Toward an Intelligent Design Science

[Queso]

Nonsense. That is methdology prevalent here. You don't get to participate with me for free. Pay the price. State what you believe and defend it.

 

Look man, I do every single day in this forum.

I think every single one of us here are just waiting for YOU to do that.

Pay the price...are you like an intelligent design prostitute that just leads people on?

I want my money back.

[Queso]

P.S. time is something that can not be held.

[RiverRat]

Forgive me for my ignorance. I do not claim to be versed in theoretical physics other than what I casually read in my monthly ‘Discover’ magazine.

 

My question would be… if theoretical physics is only an approximation would this equate to the ‘probability’ of actual reality or correctness?

 

At what point in this approximation; do physicists margin of potential error call into question the very premise that was set forth? Is this ever reconciled?

 

I can understand James’ contention; however, some logical evidence would need to be presented. Unfortunately, once a line of thinking is presented and repeated over and over it becomes entrenched and thus becomes difficult to refute (speaking in terms of current theories).

 

I think James' stance is our current paradigm is flawed and it may be prudent to approach from a different angle. I do not think there is enough data yet to formulate an alternative view.

 

Ah … who knows ??

[James Putnam]

Okay, lemme try this: if the properties of the universe were fixed at the beginning, when there was nothing but a big plasma ball,

 

Ok. You have taken a position. You believe in a big plasma ball.

 

and there was no intervention by a creator since that point in time (you have said exactly this in these quoted sentances),

 

Yes. that is correct. I feel it is unscientific to look for any added properties whether by supernatural miracles or scientific miracles such as emergent properties.

 

then according to logic the intelligence would have had to evolve from this mass of undifferentiated plasma, and by mechanical means no less.

 

Good now we are getting somewhere. Your statement is not true for me. I do not agree with the definiton of the origin as a plasma ball that has only mechanical properties. Your logic applies only to your own belief system.

 

If this is what you actually mean, then you're arguing against your own premises, or you are arguing a hypothesis that the elements of life and intelligence (dna, neural networks, etc) were somehow encoded in that plasma of the big bang, which could be a testable hypothesis. Can you explain how this would be encoded?

 

Yes. In the beginning there was only intelligence. It existed at its full potential. everything that has occurred in the universe resulted from that intelligence. The point to be made here is not so much whether or not your impression is that my position is wrong. The point is that you have used a mechanical interpetation that cannot be substantiated either now or back at the begining. Mechanical theory is incorrect. It represents properties imagined into existence by those who's philosophical preference is to interpret the universe in a mechanical manner. You pose the challenge to me: How can intelligence be encoded in the plasma ball? The answer is it could not be.

 

I know you're sick of us repeating this, but please listen carefully: We do not care if there is a "cause" for "life and intelligence" it is not relevant to whether the scientific method works

 

Ok. Now you listen carefully. I do not care if you do not care about causes. I care about them. For anyone who makes statements like your following one, they either show the cause for the results or their opinion is not scientific.

 

or whether evolution works to explain how life and intelligence have evolved from that plasma using mechanical means, no less.

 

How does evolution work to explain how life and intelligence have evolved? This question is not intended to invite a response that lists various stages of development. We know that life and intelligence evolved. But, how does evolution explain it?

 

All you've said here is that 1) You believe intelligent design exists, but you won't describe what it is offer any evidence,

 

That is because a great deal of theoretical facade must first be removed.

 

but that 2) you need to claim that all "theoretical" physics (where you are using the term in the creationist sense only) is all false.

 

Yes I do claim that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. I do not use the term in a creationist sense. I develop new theory in the same mechanical manner as is done for orthodox theory. Your use of the phrase 'creationist sense' demonstrates that you are seeing and perhaps believing the facade.

 

No one is deserving of the high ground: all must be defended, *including you*.

 

Of course. The irony is that you have been talking down as if you had the higher ground. You do not have it either.

 

Now I've just read your "proof" that E=mc2 is wrong on your web site, and other than your claim that all measurements are invalid, and that because the theories you refer to did not explicitly refer to "anything beyond the local frame of reference"--and without saying why they are *not* valid beyond the local frame of reference--that they cannot be used as evidence which is a statement that no one familiar with the scientific method would agree with. You have not proved anything. We really would like it if you would.

