reality of the universe could exist. There is no evidence that such an intelligence is even possible let alone exists.


Imagine intelligence needed to have Windows OS, that not just works right when released, but self-repairs in case of damages or bugs, plus it improves itself as the conditions and users' needs change. It is far harder to build a system that not only works as initially built, but that it also transforms and adapts to unanticipated situations, all without further intelligent input (which was needed for the initial, functioning system).


You should really study the method of how the universe does that. It mostly just shoots a shotgun blast of ideas at a wall and sees which ones stick, and it keeps doing that over and over and over again for billions of years. Eventually the ideas add up and change happens. If it's possible in the universe then it's inevitable given enough time.


All that is evidence, too, a major clue about the nature and capabilities of the process responsible for life and its evolution. It also makes it perfectly clear that the neo-Darwinian handwaving about the magic chance, has nothing to do with it. All the clues point toward an underlying intelligent process, a vast computation extending down to Planck scale, operational at all times and all places from inside of what we call elementary particles (the latter are a form of technology designed & produced by that underlying computational process). Our present natural laws are merely a few of the outermost regularities of the far more sophisticated and purposeful detailed pattern being computed.


Your mistake is that you are looking at the finished product and working back a linear line of how it got there and how complicated it is, but you need to look at the process as a whole. There are many branches of how the universe develops that don't pan out or don't work. It's just how it is. The universe is also AMAZINGLY large, there are so many opportunities for these things to happen for each star in the universe.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: roth1
LOL. That math is flawed. Nothing plus nothing = nothing. 0 + 0 = 0, I don't believe in magical beings. I do not claim to know how everything came into existence. I think evolution is a fact. Everything evolves plants, animals, flu virus. That doesn't explain the beginning. If everyting must be created than who created a supreme magical being? It could not create it self if it did not exist yet. So then it must have evolved as well. But from what and how is the question. We are to primitive in our knowledge to understand yet. I remain open minded, i choose not to grasp at straws and think theory to true.


well said, that's the whole problem, there are believers willing to kill you if you do not believe....the non-believers don't care what you believe, so long as you leave them alone about it.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx


the non-believers don't care what you believe

Oh, I don't know about that.

This guy seems to care what you believe, lol.
"Praise Darwin", indeed.


edit on 18-7-2014 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Wow... After watching that guy in action I'm going to stop referring to myself as an agnostic atheist and just go with 'skeptical' because I don't want any part of whatever Kool-Aid he's been drinking from. He might believe in evolution but I believe he's bat $hi" crazy. It was definitely worthwhile for the entertainment factor though!



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen

This guy seems to care what you believe, lol.

"Praise Darwin", indeed.


That guy needs to switch over to Decaf!!

Darwin never asked for anyone to Praise Him. That was the other guy....



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: nightlight7

We actually know even more -- whenever there is an observed process of evolution for which we do have an explanation, we always find that there is an intelligent process underlying and guiding that evolution (via control of the boundary & initial conditions of the system being transformed; our natural laws require those numbers to be put in by hand, before the differential/integral equations representing natural laws can making specific prediction about what a system will do).

Absolute BS. I always love when people make grandiose proclamations as though its a statement of fact but because it's just their own, unsubstantiated opinion there is never a single citation to support the grandiose proclamation. Seriously, you can't expect anyone to take a statement like the one you make above, with any degree of seriousness if it can not be substantiated. And that statement can NOT be substantiated in any way because it's pure, unadulterated poppy cock.

We also know that if we wanted to form an all star team of experts able to replicate from scratch the products of molecular engineering observed in cells, working from basic atoms & molecules, we would need the brightest of the brightest for the team. Even then, they wouldn't even know how begin to engineer a single live organelle from scratch (from simple atoms & molecules), let alone the whole live cell, to say nothing of trillions of live cells harmonized into a live organism. But then, to also make such organisms not just live, but self-reparing and self-improving (i.e. able to evolve), requires yet another far greater level of intelligence and expertise in the team.

This is essentially the same argument used in support of the Ancient Alien hypothesis, we can't replicate something and we don't fully understand it so the answer must be________(insert God, aliens or the lucky charms leprechaun)


Imagine intelligence needed to have Windows OS, that not just works right when released, but self-repairs in case of damages or bugs, plus it improves itself as the conditions and users' needs change. It is far harder to build a system that not only works as initially built, but that it also transforms and adapts to unanticipated situations, all without further intelligent input (which was needed for the initial, functioning system).

