Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?

Posted by: jjw

Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/22/05 11:14 PM

Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so?

If we are the creatures of intentional creation why wouldn?t our Creator use all means available to do it, including obscure as well as obvious methods of what we call science? How else could it be done?
jjw
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/23/05 06:21 AM

Good question.
Why cant creator simply come up and say I created it..
Well I say .. I created it.
Now will you believe me...?
You will ask for a miracle...
I will say you are living a miracle.
You will ask me scientific question.
I will give you a scientific answer.

Its obvious the problem is not with the creator.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/23/05 10:33 PM

What a creator would or would not do is not amenable to scientific examination. Science was hobbled until it delineated how it was different from mere philosophy. (This is called the problem of demarcation.) Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/25/05 06:31 PM

Why am I repeating myself again? Science is the study and explanation of how everything works. Therefore, jjw004, there is no such thing as an 'obscure' method of creating something. So that I do not have to repeat myself yet-again, I would like to emphasise the HOW 'EVERYTHING WORKS' in the last sentence.
You can't disagree with me on the fact that everything has a logical explanation, even though 'we' as humans in our present stage may not be able to understand it (e.g. nothingness), but you must admit that everything, i repeat, evrything has an e-x-p-l-a-n-t-i-o-n. So let's take your 'creator', this, like everything else in existence (I'm not saying your 'creator exists') is explainable by some form of logic.
To explain what I meant by some form of logic, I was not implying that there are different versions of logic in different reigons of space or whatever, I'm saying there is only one set of rules, one way things can be, one logic; and how we interpret everything is dependant of our current knowlege of this logic (unless you are religious and choose to ignore logic). Take maths, we know a lot, but there's a lot still to be discovered.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/26/05 05:31 AM

Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.
DKV: Can you disprove the theory that I created it?I say I created the Entire Universe.
Now go aghead and disprove me.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/26/05 09:39 PM

Rob says, in part:

?To explain what I meant by some form of logic, I was not implying that there are different versions of logic in different reigons of space or whatever, I'm saying there is only one set of rules, one way things can be, one logic; and how we interpret everything is dependant of our current knowlege of this logic (unless you are religious and choose to ignore logic). Take maths, we know a lot, but there's a lot still to be discovered.?

Jjw: I have no creator to offer the world. My question was simply a hypothetical one intended to respond to those of you that appear to think that every scientific discovery is some proof that there was no creator. I consistently fail to see why any scientific discovery can be offered as proof that there was no creator and I can say that even though I do not accept the creationists? offerings.

My Post suggests that at first all things were obscure to humanity. Reasons for observed phenomena were slowly discovered as we learned more. What was obscure to us originally was slowly disclosed as understandable. The truth was there all along. Science, in some cases by simple observation, exposed the answer. Science did not create the answer. All the knowledge of science has been there for us to discover and use to our benefit. So, I ask why wouldn?t this basic knowledge be built into the system if it had been created? If our science was not there before us we would have had nothing to discover. I sometimes get the impression that those avid evangelists of science think that they are creating physics as if it was not a natural part of existence.

So, I repeat, if there was a creator involved in our origins, why would not that creator incorporate all the essentials of our existence, gravitation, geometry, physics and all else that we have been able to discover? I think logic says he would do so to make it function so we would eventually learn to understand it. Just a trifle.
jjw
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/26/05 10:35 PM

"why wouldn?t this basic knowledge be built into the system if it had been created?"

Not this again! Ok look, let's say I were to create a simulation of the laws of physics (known to me) on my super computer (let's also say that I owned one). And also created life (an AI system) within this simulation. I have, essentially, 'created' a universe. I am God. This computer simulation that exists independantly of the 'real' world (where I am) is still operating on the laws of physics of the real world. For example, if I were to get annoyed and smash the CPU the world I created would cease to exist. So, when talking about creators one can always ask the question; who created the creator? The answer is always somebody -till we reach the truly real world that is not a simulation, but a real thing. The answer to who created this world is no-one, It just plain exists. 1+1 can equal 3 in any simulation you like, but in the real world 1+1 will equal x, and that's the only way things can be, and those are the real laws of science.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/26/05 11:22 PM

"Science addresses those ideas which can produce putatively disprovable hypotheses.
DKV: Can you disprove the theory that I created it?I say I created the Entire Universe.
Now go aghead and disprove me."