 

That article was not my proof that E=MC2 is wrong. It is an introductory treatment to show that its current interpetation can be easily challenged. The challenge is not in the words you quoted above. The challenge is in the mathematics presented. My proof that E=MC2 is wrong is contained in my theoretical work. The proof is derived from the fundamentals and not forced by the use of transform equations. The replacement equations are there.

 

It would prove that teleportation and faster than light travel is possible, which *most* of the people on this forum would love to see!

 

This statement has no relevance to my work.

 

 

But proof is not provided by simply saying something is wrong and showing some irrelevant first year calculus manipulations of Einsteins equation. You've got to try harder. We'd really like you to!

 

They are relevant. The derivation of E=MC2 is simple mathematics. Now, speaking not just about the article you read, but about my work as a whole. The replacement equations are there. New equations are there. They are made possible by the removal of the theoretical facade put up by Einstein and others. The removal of this facade makes unity at the fundamental level possible. That unity continues on into higher level theory. It is the achievement of unity that overcomes the self imposed obstacles of orthodox theory and makes new unified equations possible.

 

This new theory is there in answer to all those who would say: It is not enough to criticize physics theory. You need to show what would replace it. I have done that. The main point I would stress here in this forum is that it is still only another mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. If we do not move beyond mechanical interpetations, then we will continue to view the universe from a very low and artificial level of understanding.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

James

[bumab]

The point is that you have used a mechanical interpetation that cannot be substantiated either now or back at the begining. Mechanical theory is incorrect. It represents properties imagined into existence by those who's philosophical preference is to interpret the universe in a mechanical manner.

 

Sounds like you are uncomfortable with the assumption that since many things can be explained mechanistically now (based on assumptions or no), we can assume that since the very beginning of time all things have been dictated mechanistically.

 

Hence your aversion to the "philisophical preference" of mechanistic interpritation. We all probably sometimes are a little uncomfortable with that dictation, at least at some point in our lives. Perhaps you should ellucidate a clearer vision of your alternative to that philisophical preference. I'd like to think you are on to something! But the hostile tone is probably not the best vehicle for getting people's attention.

[Queso]

How can intelligence be encoded in the plasma ball? The answer is it could not be.

 

Intelligence itself can not be "encoded in a plasma ball"

Intelligence evolved from what happened after the big bang.

 

we are in no way significant in this universe, at all.

[Tormod]

I think James' stance is our current paradigm is flawed and it may be prudent to approach from a different angle. I do not think there is enough data yet to formulate an alternative view.

 

There are so many alternate views that I would not worry about that. As long as one does not blatantly boasts to know the Real Truth.

[Tormod]

Yes. that is correct. I feel it is unscientific to look for any added properties whether by supernatural miracles or scientific miracles such as emergent properties.

 

But it is wholly scientific to accept that the universe was designed by an intelligence, even though it needs to be based on a) a claim that all theoretical physics are a facade, and :) this intelligence cannot be understood?

[Tormod]

From your site. This is the end of your extremely long conclusion. It is a copyrighted piece of work so I only quote it for sake of discussion, no commercial gain intended.

 

My highlights:

 

The universe has limitations. Intelligence is the key empirical property of the universe. No one can explain the existence or cause of intelligence. It is because of its limitation that there is scientific reason to believe in a greater intelligence. Our intelligence cannot understand its own cause within the limitations of the properties of the universe. The amount of intelligence that is available for our use is not sufficient to bring itself or anything else into existence. Therefore, there is an origin of our intelligence that is greater than our share. This greater intelligence cannot be explained as having an origin. Even our own intelligence cannot be explained as having an origin. It is the case that intelligence can only come from intelligence. It is also the case that higher intelligence cannot be brought into existence by lower intelligence. This is known and is denied or ignored only at the peril of scientific understanding. I use scientific knowledge as a catalyst to cause my own preset, internal purpose to appear to emerge. Appearances aside, I recognize the answers as having a cause other than myself. I am not the original cause of any property of the universe. This problem of cause is never ending. If a cause is proposed, then what caused the cause? The only way to stop our scientific investment in this trap is to admit that only intelligence and information can be proven to exist and intelligence is eternal.

 

 

The highlighted sentences are the most intriguing part about your work. They tell me that even after writing endless pages you are unable to write a conclusion in a language I can comprehend. These are all untestable claims for a pantheistic theory of an eternal universe, based on assumptions which you have found not through scientific means but by deducing what must be wrong by what you label as mechanistic materialism.