Then by that reasoning, your higher intelligence just plain sucks at its job. otherwise humans wouldn't be born with genetic abnormalities, get cancer or any of the other numerous failings of a perfect, omnipotent deity that present in humans and nearly every other organism struggling to survive on this planet.


All that is evidence, too, a major clue about the nature and capabilities of the process responsible for life and its evolution. It also makes it perfectly clear that the neo-Darwinian handwaving about the magic chance, has nothing to do with it. All the clues point toward an underlying intelligent process, a vast computation extending down to Planck scale, operational at all times and all places from inside of what we call elementary particles (the latter are a form of technology designed & produced by that underlying computational process). Our present natural laws are merely a few of the outermost regularities of the far more sophisticated and purposeful detailed pattern being computed.


so let me get this right...neo-Darwinian magic is less powerful than imaginary magic? OK...makes perfect sense, well except for modern evolutionary synthesis not hinging on magic whereas god completely does.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is making a stretch. There is no evidence of intelligence involved with evolution.

Of course there is. Processes of evolution are ubiquitous anywhere you look, from physical level up through social networks at all levels. For any such process for which we can truly explain its driving causes, we find creative, intelligent, anticipatory process behind, working out (computing, executing anticipatory algorithms) possibilities in its internal model space in order to choose its actions in the physical interactions with its environment. It is a lot faster, cheaper and safer to play such what-if game in one's 'head' as it were, than to keep trying and failing in the physical realm.

Neo-Darwinists insist on implausible conjecture, or rather a cult-like dogma enforced with cult-like group think and witch hunts against unbelievers, that evolution of biological systems is fundamentally different in the need for such underlying anticipatory computational processes (in short, intelligence) than all the instances of evolution for which the driving causes are well understood, such as those at human and social levels.

That, despite the evident fantastic sophistication of the artifacts of biological evolution which are far beyond anything we can figure out or understand with laws & patterns of nature extracted/computed by our brains.

After all, the cellular biochemical networks (and computations underpinning them) design and build not just the mind-boggling nano-technology observed in the cells, but also much larger technologies, such as tissues, organs, organisms, including human bodies, and societies of such organisms, with which they can perform intelligent, purposeful actions at vastly larger scales than their own physical size, such as design and build houses, office buildings, highways, cars, airplanes, TV's, computers, write software, scientific papers, etc.

What we call human intelligence is merely a tiny correction or refinement at the 80-th place (see links below) after decimal point of the main results in front of the decimal point from the overall anticipatory computations at levels that built human bodies and brains, tissues, cells, molecules,... in the first place, as their galactic-scale hierarchy of technologies for the purposes and in ways human brains have not even the remotest clue about. There are some very smart scientists seeking to at least get a glimpse at this computational level that underpins what we call physical laws. They are usually theoretical physicists (I may be biased in pointing there, being a minor member of that club) working on pregeometry models. In the first phase, they are trying to derive self-programming distributed computational models, such as neural or adaptable networks operating at Planck scale that can replicate, among others, our laws of physical space-time and matter energy at our scales.

There is a longer survey with references and discussion on this topic in an earlier, much longer and a more thoughtful thread in another forum. The hyperlinked TOC of the highlights of that thread is in the second half of this post, and a brief bird's eye view on the overall undertaking in this post.

You are comparing human intelligence and reasoning to the reality of the universe. You are also assuming that the intellectual capacity to contemplate the ENTIRE reality of the universe could exist. There is no evidence that such an intelligence is even possible let alone exists.

It certainly can exist, and from the artifacts of its outputs something of that kind has to exist, as some pregeometry models referenced and discussed at the above links hypothesize. In fact, some rough estimates from such models are that the underlying computations at Planck scale operating any given chunk of matter-energy at our physical laws scale are computationally about 10^80 (100...0 with eighty zeros) times more powerful than the most powerful computing technology we may be able to build some day using our 'elementary' particles as its basic gates in the same chunk of space-time & quantity of matter-energy (even that one is many doubling cycles of Moore's law ahead of our present computing technology).



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: tsingtao

Do you not have an understanding of physics? Gravity, in the oversimplified way that I understand it from a college-level Astronomy class is a force that makes objects with lower mass go towards (or gravitate, if you will) towards objects of higher mass.