Having hired a private detective to give me an account of your entire life from the moment you were a single cell I can clearly see that you, indeed, did NOT create the universe. Just to be sure I contacted the best group of scientists in existance (from various feilds) to convert the time in which you were alive on earth into mathematics. The mathematics show no anomalies in the particles surrounding you etc...
Obvioulsy since you are allegedly the 'creator' you have control over the factors that may give you away as a creator. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, you are not the creator. The evidence proving you are not outweighs by far the evidence to show you are.
Next time you see a friend of yours, why not PROVE that they are not a, as DA would say, purple rhinoceros. Why take the time out of your day to prove something so obvious?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/27/05 05:40 AM

Science did not create the answer. All the knowledge of science has been there for us to discover and use to our benefit.
DKV: I agree to this.All the knowledge was there there for us to discover it.And it is there without doubt. The very mind which creates doubt ,also gives answers.Thus all answers were available as function of Thinking Power and Time.
Imagine a person who wants to fly in the 1st Century.
What questions he will generally ask ?
I wish to fly. But what is I?Is it my body or my conciousness (which generates experience and understanding)?
Most likely during those old days he will end up with an Answer saying I am completely attached to my body.Conciousness has no independent existence. He will never give a thought to Conciousness Compression on a small size body for the benefit of his desire.
In short Becoming a Bird will be a complete stupidity in order to achieve the goal.Becuase essentially he wants to carry much more information.He wants all the physical self to carry itself in the air.Not only that he wants to be recongnized to the observers.His desire remains to be known with all his accomplishements so that he may fulfill some other part of his desire like getting close to a Superman with medals..
Thus he will try to conquer the concept of Flying.He will work hard to keep his physical body and mind is sync with his desires.
Interestingly he will get all his inspiration from Nature.He will look at Birds who achieved it without caring for the Scientific Methodology.
Interesting isnt it. A concept so complicated gets Naturally manfactured by keeping a simple desire with conviction.Obviously What Birds accomplished doesnt get a mention in the Who's Who but this fact can not go unnoticed from the eyes of a keen observer.Greater the number of desires you have greater the energy you will require to accomplish it.And anything can be accomplished by playing around your the number of Desires within you. This is the Qunatum Definition of Budhha's TEaching.
By this example it becomes obvious that Knowledge lives within us. We discover what we need.When we need all we need to find all...Within us.
And we are not talking about simulation here.
We have distinguished between Simulation and Real world in "Anomaly in Randomeness".
===============================================
ROB:Having hired a private detective to give me an account of your entire life from the moment you were a single cell I can clearly see that you, indeed, did NOT create the universe.
REP:Thats crazy you never saw.I am enclosed within the facade of physical body and desires.
=========================================
Just to be sure I contacted the best group of scientists in existance (from various feilds) to convert the time in which you were alive on earth into mathematics. The mathematics show no anomalies in the particles surrounding you etc...
REP: Give them an option of describing me in the Real Space time with respect to the Origin of the Universe.Whatever was before anyone was like a movie in a smaller dimesnions.I mean before I was born nothing was true it was all scripted in a Lie... A truth has been realized only with me.
From now on the Life begins for real for those who know me.I am a moment of creation in the Highness of Truth.
==============================================
Obvioulsy since you are allegedly the 'creator' you have control over the factors that may give you away as a creator. Regardless, as far as I am concerned, you are not the creator.
REP: Thats your approach to truthness.Having a control over everything is not a requirement in
my quest to be called the Creator :-))
==========================================
The evidence proving you are not outweighs by far the evidence to show you are.
REP: The evidence whatever you have needs to be shared with me in order to have a real discussion.
=======================================
Next time you see a friend of yours, why not PROVE that they are not a, as DA would say, purple rhinoceros. Why take the time out of your day to prove something so obvious?
REP: This is no Joke. Proving a Rhinoceros is far more easier than proving me worng.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/27/05 01:33 PM

OK, so you've proved your point that nothing can be proved 100%. So what?
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/27/05 06:06 PM

Rob says in part:
?The answer is always somebody -till we reach the truly real world that is not a simulation, but a real thing. The answer to who created this world is no-one, It just plain exists. 1+1 can equal 3 in any simulation you like, but in the real world 1+1 will equal x, and that's the only way things can be, and those are the real laws of science.?

Rep: There is an old expression that, some one, cannot see the forest for the trees. You might also use it to disclose being focused on the forest to the exclusion of the individual trees. Your apparent impatience with my comments suggests that you are so entrenched in your views that discussion is beneath you. That view would be in error.