 

 

I must admit that what I read into your work is that you are a man who takes nothing for granted. Good. But I also do not find a single piece of science in it. It is a purely philosophical treatise. Which is fine. You claim to use science to reach a higher understanding, except that the science you use is a different science because you have found a better one than theoretical physics.

 

 

But how come you can accept one branch of human empirical knowledge (philosophy) and not another (physics)? How come the language of logic is acceptable to you, but not the language of physics?

 

 

I think I will step out of this discussion here because frankly I have other threads to attend to, and this one seems to be going nowhere fast. I suggest you try to participate in some of our other topics as well. You have made all of your posts in this single forum (except your introduction) and that is not considered a good habit around here.

[James Putnam]

People quit using mechnical materialism to explain things as soon as Einstein's Theory of Relativity was born.

 

Yes I know. Einstein's theory was thought to have solved the action at a distance problem. However, whether one speaks of a force field or of spacetime they are both examples of how change of velocity is thought to be caused. I cannot see how Einstein interpetation changes the basic premise of physics theory. The premise is that changes of velocity occur. This is a mechanical interpretation. It is true that changes of velocity occur, but it must also be true that other effects exist. These other effects are not represented in physics theory. These other effects lead to life and intelligence. Consider this: We learn about the universe through the intermediaries of photons. The photons are credited by physics theory with only causing changes of velocity. So, when we are impacted by photons, physics theory predicts that some of our particles of matter will change their velocities. Yet our intelligence, depending solely upon the information communicated to us by photons, discerns the shapes of objects and experiences love. Why does any object do more than just move?

 

Theory is developed because we do not know the nature of causes. The theorist invents causes. Perhaps its space-time, perhaps its electric charge. If the equations did not concern themselves with theoretical causes, they would be empirical. They are designed to imitate the patterns observed in changes of velocity. They can successfully make future predictions so long as the patterns in nature continue the same. When the theorist adds theory to the equations they become theoretical tools. It does not matter whether or not the theorists guesses are correct at first. So long as the equations imitate the patterns occurring in nature, successful prediction will result. However, the effect of adding theory onto the equations reduces their usefulness. This effect reveals itself in lack of unity.

 

IMO, it is a close-minded view to just declare that which is supported by empirical evidence and scientific method as all wrong unless you have some divine insight and you can PROVE it is all wrong. It is an open-minded view that accepts the possibility that there are many theories we do not yet have the knowlege to understand. The first view says there is nothing left to learn and the other says we will never know everything, we will learn forever. I prefer the later. Is that the explanantion you were looking for?

 

Thank you for stating a position. My position is that we are not nearing the end of learning about the nature of the universe. I think we are bogged down at a very low level of understanding. I think the sciences that attempt to learn the natures of life and intelligence should not feel obliged to connect their work with the ideas of theoretical physics. Physics theory is artifical. Life and intelligence are real. I think we should trace the properties of life and intelligence. Our particles of matter existed for eons, as part of what we perceive as the inanimate universe, before they joined together and became us. Our insignificant amount of common matter did not change its nature when it became us. It is still representative of the real nature of the universe. I expect there is lot for us to yet learn about it.

 

James

[Queso]

You speak of intelligence as if it is something you can touch, pick up, move around, and hold high above your head. You speak of it as if it was a noun with mass.

[James Putnam]

Sounds like you are uncomfortable with the assumption that since many things can be explained mechanistically now (based on assumptions or no), we can assume that since the very beginning of time all things have been dictated mechanistically.

 

Hence your aversion to the "philisophical preference" of mechanistic interpritation. We all probably sometimes are a little uncomfortable with that dictation, at least at some point in our lives. Perhaps you should ellucidate a clearer vision of your alternative to that philisophical preference. I'd like to think you are on to something! But the hostile tone is probably not the best vehicle for getting people's attention.

 

Thank you. This perception needed to be pointed out. In the single quote given above, I do not see hostility. But, I prefer courteous, respectful debate. If I am not doing that then I need to more carefully consider my answers. I will take this opportunity to mention that I felt hostility from the earlier posts. I am happy to give and accept a friendlier tone. I will state how I wanted to proceed, and see if it is compatible with the moderators. I try to follow a line of logic that I think is leading to a conclusion. For large challenges, that can take some time. I am happy to entertain questions along the way. I avoid allowing myself to be drawn too far astray from my goal. I also avoid jumping to the conclusion. Conclusions do not usually sound very good by themselves. I think it is more worthy of everyone's time to first establish the foundation upon which my conclusion is based. I want to keep it together and orderly if possible. To me this means developing my position in this single thread. Thromod has indicated that this runs counter to forum etiquette. Will this approach work here?

