Originally posted by depth om
Can you not use the universe as a type of evidence for an all encompassing "intelligence"?
You could, but why do it? It explains nothing and is not practically useful. It does
seem to have a kind of placebo effect on people who cannot
stomach mundane reality, but this seems an insufficient justification for introducing an unnecessary complicating factor into our universal model.
I don't believe in the supernatural. All that exists, be it in alternate dimensions or otherwise, it still exists.
Yes, well, if we define 'the supernatural' as 'that which does not exist', everyone's a rationalist, no?
It all forms one.
One what? One universe, certainly. But the universe, which contains everything, must contain all opposites and antinomies; matter and antimatter, for
example, are mutually destructive to one another.
Here you leap far ahead of science, which still has difficulty reconciling General Relativity and quantum mechanics. We haven't even been able to
detect all the particles predicted in the Standard Model. So where did you find data to prove that 'it all forms one'?
Predicament is altered through observation. To myself, this can explain in part, the science of free will.
Observation alters 'predicament' -- if at all -- in ways that cannot be predicted by the observer. What in the name of the Sainted Heisenberg has
that to do with 'free will'?
If you want to discuss this further, come over here
. Read the thread first,
Yes, I know. I hate post-choppers, too. But could you please explain in what sense the universe is self-replicating? Some physical models suggest
this, but none has obtained general scientific acceptance, not even Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis.
Yes. I love the idea that when the first sentient being opened its eyes, the universe got its first look at itself. To me, that's an idea with a
pretty high 'spiritual' content.
What form could've produced such an amazing entity... when I ponder, I arrive at love. A building force, replicative force, a prolonging
force, an adding force, it is better build something good, it is better to tear down a bad thing.
What is love? Did love determine the fundamental constants? Does it account for the strong force? Does it determine how a probability wave
Depth Om, listen to me. I'm happy to risk putting my foot in the bear-trap of formal logic by agreeing with you that the universe is undoubtedly an
entity (in the sense that it is the unity you say it is, though as I have pointed out, it is also the ultimate multiplicity). It is clearly
self-observing and even self-aware, if only in the degenerate sense that self-observing, self-aware entities form part of it. And I certainly stand in
awe and admiration of it -- of nature, of reality, of life. The universe is perfectly capable of provoking transcendental or, if you prefer,
'spiritual' feelings when contemplated in the right way.
But the universe, as far as we can tell, is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. It is not even sentient (though tiny little bits of it are). So it
definitely is not God. If the problem of invariable c
can somehow be surmounted, it may one day become
God, but it's not there yet.
Still, the possibility allows us to imagine that you, I and all other sentient beings ae engaged in the project of making
God. I think this is
an excellent hypothesis on which to found a moral philosophy, since the God the universe one day becomes will be the kind of God we make, which
depends in turn on the kind of beings -- clear-sighted or self-deluded, moral or immoral -- we make ourselves
*The title of a science-fiction novel by Frank Herbert that has had more influence on me than almost anything else I've read. I heartily recommend
it, especially to the young.
[edit on 26-9-2007 by Astyanax]