We are here and all the known laws of nature are here with us. You argue that this all came about by chance, some unknown but natural circumstance, and I am willing to consider that likelihood but I will keep an open mind on the issue. You speak of the ?real world? as if I do not. First of all I did not ask ?who created the world? and secondly I find your argument that ?it just plain exists? to be meaningless- we know that and the existence of the world is not at issue. Science has discovered the basic elements of nature, it did not create them. Science has discover, ala Newton, the basic physics of the Universe, it created nothing. These and all else was there waiting for us to discover them. My point is very simple. If you are willing to chalk all of this up to mere chance why are you so closed minded when someone suggests that the identical existence could exist if it came about as a result of creation. Can?t you see this?
jjw
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/28/05 12:26 AM

Rob,

Your arguments are emotionally driven. Shake your fist at it all you want - but you are still not in a position to categorically state that the universe was not the work of a creator.

Just accept the fact that you simply don't personally believe it, as is your right, and your faith.

Just because you cannot conceive of a creator outside of time and matter, does not make it impossible, much to your chagrin. Your assertions that something cannot come from nothing (even though that is not what is on offer), and that a creator would be explainable by logic (or more to the point, your thought processes) just show to me the limits of a finite, temporally bound mind.

God may well be explainable by logic, but we cannot reference all of the variables. We simply don't have the whole picture.

You find the 'existence of an intelligent entity that just exists and has created this universe and revealed Himself through history' inconceivable, unnecessary and unbelievable.

I find the idea that 'I am here as a freak occurrence because millions of coincidences led to a random chain of events that ended with my consciousness seated within a brain of breath-taking complexity looking out at this incredible universe and feeling that it cannot believe that I am here as a freak occurrence because of millions of coinc....' as inconceivable, unbelievable and ridiculous.

I believe that it is simply what you choose to accept - and then you use science to rationalize it, when in fact science cannot even touch it - full stop.

You said you were going to think of a proof of God's non existence. How has it gone?

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/28/05 04:46 AM

Having the heard the various arguments and comments it gives me great pleasure to share some more 'facts' with you.
What real question is the Science asking?
It is asking for underlying laws which govern the Universe.Lately we have even gone to the extent of proving that there is No Underlying Law at all!!
Since both answers are not found we wonder what is going wrong and where...
Most of the questions are centered around two main events ... The Creation Of Universe as if it was never before some time.Second Creation of Man.
Before going into deep waters let us discover some more facts about ourselves..
:
Btw , if any one has any doubt may still raise the questions.
:
Thinking of Lies let us be frank enough about it. Where actually it lies? What is it that moves us towards truth?
It is in the Understanding but not the Experience.
The understanding of every Experience changes the moment we just try to explain to ourselves why we felt that way.
The reasoning itself brings the flaw due to the suction of Experince into delibrate Understanding.
The lost Infomration is the Experience .. no matter how much we try to simulate we dont find the same exact Experience(Quantum Gravitational State).The Gained information is
Linearized Knowledge in some kind of storage....Which is Multidimensional like a Book or or your screen or a Mountain or a temple or a church.Please note that we assume World to be fractal in Nature Spatially or Timely.This can be called Linear Interpretation of Knowledge or Dimensional Interpretation of Knowledge.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/28/05 08:17 PM

"My point is very simple. If you are willing to chalk all of this up to mere chance why are you so closed minded when someone suggests that the identical existence could exist if it came about as a result of creation. Can?t you see this?"

For the last time, because of the question, 'how did the creator come into existance?'

"You said you were going to think of a proof of God's non existence. How has it gone?"
Terribly.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/29/05 08:58 AM

how did the creator come into existance?
First and Last came together in Space. Now ask me the question again.
This is called Graviton.

Say Cheers
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/29/05 09:17 AM

If you promise me forgiveness then I can tell you how to detect a Graviton.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/29/05 08:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dkv:
how did the creator come into existance?
First and Last came together in Space. Now ask me the question again.
This is called Graviton.

Say Cheers
Utter non-science. Pull yourself together and get on topic. This is not "mysticism-a-go-go". More Science less spiritualism, please, or I will edit your non-relevant essays.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/29/05 09:13 PM

Rob:

I see we are not making progress so I will accept your concept. The creator came into existence by mere chance, a spontaenoious event, in the same manner as your Universe. See, we agree.
jjw
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 12/31/05 03:51 PM

well, not exactly. a creator can't spring into existance because to be sentient it would need a brain and a complex biological structure which can only be acheived by evolution. And so matter and the rules of science including forces would have to exist before an entity that could 'create' them, therefore rendering the notion of a creator useless.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/01/06 12:27 PM

ROB: a creator can't spring into existence because to be sentient it would need a brain and a complex biological structure which can only be achieved by evolution.

