Modern Deism and Intelligent Design

[Beyondo]

And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

This is a flawed notion. For example what you're saying is no different than saying; After we reverse engineer notepad.exe we can then ask what the programmer(s) were like, or after studying the Mona Lisa we can figure out what the artist was like. Understanding how something works does not give you any indication of what the author is like.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A Modern Deist uses reason and empirical evidence to reach conclusions about the nature of the Universe. Only "God" is based on faith. It is useless to speculate on the nature of God. It is more reasonable to study the actual workings of our universe. And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

Well I guess what I'm really asking is; does faith in god mean that said god is a conscious intelligence?

I do not speculate on the nature of God.

The complexity of the behavior of particles and forces works with a certain degree of interpretation, e.g. the absorption of a photo, the particle can tell the difference between an electromagnetic photon, a force carrier photon and if it is a electric field photon it can interpret the polarity and act accordingly. Also mechanisms such as the transformation of matter into energy can't be explained by physicists but the relationship of the phenomena e= mc^2 can be described. The list of behaviors mentioned is all just accepted with no explanation. I see too much intelligence in matter to simply accept those behaviors without explanation. Trying to create a new sense of non-causality is no different than claiming leprechauns control sub-atomic physics!

You may see intelligence, but you have no evidence of it. Ascribing intelligence to that which is as of yet unexplained is pure speculation. As speculative as your sub-atomic leprechauns.
We cannot assume a cause unless a cause is shown to be necessary.

And if and when we can completely understand that, then we may see into the nature of God.

This is a flawed notion. For example what you're saying is no different than saying; After we reverse engineer notepad.exe we can then ask what the programmer(s) were like, or after studying the Mona Lisa we can figure out what the artist was like. Understanding how something works does not give you any indication of what the author is like.

We may see into the nature of God. Intelligence? Purpose? Existence? etc.
I am not suggesting we can know if it eats cheerios for breakfast.

 

[Beyondo]

You may see intelligence, but you have no evidence of it. Ascribing intelligence to that which is as of yet unexplained is pure speculation. As speculative as your sub-atomic leprechauns.

If one sees a flock of birds in a swarm, where the birds fly in coordination, would you say that soneone's hypothesis of the birds as intelligent is speculative?

 

[tumbleweed41]

If one sees a flock of birds in a swarm, where the birds fly in coordination, would you say that soneone's hypothesis of the birds as intelligent is speculative?

Poor analogy.
It is the cumulative effect of particles (basically "star dust") that makes up the individual bird. Each bird has the basic instinct and limited intelligence that cause the formation.

So in answer to your question.
Yes, if one did not know that birds were organic creatures with a neurological system we call the brain. Assuming any intelligence would be speculative.

 

[Beyondo]

Poor analogy.
It is the cumulative effect of particles (basically "star dust") that makes up the individual bird. Each bird has the basic instinct and limited intelligence that cause the formation.

What causes the formation is the ability to exchange information and then act on that information. There is entire class of mathematics in computer science called swarm intelligence. The cumulative effect of particles works on the same premise of swarm intelligence. Particles exchange information via photons and act on the information. Swarm intelligence can resolve the degree of intelligence of any system, so looking at particles or neurons one can discern the intelligence of a system by the number of elements it is composed of. One particle doesn't make an atom nor does one bird make a swarm nor one neuron make a brain...

 

[tumbleweed41]

All I am saying is that a cause has not been shown be necessary. Not that there is no cause.
Assuming there is emergent behavior we currently cannot detect. As of now, we cannot say with any certainty that a cause for the existence of the universe is, or is not, necessary.

The list of behaviors mentioned is all just accepted with no explanation. I see too much intelligence in matter to simply accept those behaviors without explanation. Trying to create a new sense of non-causality is no different than claiming leprechauns control sub-atomic physics!

You may see intelligence, but you have no evidence of it. Ascribing intelligence to that which is as of yet unexplained is pure speculation. As speculative as your sub-atomic leprechauns.
We cannot assume a cause unless a cause is shown to be necessary.

If one sees a flock of birds in a swarm, where the birds fly in coordination, would you say that soneone's hypothesis of the birds as intelligent is speculative?

Poor analogy.
It is the cumulative effect of particles (basically "star dust") that makes up the individual bird. Each bird has the basic instinct and limited intelligence that cause the formation.

So in answer to your question.
Yes, if one did not know that birds were organic creatures with a neurological system we call the brain. Assuming any intelligence would be speculative.

What causes the formation is the ability to exchange information and then act on that information. There is entire class of mathematics in computer science called swarm intelligence. The cumulative effect of particles works on the same premise of swarm intelligence. Particles exchange information via photons and act on the information. Swarm intelligence can resolve the degree of intelligence of any system, so looking at particles or neurons one can discern the intelligence of a system by the number of elements it is composed of. One particle doesn't make an atom nor does one bird make a swarm nor one neuron make a brain...

