Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)
If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.
If you are interested in progress on the anthropic principle you might want to check out this website.
But merely because the initial relationships could be described, and put into equation form, wouldn't prove that someOne (or someThing) wrote that equation ab initio.
In other words, are you saying that it requires no intelligence to formulate an algorithm, i.e. process, conditionals, symbolization and recursives --- that such an algorithm can arise from null?
To me, this very paradox is a combination of two self-evident observations (or, one could say, conscious reflections) that are like a multiplication of factors leading one to believe in the Designer.
On the one hand, it is astounding how unfriendly the universe is, and on the other, it is (thankfully) amazing how hospitable Earth is. The one makes the other all the more wondrous by contrast.
The one makes the other all the more wondrous by contrast.
So true.
For another example of not only the burden of proof being upon the scientist, but also upon the theorist who conjectures the more improbable seeming construct: suppose someone really gets "out of his head," successfully unanthropic enough to come up with a thoroughgoing theory-set for a system of natural life that doesn't match up to any kind of life we've observed on Earth, and thus bring down the odds against life on some other planet (or something else). Wouldn't it remain that he has to either observe it, or somehow confirm it by experiment, in order to "make science" out of it. Then of course, how did it get here?
Bump for AG's & Rach's "ya don't just get complex order from crude disorder (to say nothing about uniformity, to say nothing about nothing)" observation via information theory.
(Meanwhile, of course, we have the functions of human empiricism, conceptualization, and imagination when dealing with the entirity of human experience, telling us much more than this about the Intelligent Designer.)
No one commented much on my lil' ol' examination of human imagination, after I happened to be able to show that it wasn't teleological. I suppose that it is much too anthropic. (But more so than finding a human skeleton or human DNA and relating it to other creatures?) But I suppose that it is still much too non-physical and subjective. (But even when it is subjective to say "I will only consider what is objective, regardless of having experienced things beyond my objective comprehension?") Can someone tell me how it would fit comfortably into a universally mindless evolutionary model, that evolution is biased to build in its latest stages a creature that is so preoccupied of mind, and... irrational? (I would say extra-rational.)
Can someone tell me why it fits the strictly naturalistic evolutionary model that such an imaginative life form as man seems to be an eventuality, when the creatures lower on the evolutionary pile survive and thrive so well, in part because they are so simple and uncluttered (with such things as mammallian diseases, behavioral disorders, and the ingenuity to create things that kill us)? Survival of the what, now?
But, why even ask these things, when there is no theory of origins that has been scientifically demonstrated?
What I'm saying (what I literally had in mind) is this. Isaac Newton was able to describe the behavior of gravity with a very simple equation. His law is still good, for all but the most extreme situations. And it took a load of intelligence for him to do his work. But this says nothing about the origin of gravity. Just because it takes a Newton to understand the law doesn't mean it took a Newton -- or anyone -- to create the law.
I don't often get involved in creationism/evolution threads, but I do tend to rail about people being subjective in the application of poltical philosophy. You are correct that pure objectivity is impossible, particularly with regard to physical sciences, where our faculties and senses are limited to a narrow range of perception. Politics and government are rather different matters, being abstract constructs of our own making. Moreover, subjectively making inferences where there is observed data that is otherwise unexplainable is unavoidable. Doing it when observable data in direct conflict with those inferences is readily available is quite another, IMHO. Not being able to be completely objective in all things at all times does not mean we should not be as objective as possible when it is possible and appropriate.
Diamond, I join in prayers for your pastor's family and all those who love him.
I see an algorithm as considerably more than an equation. An equation describes a relationship whereas an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure. In addition to process (which could relate to an equation) - an algorithm can have conditionals, symbolizations and recursives.
To use a simpler example, if the inception of biological life requires autonomy, symbolization and finite state machine processes, then it is much more than a simple equation.
On a cosmic scale, I wonder if the changing balance between dark energy and dark mass (accelerating universe) also points to an autonomous finite state machine process; likewise, why there are but three generations of quarks and leptons and but three gauge forces.
I donno. Perhaps it's because there are three deities -- Ying, Yang, and Melvin. [That's a joke, A-Girl. I really can't answer your question. Hugs!]
Cordially,
When I said ”changing balance between dark energy and dark mass (accelerating universe)” I should have mentioned that when the dark energy is greater the universe accelerates, when it is less, it decelerates and astronomy currently indicates a history of both (and perhaps several changes) – my question concerns the triggering mechanism for the change.
The three generations of quarks and leptons and three gauge forces question is similar. What was the triggering mechanism to stop at three?
I realize you can’t answer these questions. I can't either, but I am hopeful that we’ll learn more as FermiLab and CERN continue in their research.
My objective with the examples is to illustrate the type of algorithm I seek in my hypothesis (algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design) - i.e. more than a single step equation.
However, you are a force for both and always take your girlfriend Synth with you, when you shop for sundries.
LOL! Hugs!
Indeed, for a Christian the event is a graduation - or perhaps, a homegoing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.