 

James

[Buffy]

Yes. that is correct. I feel it is unscientific to look for any added properties whether by supernatural miracles or scientific miracles such as emergent properties.

Sure, but I'll leave the notion of "scientific miracles" for later. You then say:

Yes. In the beginning there was only intelligence. It existed at its full potential. everything that has occurred in the universe resulted from that intelligence. ... You pose the challenge to me: How can intelligence be encoded in the plasma ball? The answer is it could not be.

Its important to note, that no one is stopping you from proposing a "third mechanism" that's neither "supernatural" nor "mechanistic" even though you in that first quote seem to make the argument that this third mechanism is scientific. We'd love to hear more about it, but you are very clearly refusing to do so without ensuring that everyone first admits that the "mechanical" mechanism is wrong, while not doing a very effective job of telling us why. Please do so! You'd also find us much more receptive if you'd just explain what this third way is.

Ok. Now you listen carefully. I do not care if you do not care about causes. I care about them.

Cool! We wanna hear! Really!

How does evolution work to explain how life and intelligence have evolved? This question is not intended to invite a response that lists various stages of development. We know that life and intelligence evolved. But, how does evolution explain it?

From the quote at the top, its clear you mean this as a rhetorical question, and you're implying that all of the existing explanations for the evolution of life and intelligence are "scientific miracles" since you don't believe that any theories based on material mechanisms are valid. Its facinating that you say "We know that life and intelligence evolved" and its clear that this "third way" is responsible, but we still have no understanding of what you mean by it.

That is because a great deal of theoretical facade must first be removed.

...

That article was not my proof that E=MC2 is wrong. It is an introductory treatment to show that its current interpetation can be easily challenged. The challenge is not in the words you quoted above. The challenge is in the mathematics presented. My proof that E=MC2 is wrong is contained in my theoretical work. The proof is derived from the fundamentals and not forced by the use of transform equations. The replacement equations are there.

More than happy to question these too, but your arguments are not convincing. You do say directly in this essay: "It is my position both the form and interpretation of E=mC2 results from fundamental errors." You're right that you don't use the word "proof" but the intent of your math is to show these "fundamental errors." Unfortunately they do nothing of the sort: they are basic manipulations of equations that are equivalent. You don't even bother to do anything other than show the equations, you don't explain what you are doing with them. This would have gotten me flunked out of any of my math classes at Berkeley... You will find that if you are going to claim to be using mathematics and scientific principles to prove your points, you've got some work to do on conveying your concepts more clearly.

Of course. The irony is that you have been talking down as if you had the higher ground.

That's your belief. :) I'm happy to be challenged as you can see! Calling me names won't help your cause tho...

It would prove that teleportation and faster than light travel is possible, which *most* of the people on this forum would love to see!

This statement has no relevance to my work.

But its important to *us*! If you want to have us care about your causes, you might want to use this as a mechanism of persuasion! Just a suggestion....

Now, speaking not just about the article you read, but about my work as a whole. The replacement equations are there. New equations are there. They are made possible by the removal of the theoretical facade put up by Einstein and others. The removal of this facade makes unity at the fundamental level possible. That unity continues on into higher level theory. It is the achievement of unity that overcomes the self imposed obstacles of orthodox theory and makes new unified equations possible.

 

This new theory is there in answer to all those who would say: It is not enough to criticize physics theory. You need to show what would replace it. I have done that.

Not enough to convince others apparently. I continue to read your site, but it really does not convey your concepts very clearly, and the math I've seen so far does not refute, contradict or destabilize any of the concepts you refer to. I'm sure you've got quite a math background because so far your mathematical manipulations do seem to be correct, but they don't really show anything, whether its to disprove existing physical theory or describe the "third mechanism."

The main point I would stress here in this forum is that it is still only another mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe.

 

If we do not move beyond mechanical interpetations, then we will continue to view the universe from a very low and artificial level of understanding.