From the direction you are going, it seems as if you attempting to use particle swarm optimization as a basis for assuming intelligence behind the creation of the universe.
I am not sure how you are making the connection.

 

[Beyondo]

From the direction you are going, it seems as if you attempting to use particle swarm optimization as a basis for assuming intelligence behind the creation of the universe.
I am not sure how you are making the connection.

From the simple fact that particles exchange information! That's not a hypothesis that is a fact and is a form of information processing. Emergent behavior is a consequence of this information processing. The problem with physics simply accepting the particles ability to interpret information is that it doesn't explain how that's possible.

The information processing approach provides a complete explanation of everything from particles to atoms to stars to galaxies to DNA to neurons to the creation of a universe, it all works on the same premise of information exchange, why chaos can become order.

 

[tumbleweed41]

From the simple fact that particles exchange information! That's not a hypothesis that is a fact and is a form of information processing.Emergent behavior is a consequence of this information processing. The problem with physics simply accepting the particles ability to interpret information is that it doesn't explain how that's possible.

Processing, or using information is not intelligence. Nor could you say as a "fact" that particles "exchange" information "intelligently"

The information processing approach provides a complete explanation of everything from particles to atoms to stars to galaxies to DNA to neurons to the creation of a universe, it all works on the same premise of information exchange, why chaos can become order.

So, in essence, this is a version of "The Theory of Everything"
In emergent behavior, we can theorize that, for instance, Physics is is an emergent behavior of Quantum Physics. And that Chemistry is an emergent behavior of Physics, etc, etc. But what is the most fundamental law from which all others emerged?
Intelligence?

 

[Beyondo]

Processing, or using information is not intelligence. Nor could you say as a "fact" that particles "exchange" information "intelligently"

I would have to disagree, processing or using information is intelligence, it doesn't have to be sophisticated intelligence, for instance an AND Gate, but none the less it has a degree of intelligence in that the use of information causes a pattern to appear.

So, in essence, this is a version of "The Theory of Everything"
In emergent behavior, we can theorize that, for instance, Physics is is an emergent behavior of Quantum Physics. And that Chemistry is an emergent behavior of Physics, etc, etc. But what is the most fundamental law from which all others emerged?
Intelligence?

No chaos, all that is needed are simple elements that can interact, exchange information, and a ordered system will come out of it. It may take eons to formalize into something like a universe but when you have an eternity its inevitable...

 

[tumbleweed41]

The first element was hydrogen. Which, when subjected to the forces of gravity, formed the first stars. Fusion in the stars converted some hydrogen to helium. Each heavier element formed in stars and was distributed by the deaths of stars.
No intelligence is needed to drive this process. Only laws. The natural interaction of space, time, matter and energy. The pattern that emerges is the natural progression of these laws.
Just as emergent behavior is the natural progression of laws.

 

[Beyondo]

The first element was hydrogen. Which, when subjected to the forces of gravity, formed the first stars. Fusion in the stars converted some hydrogen to helium. Each heavier element formed in stars and was distributed by the deaths of stars.
No intelligence is needed to drive this process. Only laws. The natural interaction of space, time, matter and energy. The pattern that emerges is the natural progression of these laws.
Just as emergent behavior is the natural progression of laws.

From your description you have too much magic involved. You use the term "Laws" without really describing how the interactions work. You site forces but you really can't describe what a force is. Force in physics is literally magic! No one can explain why fields can impart momentum, they just do, no can explain how gravity curves space, it just does. When you talk about fusion you aren't describing the processes that allow it to happen because nobody can describe how matter can transform into energy, it just does.

Using a emergent behavior approach we can explain how a force actually imparts momentum, we can explain how gravity can curve space, we can explain how matter can transform into energy. We can explain such phenomena because they are a product of information exchange. Such a system does have rules and these rules are products of mathematical principles founded in chaos theory.

 

[tumbleweed41]

From your description you have too much magic involved. You use the term "Laws" without really describing how the interactions work. You site forces but you really can't describe what a force is. Force in physics is literally magic! No one can explain why fields can impart momentum, they just do, no can explain how gravity curves space, it just does. When you talk about fusion you aren't describing the processes that allow it to happen because nobody can describe how matter can transform into energy, it just does.

Sorry. No rational person would insert 'magic', 'god' or 'imagined intelligence' into as of yet unexplained gaps in physics.

Using a emergent behavior approach we can explain how a force actually imparts momentum, we can explain how gravity can curve space, we can explain how matter can transform into energy. We can explain such phenomena because they are a product of information exchange. Such a system does have rules and these rules are products of mathematical principles founded in chaos theory.

Again, inserting some assumed intelligence into gaps is no more rational than the simplistic 'God did it'.

 

[Beyondo]

Sorry. No rational person would insert 'magic', 'god' or 'imagined intelligence' into as of yet unexplained gaps in physics.