REP: This is an astonishing statement. You have called me Brain-Washed - I have to say on the basis of what you have written above that you display the thought capacity of a child. Just like your question - 'Can God create a rock he cannot lift?' - which you actually seemed to think was meaningful and worthy of serious consideration, you now show that you are completely limited in your ability to think clearly about the issues that surround the debate you want to engage in.

Even if you are not making any admissions about a creator, are you really saying you cannot even conceive on a purely conjectural level that there could be anything that exists outside of physical constraints?

You can say you don't accept that it is the case, and I would respect your thinking.

But to say that a postulated intelligence that could create the universe would need a physical brain and a complex biological structure which can only be achieved by evolution is ridiculous. In fact only someone with God-like knowledge could make that assertion.

This creator would be outside of your universe and all of its rules. To assert that the laws of this universe would have to apply to Him is like saying that the programmers of a Simulation Program would have to be bound by the laws operating within that program.

You seem to be incapable of thinking outside of the box you have created that works on the premise that there is no truth other than that which can be empirically proven. Well you are welcome to your faith, but you should recognise it as such.

You are figuring these things out with a brain that has probably, at best, about 6 terabytes of storage space, so it obviously has its limitations. It doesn't surprise me that the full force of people's reasoning ability leads them to the conclusion that "all we can see is all there is". This is why the creator has to reveal himself, because our reasoning doesn't lead us to Him.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/01/06 05:41 PM

"Even if you are not making any admissions about a creator, are you really saying you cannot even conceive on a purely conjectural level that there could be anything that exists outside of physical constraints?"

EVERYTHING and I MEAN EVERYTHING has SOME KIND of explanation. there may be different versions of logic ( computer programs and sims) but that doesn't matter.

"This creator would be outside of your universe and all of its rules. To assert that the laws of this universe would have to apply to Him is like saying that the programmers of a Simulation Program would have to be bound by the laws operating within that program."

I am SO glad you said this. I have said this in some other topic but it is so important that I will say it again. Imagine THIS is the real world (I'm not saying it is, I'm just making things easy). Now imagine that I make a program with slightly different rules of logic (that SOMEHOW work) and create another universe in the computer. Now say that the people in the computer do the same. Now the people in the 3rd world have a creator. So do the people in the 2nd world. But the people in this world DO NOT. All they have is the laws of physics that were always there. You, being a tiny bit foolish at times, if you want my personal opinion, will probably say that this could also be a simulation. Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators. Before I continue discussions with you: I also argue with a muslim friend in real life about religion, we have both agreed that when you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out 'god'. Do you comply?
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/05/06 03:57 PM

Rob,

You start by taking my analogy of programming a sim, a little too far.

Rob - "Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators."

- You have not demonstrated that in order to have one creator you necessarily need an infinite number. You conclude nothing.

Rob - "EVERYTHING and I MEAN EVERYTHING has SOME KIND of explanation."

- This is a kind of reverse use of the flawed 'first cause' proof for God's existence.
I would say that we just do not have sufficient capability or capacity to understand either eternity or infinity. If a creator was the first cause, then we can know nothing about what exists on the other side of the Big Bang, except by a creator (if there is one), revealing it. To force eternity and creator into our logical straight-jacket and assert that a creator must have been created is flawed thinking - and is simply a false application of our understanding of the laws of this universe, (being the only laws that we can conceive of).

You simply cannot state that a creator just can't exist, without a start and end. As I have written before, the Biblical God says of himself, 'I AM'. This is communicating the atemporal status of 'simply existing' and in this instance is to be contrasted against the idea of 'I WAS' or 'I WILL BE'.
Linear progression as we understand it does not come into the equation.

Now I am not a savage, who believes that thunder is the gods shouting. Of course my emotions rail against the concept of something that 'just exists' and follows no arrow of time, (although there are quantum particles that appear to do just that). It is an utter nonsense to me, and an affront to everything I perceive. And on the basis of this alone, I would completely dispense with any idea of God. But I accept the historical evidence for Christ's divinity, I find his character and teachings to be completely compelling, and his understanding of the human condition without parallel - and I answer his question 'Who do you say I am?' with 'I say you are the 'I AM'.
This is coupled with my incredible experience of life as a Christian.

So my emotional struggle to accept ideas of eternity, omniscience, omnipresence and a created universe must be made subject to my solid (though subjective) experience, fused with good historical evidence that Christ was more than a carpenter

So I don't want to appear arrogant, and I will not say that there is not the smallest possibility that I am mistaken and self deceived - I just strongly believe that is not the case.

