A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

[ Facebook comments] - NEW! Don't have a FREE Black Vault account? You can still comment using your Facebook, AOL, Hotmail or Yahoo! accounts at the bottom of the page.

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.


Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby at1with0 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 am

Check out this article by Max Tegmark:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283.pdf



Just sayin....this is how parallel universes and the multiverse are actually done in practice by theoretical physicists.

Oh, and
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/16 ... de-of-math

This might be informative also:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
"Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove."
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 11:41 am

frrostedman wrote:
humphreys wrote:Greeney, the story from Kings, remember that? We discussed it quite recently. Well, that was a gang.

That tribal stuff that occurred at the beginning of civilization, they were gangs too. Gangs have always existed.

As far as the American gangs you are talking about specifically, they have been around at least 150 years.


This doesn't sound very supportive of your "look at all the progress we've made" argument.

Yes, we've made lots of progress as far as scientific discovery. The the nature of mankind has not change for the better or worse since the dawn of civilization. And even if it has, science has had nothing to do with it, that's for sure.


It worked out rather well. Now instead of totally rampant evil, human sacrifice, and ceaseless rapes committed upon us by powerful Nephalim, we have humphreys and frosty. I would choose the latter every time.


:crazy:
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:21 pm

CodeBlackv2 wrote:Whoa, that is way off base. You are confusing theory with proof.


No, I'm not. My point was not that theories are proofs. My point was that it's disingenuous to dismiss multiverse theory as a "pure" theory or "just a theory".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.


The key thing to keep in mind is falsifiability. You seem to be under the impression that a multiverse is an unprovable entity intended to replace a God. Whether there is any God or not is irrelevant to evidence and support for multiverse theory.

Unless you arbitrarily decide that they're mutually exclusive. I don't.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:26 pm

Island_Girl wrote:Is this off topic? I spend lots of time on and in the
water. Reel me in, if so. Release me back gently tho'. :)



The idea of exploring mind in metaphorical terms of fishing?

Sure, why not?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=ESV

:twisted:
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:50 pm

Just to be clear, CB, when I wrote that you were coming across as disingenuous, I meant that you seemed to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty. I was not saying either of us were right or wrong. I was taking issue with your contrived approach.

I'm not Event_Horizon. I'm not arguing a multiverse vs. creator debate with you. When you say we "must" decide now while also dismissing the idea of a multiverse, it's being disingenuous in both calling for a rush to judgment AND in implying a false dichotomy.

There may not be parallel universes. I personally lean toward thinking there are. As you said, technology might catch up. There may not be a God. I personally tend to think there is. I just don't believe this universe or world was made for us by a supernatural being.

So let's pretty please not do the black vs. white thing. It's tiresome enough dealing with the assumptions of Greene and gang, who seem to assume they own the God concept and I must be an atheist for not always agreeing.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:09 pm

An interesting article from Tegmark and another dude:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... l-universe

Surprisingly, observational tests of the multiverse picture may in fact be possible. Anthony Aguirre, Matt Johnson, Matt Kleban and others have pointed out that a collision of our expanding bubble with another bubble in the multiverse would produce an imprint in the cosmic background radiation—a round spot of higher or lower radiation intensity.


There is also another approach that one can follow. The idea is to use our theoretical model of the multiverse to predict the constants of nature that we can expect to measure in our local region. If the constants vary from one bubble universe to another, their local values cannot be predicted with certainty, but we can still make statistical predictions.
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby at1with0 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:46 pm

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.



Hmm...

Now if Tegmark is right about the level IV multiverse, and reality is at least isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then what implications does that have regarding ID? I would think that mathematical structures are discovered and NOT created/designed by anything simply because they always existed (even before the big bang).
"Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove."
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:02 pm

at1with0 wrote:
Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.



Hmm...

Now if Tegmark is right about the level IV multiverse, and reality is at least isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then what implications does that have regarding ID? I would think that mathematical structures are discovered and NOT created/designed by anything simply because they always existed (even before the big bang).


What I'm curious about is the nature and mechanism of ontological divergence. Even if there is an uncreated platonic reality of timeless truths containing/allowing a spectrum of iterations, why does such multiplicity (as we perceive it) arise? Is there a cognitive basis for structure?
"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby at1with0 » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:33 pm

In essence, it sounds like a similar question: what breathes life into the equations? And: from whence does time arise? I don't know if I'm close as I'm not sure what ontological divergence means for sure.

A cognitive basis for structure. There seems to be an anthropic principle of sorts lurking about. I would surmise that cognition arises as a mechanism for apprehending structure. I can understand the structure of the building so as to not bump into it or jump off of it. On some level, I think multiple attempts at adaptation were attempted and the ones who couldn't discern that wolf chasing them (a particular kind of structure) were bred out in our history. Only in the last few millenia, when contemplative chaps were no longer chased by wolves, have we been turning that cognitive eye towards the nature of reality itself. A comparatively short time with respect to our total time here.

Tegmark surmises that we are specific examples of self-aware structures. His answer to the first question is that WE breathe life into the equations. More generally, SAS's breathe life into the ambient structure.

In trying to imagine life without time, the best I could come up with is that the software for AI is itself timeless, "living" amongst a sea of structures; interesting ones given that true AI would probably entail self-writing code.

I suspect that I'm not totally on point here. I blame it on the complexity of the questions and the interesting can of worms entailed.
"Be as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove."
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 8986
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Re: A Case for Intelligent Design: Part 2

Postby DIss0n80r » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:03 pm

Ontological divergence was my fancy way of saying "change". Basically, what is change? Why does it occur or appear to occur? What are the limits of change, if any? Are all changes comprehensible or logically ordered?

I do find it odd that objective reality seems to lend itself so well to mental-symbolic modeling & processing.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort
User avatar
DIss0n80r
 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:45 am

PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Religion & Spirituality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

[ ]