The logic goes like this:

If there is a law of gravity, blah blah blah objects move towards those with higher mass (read above).
Over hundreds of millions and billions of years, the universe will form.

If you can't follow the jump, it goes something like this: atoms bind together to make up gas clouds; gas clouds bind together to make stars, planets and other astronomical phenomena; stars bind together to make galaxies; galaxies bind together to make galaxy clusters; galaxy clusters go on to make superclusters; superclusters go on to make what we know of today (or a variant, if we're talking about a different universe).


yes, i know that.

you have to have something for gravity to work, right?

you can have the "law of gravity" all you want but if there is no mass or "nothing", it's kinda useless.

if there is "nothing" then there is no mass, time or space.
or even a singularity where the laws of physics break down and no one knows what happens, if there was one.

even a quantum nothing is something.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen
I stand by my statement. the guy raving at the "evolution is wrong" people is doing it because they came to a college campus to push their mythical beliefs on others...I say "push" because they were certainly not invited. they say evolution is wrong, because a mythical being told a human(s) from 1900 years ago, to write down how this mythical being created life.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: nightlight7
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is making a stretch. There is no evidence of intelligence involved with evolution.

Of course there is. Processes of evolution are ubiquitous anywhere you look, from physical level up through social networks at all levels. For any such process for which we can truly explain its driving causes, we find creative, intelligent, anticipatory process behind, working out (computing, executing anticipatory algorithms) possibilities in its internal model space in order to choose its actions in the physical interactions with its environment. It is a lot faster, cheaper and safer to play such what-if game in one's 'head' as it were, than to keep trying and failing in the physical realm.

Neo-Darwinists insist on implausible conjecture, or rather a cult-like dogma enforced with cult-like group think and witch hunts against unbelievers, that evolution of biological systems is fundamentally different in the need for such underlying anticipatory computational processes (in short, intelligence) than all the instances of evolution for which the driving causes are well understood, such as those at human and social levels.

That, despite the evident fantastic sophistication of the artifacts of biological evolution which are far beyond anything we can figure out or understand with laws & patterns of nature extracted/computed by our brains.

After all, the cellular biochemical networks (and computations underpinning them) design and build not just the mind-boggling nano-technology observed in the cells, but also much larger technologies, such as tissues, organs, organisms, including human bodies, and societies of such organisms, with which they can perform intelligent, purposeful actions at vastly larger scales than their own physical size, such as design and build houses, office buildings, highways, cars, airplanes, TV's, computers, write software, scientific papers, etc.

What we call human intelligence is merely a tiny correction or refinement at the 80-th place (see links below) after decimal point of the main results in front of the decimal point from the overall anticipatory computations at levels that built human bodies and brains, tissues, cells, molecules,... in the first place, as their galactic-scale hierarchy of technologies for the purposes and in ways human brains have not even the remotest clue about. There are some very smart scientists seeking to at least get a glimpse at this computational level that underpins what we call physical laws. They are usually theoretical physicists (I may be biased in pointing there, being a minor member of that club) working on pregeometry models. In the first phase, they are trying to derive self-programming distributed computational models, such as neural or adaptable networks operating at Planck scale that can replicate, among others, our laws of physical space-time and matter energy at our scales.

There is a longer survey with references and discussion on this topic in an earlier, much longer and a more thoughtful thread in another forum. The hyperlinked TOC of the highlights of that thread is in the second half of this post, and a brief bird's eye view on the overall undertaking in this post.

You are comparing human intelligence and reasoning to the reality of the universe. You are also assuming that the intellectual capacity to contemplate the ENTIRE reality of the universe could exist. There is no evidence that such an intelligence is even possible let alone exists.

It certainly can exist, and from the artifacts of its outputs something of that kind has to exist, as some pregeometry models referenced and discussed at the above links hypothesize. In fact, some rough estimates from such models are that the underlying computations at Planck scale operating any given chunk of matter-energy at our physical laws scale are computationally about 10^80 (100...0 with eighty zeros) times more powerful than the most powerful computing technology we may be able to build some day using our 'elementary' particles as its basic gates in the same chunk of space-time & quantity of matter-energy (even that one is many doubling cycles of Moore's law ahead of our present computing technology).

That's a very long winded logical fallacy (almost a full on Gish gallup). You think it was made by an intelligence/god, so it must be..Yep, settles it...




edit on 19-7-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join