So I do not comply. But neither do I expect you to comply with what I say. I would however, like you to admit that I am not an unthinking fool, as DA Morgan claims, and you have also implied of anyone who holds a view other than a strictly empirical one. I won't expect it though and I won't press you smile

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/05/06 07:03 PM

"I would however, like you to admit that I am not an unthinking fool, as DA Morgan claims, and you have also implied of anyone who holds a view other than a strictly empirical one. I won't expect it though and I won't press you"

Well you certainly proved me wrong! (This is not sarcasm) (neither was that) Am I being sarcastic? If you can tell me the correct answer you really will be proving me wrong.

In response to the points you were making in your reply, 1 question; do you agree that EVERYTHING and I must stress that I mean EVERYTHING literally, can be explained by mathematics?
*I don't mean can be explained now, I mean explained -ever (when we have a broader knowlege of maths).
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/07/06 10:10 AM

Utter non-science. Pull yourself together and get on topic. This is not "mysticism-a-go-go". More Science less spiritualism, please, or I will edit your non-relevant essays.
REP: AS most of want a creator ... I am calling myself the creator. And since there is no proof against me not being the creator I think this should settle the dispute in every scientific sense.My answer was available for those Spiritual people who want to know who is their ultimate Father or Mother.
As per your requirement I will give you a physical Answer on Graviton.And it will not be Spiritual one.
But still I need a solid proof of my accuracy in explaing things till now.If and only if I make sense I think I should be made the moderator of this group just to save Galileo.
Otherwise you will know it anyway.. someday and then probably who will say what a waste of time.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/07/06 04:47 PM

DKV,

If you were the creator you would have access to all knowledge. Now we know that is not the case.

Of course you could be the creator and have access to all knowledge but are not displaying this for some reason.

But at the least you would demonstrate a perfect grasp of the English language(as there should be no such thing as a second language for you, as you created everything). Now we know this is certainly not the case.

Ergo, you are not the creator - no more proof needed.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/07/06 09:26 PM

Afraid to answer my question are you?
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/07/06 10:29 PM

Blacknad afraid? More likely he can't.

Like a small child he repeatedly deals with unpleasant facts by trying to change the subject or ignoring them and hoping they will go away.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/09/06 10:45 AM

But at the least you would demonstrate a perfect grasp of the English language(as there should be no such thing as a second language for you, as you created everything). Now we know this is certainly not the case.
REP: Ok .. so my English is not perfect.
What is the measure of perfectness?
Do we know Dude was once not part of English?
Do we know that English doesnt even shape 80% of our daily communication staple?
What perfection you are asking for is found in your self made dictionary which was never supposed to remain closed.
It never took an English for a Hebrew Scientist to interact with Muslim World.
The love of language is good by the extent of its utility.
Anyways since you have asked this question let me give an analogy from Maths.
If you ask me to tell you 10000th value of PI then I will not be able to give you the answer immediately.
My answer will be delayed by time x but it will be available if this is the only requirement to fulfill.
In principle I say I know but pls give me sometime to give you the answer.
Now since we are using Finite Velocity to communicate .. we say the Universe itself can not give you all your answers immediately.
But Myself and my creation can give you the correct answer after some time.
Same applies to English .. I can learn it and in principle I can be better than the best.(assuming I am not good at it.. though I feel I am too good and actually the reader reads more than the given)
Thus
Knowing exactly correct English is no Knowledge at all.
Communicated part constitues the Universe and not the Language ..
And I guess I have communicated very well.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/09/06 04:27 PM

IMHO you haven't communicated at all well. NOt even mediocre. Your English is lousy.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/10/06 12:50 AM

Rob offers:
?Well let's just conclude that there are infinite creators. Before I continue discussions with you: I also argue with a muslim friend in real life about religion, we have both agreed that when you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out 'god'. Do you comply??

jjw:
Recall DA advises you not to consider my comments.
The item relates to infinity. ?When you reach the subject of infinity you can rule out ?god?. Do you comply??

No.
Do you argue that if ?infinity? exists then ?god? can not? What do you find inconsistent in the concepts? If there is a ?god? he must exist in all of existence so the prospect of infinity would have no bearing on the prospect, of yes or no, of there being a god. My view.
This may have some connection to your offered conclusion that there are infinite creators.
I do not find the quantity of your gods as relative to infinity in any way. Tell me.

jjw
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/10/06 01:22 PM

I can't without sounding stupid. I'll try and find a way to do it using maths. -This may take a while.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/11/06 08:17 AM

Just to repeat again :
Infinity exists in the Maths and not the real world.
Its the harsh reality of the "Observed and Actionable" World.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/11/06 10:00 AM

It does exist in the real world.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/14/06 04:56 AM

It does exist in the real world.
REP: Show me.You are a kid sweetheart.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/14/06 06:32 PM

If you ask me to tell you 10000th value of PI then I will not be able to give you the answer immediately.
My answer will be delayed by time x but it will be available if this is the only requirement to fulfill.