Sorry but what I described aren't considered gaps in physics. They are simply accepted "as is", physicists declare that forces and particle behavior need not be explained! In other words Mr. tumbleweed, its magic...

Again, inserting some assumed intelligence into gaps is no more rational than the simplistic 'God did it'.

Ahh...no...since the "God did it" is not a mathematical concept. You seem to be confused and don't understand the mathematical derivation of everything from a very simple process that is based in chaos theory and information theory! The approach I described in http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...37-can-universe-virtual-without-designer.html was to demonstrate that a computational system can emerge from chaotic processes.

The point is this; Can an intelligent system form from chaotic process? Answer; yes. Could the universe be a product of a computational system, in other words a virtual reality? Answer; yes. Would such a theory conflict with experimental evidence gathered to date?; Answer; no

How rational is a virtual universe to say parallel universes?

A virtual universe allows for the explanation of forces and particle behavior. It also demonstrates how chaos can form systems that conform to mathematical relations but the rule that a system is actually doing something is very different, e.g. in games the simulation of force is actually collision detection...how many ways can I think of to produce collision detection? But what is the common problem that the universe has with fields that a game has when it comes to collision dection? If you can answer that question you'll quickly be on the road to understanding some very basic needs for a universe, as we experience it, must solve.

My thinking with this idea is going toward a generic approach to particle simulation. In other words finding a generic means to create particle behavior that can describe any kind of particle and doing it not by the symmetry mathematics that physicists use today but by a very simple rule and swarm intelligence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sorry but what I described aren't considered gaps in physics. They are simply accepted "as is", physicists declare that forces and particle behavior need not be explained! In other words Mr. tumbleweed, its magic...

'Magic' implies supernatural. I know of no reputable physicist that would describe energy and particle behavior as being supernatural.
Nor do I know of any reputable physicist that would declare that anything "need not be explained".

Ahh...no...since the "God did it" is not a mathematical concept. You seem to be confused and don't understand the mathematical derivation of everything from a very simple process that is based in chaos theory and information theory! The approach I described in http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...37-can-universe-virtual-without-designer.html was to demonstrate that a computational system can emerge from chaotic processes.

The point is this; Can an intelligent system form from chaotic process? Answer; yes. Could the universe be a product of a computational system, in other words a virtual reality? Answer; yes. Would such a theory conflict with experimental evidence gathered to date?; Answer; no

How rational is a virtual universe to say parallel universes?

A virtual universe allows for the explanation of forces and particle behavior. It also demonstrates how chaos can form systems that conform to mathematical relations but the rule that a system is actually doing something is very different, e.g. in games the simulation of force is actually collision detection...how many ways can I think of to produce collision detection? But what is the common problem that the universe has with fields that a game has when it comes to collision dection? If you can answer that question you'll quickly be on the road to understanding some very basic needs for a universe, as we experience it, must solve.

My thinking with this idea is going toward a generic approach to particle simulation. In other words finding a generic means to create particle behavior that can describe any kind of particle and doing it not by the symmetry mathematics that physicists use today but by a very simple rule and swarm intelligence.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it. What you have is an interesting hypothesis, but, until you, or others, can come up with some falsifiable evidence of this 'virtual universe', it will remain another untested hypothesis is a field of thousands.

 

[Beyondo]

'Magic'

I use the word when there's no explanation of how something works, sorry for the confusion.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it. What you have is an interesting hypothesis, but, until you, or others, can come up with some falsifiable evidence of this 'virtual universe', it will remain another untested hypothesis is a field of thousands.

Yeah, but the same can be said of M-Theory, parallel universes, worm holes, backward-time travel, etc Those ideas are entertained by just about all reputable physicists! All I'm asking for is equal time in the media...

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yeah, but the same can be said of M-Theory, parallel universes, worm holes, backward-time travel, etc Those ideas are entertained by just about all reputable physicists! All I'm asking for is equal time in the media...

Good luck.

 

[Adamson]

Yes there is a chance that if monkeys keep hitting computer keyboards for some long time the garbage they will generate will have some poems like of George Eliot some pieces like that of Shakepeare.
and Milton. Though finding them out of garbage will be a tremendous job.

However if we have infinite sittings of monkeys for their literary production there may be some sittings when they will only produce pure literary works without any gibberish.

We can see that many people will have no problem in accepting possibility of such occurances because they already accept ghosts and fairies and witches.

Similarly it can be imagined that if you randomly arrange large cannons surrounding your construction site and start shooting bricks without any control or design, mortar and other building materials there is a chance that provided you have enough material to throw in enough time in wider area that you find some incidents of some parts of Taj Mahal.

I think it is reasonable because all professors say that!

I hear some fussy people ask that well! getting so little in a colossal garbage of failure cases can not be accepted as development. It will be a production of garbade. Its overall result is failure, mess, destruction, incohence. However these fussy people will find some point in everything you imagine. Just ignore their criticism because otherwise it will be impossible to convince people that reason and common sense is not applicable everywhere and all the time.