REP: It is simple - if you were the Creator of this universe, the mind you must have (that would enable you to deal with all of the variables involved) must surely be able to deal with a small issue like PI to the 10,000th.

In fact the 9.1 million digit prime should be child's play.

There is a prize for the discovery of a 10 million digit prime - do yourself a quick favour and claim it - while you are at it, make sure it's a Mersenne Prime as well just to put the icing on the cake.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/15/06 06:16 AM

If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/15/06 11:31 PM

Rob asked - "In response to the points you were making in your reply, 1 question; do you agree that EVERYTHING and I must stress that I mean EVERYTHING literally, can be explained by mathematics?"

Rob, I am happy to discuss this but I have a question first. Do YOU believe that everything can be explained by mathematics?

I may be wrong, but the answer to this question seems to indicate the type of universe you believe in...

Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?

Can you act, or just react?

I would be interested in discussing this in a non-adversarial fashion and for you and others with a greater knowledge of physics to inform me.

Am I right in thinking that the universe is a series of reactions all stemming from the first action? If you made an exact copy of this universe, would its outcomes diverge from this one or would they both continue along identical paths, subject to the same interplay of forces?

Amaranth elsewhere has said, "I think identical universes would be like identical twins. At the first moment, they share everything alike, all DNA is the same. Then as development proceeds, cell differentiation takes place, maybe one twin was blessed with a bigger share of blood from the placenta, various genes on various chromosomes switched on and off, change begins to creep in. Then at birth one is first the other second, differences in the time taken to birth make changes in stresses, oxygen supply, etc. Even though seemingly identical at birth, they diverge behaviorally. I think identical "multiverses" would soon diverge into distinctive and unique existences".

I am not sure that I defined the question too loosely at the time, but the difference here seems to be that with identical twins there are differing environmental factors affecting them. I am talking about the two identical universes being immune from any outside factors.

If those universes depart from one another - how so? This would mean that not everything is explainable because they are subject to random or unpredictable actions.

If they remain identical then they are utterly deterministic and therefore everything can be explained and predicted. I guess the second is your position.

Please excuse my relative ignorance of physics.

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/16/06 02:18 AM

I started this post and now find it floundering.

The question is very simple to evaluate. Knowing what we do about the Universe, life, the elements and science why would it be a surprise that the ultimate superior being would have included all we know and more in the grand design, if there was such a creator? Everything thing man has learned so far was there for the finding. So how does that learning, of itself, serve to prove anything?

DA was being on the light side I guess with:
"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples."

Pi is a ratio that is part of creation, or possibly the Big Bang, and can not be other than what it is. I replied to the silly idea of male primates having nipples before as ?silly? and as have been shown to nurse infants in emergencies per Ripley.

The answer, as I see it, is that those dead set against a creator, can not enlarge their vision to see the obvious. If we allow for an ultimate superior creator, just for discussion, we will be compelled to accept that the discovery of scientific principles does not disprove the possibility of such creator.

All color rhinoceros, singular or plural, not withstanding.
jjw
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/16/06 04:43 AM

It is simple - if you were the Creator of this universe, the mind you must have (that would enable you to deal with all of the variables involved) must surely be able to deal with a small issue like PI to the 10,000th.
In fact the 9.1 million digit prime should be child's play.
There is a prize for the discovery of a 10 million digit prime - do yourself a quick favour and claim it - while you are at it, make sure it's a Mersenne Prime as well just to put the icing on the cake.
REP:Dear Rob , Without claiming to be superior in any sense .. I would like to reiterate my last statement. Perfect Knowledge is no knowledge at all.PI is an invention of Mathematics.
It does not exist in nature.The nature itself creates it in an attempt to linearize its understanding..
Thus dont be surprised if I take time to solve such problems.
Now tell me what can you share with me instantaneously?
Nothing except the Self. If you are really a good observer then in my case My Self.
===========================================================
Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?
REP: Interesting question but again the answer is dual depending upon your understanding
of the Obeserver as "living" or "non-living".Free Will is not needed if you know that whatever is
happening couldnt have happened any other way.Free Will is needed if you have an illusion of choice.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/16/06 11:57 AM

"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3"

- DA, my ignorance, but what would the benefits of making Pi = 3 be, as opposed to 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679.... that was from memory - honest smile

Would it just make things easier for mathematicians?

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/16/06 12:37 PM

"Do you believe you have free will (the ability to impact the universe and change its course with a conscious decision, as opposed to being just a manifestation of the universe in action) or do you believe that all of your actions are explainable at the sub quantum level and are in effect just reactions?"

I believe that everything we do is a result of the most fundamental rules of the universe acting upon the most fundamental particles of matter. Though I use the term fundamental particles of matter I don't believe that such a thing exists, infinity (in my opinion) applies to both big and small, therefore the universe is infinitely big and small at the same time. You could say that looking at planets and galaxies is looking at the (+) side of infinity and observing sub atomic particles is looking at the (-) side of infinity. None has any end. Obviously between + and - there is a neutral value, zero. Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE? No. Zero, is merely the level at which the observer operates. (once again, just me talkin?).

So, do we have free will? No, free will is an illusion. Assume (like I do) that absolutely every single thing (NO EXCEPTIONS) is explainable by maths. that means that everything is pre-determined. So, were I to make a decision now, and we were to 'reverse the formula' and then 're-reverse the formula' I would do the same thing again -the exact same thing because I would be reacting to the exact same things that would be happening. I like to view it as someone getting shot in a film. Just imagine that these people in the movie are real and our rewind, fast-foreword and play buttons are our way of 'inverting' the universes formula. Just for the sake of irony, I like to have the film based on the subject of free will and the characters in the film are constantly arguing about whether free will exists. No matter whether they believe in free will or not, they will do the same thing, and if they are a particular character, they will get shot, they don?t learn what not to do when you rewind the film because their thoughts get un-thought and all the stimuli that produced that thought un-happen.
(Do not take this analogy literally; I do not believe that it is in ANY WAY possible to 'invert' the formula of the universe.)
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/16/06 09:49 PM

dvk wrote:
"DA was being on the light side I guess with:
"If an intelligent entity created the universe it would have made Pi = 3 and not given male primates nipples."

Pi is a ratio that is part of creation, or possibly the Big Bang
===================================================
Preicsely ... and if the invisible purple rhinoceros is intelligent and intelligently designed the universe then the ratio would be an integer. That is the point of intelligence isn't it?

And you are claiming that all males are born with nipples so that they can nurse infants? Whooeee! I'll pay you $1,000 if you can do it, just once, say for one minute. Proof of milk production required. And no hormone injections.

No doubt gorillas, male whales, bull moose, and all other similarly endowed are keeping their feminine side under control too.
Posted by: Justine

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/18/06 04:32 PM

In other words...no amount of money will buy proof of the existance of God....and shame on you for trying to buy proof when you can easily realise God without proof.

(I think that's what DKV meant)
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 04:57 AM

Yes Justine.Thats what I meant.Few things donot carry the price tag.But is definitely more important than the Stock Markets. And yes it does not mean that Stock Markets are not important at all. (This is the way some people like to interpret it)
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 06:00 AM

Great real here ... God is for sale. No rich person that contributed large amounts of money to a church ever went to his or her grave unforgiven by god.

Want to find out how much money matters? Try taking away the tax deduction from religious organizations.
You'll find out quickly. Apparently people are not free to worship or pray unless their activity is subsidized by other tax payers.

Cheeky hypocrites.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 10:23 AM

Rob said - "Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE?"

REP: Are you talking about rest mass or momentum.

When you say mass, do you use the above two terms interchangeably?

Aren't Photons & Guage Bosons massless?

Blacknad.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 11:37 AM

Interesting question may I know What is mass?
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 11:43 AM

Rob said - "So, do we have free will? No, free will is an illusion. Assume (like I do) that absolutely every single thing (NO EXCEPTIONS) is explainable by maths. that means that everything is pre-determined."

REP: If we stopped at Newtonian physics then I would agree that you are spot on, but since probablity is now in the frame you won't find many people who think the answer is so clear cut.

It would seem that, even by your definition of the universe (completely materialistic but allowing for probability), maths can explain how the universe is structured, but cannot predict all things.

The problem is the mind. Until a mind appeared, the universe was simply a deterministic system that followed an action-reaction-reaction-reaction? process.

Then minds appreared that are able to exert themselves somehow on the universe at a quantum level. Some scientist and philosophers believe that the interaction between what happens at a mental level and a physical level (ie. A non-physical thought being able to have a causative effect upon the physical body), must happen within the brain at a quantum level. This extends to the fact that when a mind merely observes the universe it still has an impact upon it.

I look around my room and see the decoration and the objects I have brought and colour matched etc. and look at my tropical fish tank, and then see the messy things lying around (my daughter?s toys scattered across the floor), I cannot for one moment accept that this is just a natuaral outworking of the laws of the universe. It is not just the way that the chain of reactions from the big bang have arranged all of those atoms.

I see a room that my mind has imposed order (or disorder) upon. I can only accept that I am an autonomous mechanism with an ability to break out from a deterministic framework and impose my own will on my surroundings.
Now how the universe was set up to allow the appearance of autonomous minds that are able to freely exert their will upon material nature, by interactions at a probabalistic quantum level is another question, and is actually one of the things I would say supports the idea of a creator. But that is just my conclusion and is not science and does not an any case lead us to a monotheistic universe.

From Wikipedia on determinism ? I have taken the liberty of replacing the word ?souls? with mind, to avoid its hermetic connotations.

'One approach to determinism is to argue that materialism does not present a correct understanding of the universe, not because it is wrong in its general picture of the determinate interactions that occur among material things, but because it ignores the minds of human beings. The mind is understood to be an autonomous agent of choice that has the power to control the body but not to be controlled by the body. Therefore it stands to the activities of the individual human body as does the creator of the universe to the universe. The creator of the universe put in motion a deterministic system of material entities that would, if left to themselves, carry out the chain of events determined by ordinary causation. But the creator also provided for minds that could exert a causal force analogous to the primordial causal force and alter outcomes in the physical universe via the acts of their bodies. No events in the physical universe are uncaused. Some are caused entirely by the original creative act and the way it plays itself out through time, and some are caused by the acts of created minds. But those created minds were not created by means of physical processes involving ordinary causation. They are another order of being entirely, gifted with the power to modify the original creation.'

I would be interested to hear your (or anyone else?s) thoughts on this.

Blacknad.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 11:54 AM

DKV,

The dictionary definition will suit us well enough - I think:

'A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.'

Blacknad.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 01:02 PM

"Rob said - "Do I believe that anything has zero mass or that nothingness exists ANYWHERE?"

REP: Are you talking about rest mass or momentum.

When you say mass, do you use the above two terms interchangeably?

Aren't Photons & Guage Bosons massless?"

Sorry, I momentarily forgot what DA had told me about mass. What I meant when I said it was that nothing can be said to exist unless it has a weight. I do not mean the force weight, I mean weight as in grams etc. Sorry for not knowing all the technical terms for stuff.
Posted by: Blacknad

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 06:25 PM

DKV said:

"Am I clear?"

- not quite.

"Hope it clears your cloud.

- not quite.

Sorry DKV, it perplexes me that Justine seems to grasp what you say but often I can't.

I cannot work out whether you are talking nonsense or whether it is just my inability to connect your words to their correct meaning.

I know that DA thinks you are insane, but I don't think you are really making claims to be a creator in the sense of Yahweh. It is just the inability of Western Science to dialogue with Eastern Mysticism. No common definition of terms.

Maybe Justine can act as your permanent translator.

I also don't think that poetry is the correct way to communicate in this forum, as in:

"Photons are in sycn with the desire of Universe so the mass vanishes."

Regards,

Blacknad.
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 07:48 PM

You are correct Blacknad. I think he is a very troubled person in need of clinical intervention.

We had one here a few years ago who thought we were spying on him with helicopters. My original opinion of him was that he was just a harmless person of limited intellectual abilities. He has, with his postings, changed that opinion to one of genuine concern that he needs medical help.

I doubt Justine actually understands him. It appears that she comes from a religious background and recognizes some of the verbiage. I'm not keying in on the verbiage ... I'm keying in on the lack of ability to articulate a coherent thought.
Posted by: RM

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/19/06 10:12 PM

Tell me more about this person who thought you were spying on him please. smile
Posted by: Justine

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/20/06 06:28 PM

DKV Just agreed with Rob by emphasising that photons follow Universal Laws.
And he's excited about it.

I'm a sign language interpreter. I'm always searching for the meaning behind the words. I use closure skills to make up for what's lost or inappropriately added during translation.

Plus, I've read the majority of the new age section in the bookstore wink
Posted by: DA Morgan

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/20/06 07:38 PM

Rob: Perhaps Rose or Kate can dredge up that history for you ... but he was absolutely convinced we had sent helicopters to spy on him. Finally went away for whatever reason. But I similarly spent a lot of time urging him to seek professional help.

There are a lot of very lonely, very sick people who spend their days trolling the internet. This forum gets its share.
Posted by: jjw

Re: Why would not a Creator use scientific means to do so? - 01/21/06 01:11 AM

That comment requires supreme will power.
jjw