Now the main argument you'll get from most of us is that "mechanical interpretations" are all that science deals with. If there is a "third mechanism" its possible it could be included in the realm of science, but if you are arguing that its something that can't be measured and is unknowable, then its metaphysics and philosophy, not science. That is how science is defined. You'll find that many of us (including me) have strong religious beliefs, but will argue strongly that they have nothing to do with science. Your arguments seem to go round and round between "intelligent design science" and "science is irrelevant" and if you keep repeating contradictory statements, no matter how logical you think your arguments are, others will not interpret them as being valid or even worth considering. We'd really love to hear more! But produce some statements we can relate to!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Fishteacher73]

Yet our intelligence, depending solely upon the information communicated to us by photons, discerns the shapes of objects and experiences love. Why does any object do more than just move?

 

Theory is developed because we do not know the nature of causes. The theorist invents causes

 

 

It seems you are inventing a cause....The fact photons are used in percieving the reaction of Na and water has no bearing on why it is a volitile reation.

 

Objects do nothing else but move or stay still; Animate or not. Every thought or action is based on the movement of a specific chemical or electrical impulse. Love is a evolved trait that helps produce more viable off-spring. There are variations on this theme and since we have produced a society that viable progeny are not the focal point, the variations of love that are less able to produce viable off-spring have increased (not that they morally inferior or anything subjective like that). Again photons have nothing to do with whom or what I love, no more so than solar wind or gama rays.

[sanctus]

I was almost sure you wouldn't answer the most important point of my last post so her it comes again

Now you may say I don't know the cause of the Big Bang, well you are right,BUT it is still an unkown cause LESS than in your theory, you don't know why the Big Bang was there and you don't know who/what the intelligent designer is and why he/she/it is.

 

What makes two unkown causes for you!

 

 

 

There is always the escape route that nothing can be known absolutely. if you believe the universe evolved by mechanical means that is fine. However, for anyone who wants to argue that time dilation has been proven, that is their claim to owning the truth. It is not a truth.

 

James

 

Time dialtation is proven every day in astronomy!

 

It appears to me that you are taking a stand. Maybe you even believe your statement is true. I can't be sure. there is always that escape route. However, your definition is that of a clock and not of time. You are describing a means for measuring relative periods of time. Your measurement is made within time, but not on time. In other words, you hold the clock, you do not hold time.

 

When you mesure a distance do you hold the distance? No, you mesure it exactly the same as with time.

 

 

 

 

The universe is orderly and has always been so.

Prove?

My argument for intelligence as the first cause results in part from the fact that insofar as human logic is concerned intelligence is uncaused.

Now try to prove this argument.

 

There are those who would argue that it is caused by other properties of the universe. I would appreciate hearing how that occurs. They do not get to claim proof by association. Some would define the nature of the universe as being mechanical. We all observe that life evolved and began to exhibit intelligence. Does this prove that mechanical properties gave rise to life and intelligence. Of course not. there is no explanation of direct causation.

 

I agree we observed how life evolved and began to exhibit intelligence (by the way there is an unwanted contradiction of yours here: if life evolved and started to exhibit intelligence, this implies that intelligence is not eternal). I do believe the universe is explainable by mechanical means at least since the big bang (see my last post), therefore life as well. Before I tell you why there is, how I believe, a direct causation I for you to give an explanation why you state that there is no explanation of direct causation.

 

 

According to the mechanics, the probability of life and intelligence occuring is zero. We know it is not zero. It may even be a certainty.

Why according to mechanics the probability of life is zero? there is some probability that some molecules get together and then another probability that this molecules evolve and so on. I agree this probability is arbitrary small, but as the universe is arbitrary big (even if maybe finite) even an event with an arbitrary small probability will happen with certainity.

 

if we wish to analyze the true nature of this universe that gave birth to life and intelligence, we must look look for fundamental properties for life and intelligence that have been a part of the universe since its beginning.

 

Here you contradict yourself, this statement implies that intelligence is not eternal, what you said somewhere before.

[C1ay]

Yes I know. Einstein's theory was thought to have solved the action at a distance problem. However, whether one speaks of a force field or of spacetime they are both examples of how change of velocity is thought to be caused. I cannot see how Einstein interpetation changes the basic premise of physics theory. The premise is that changes of velocity occur. This is a mechanical interpretation. It is true that changes of velocity occur, but it must also be true that other effects exist. These other effects are not represented in physics theory.

 

So! No one claimed Einstein's theory provides all of the answers. No one has claimed that physics theory represents everything we do not understand. That doesn't make it artificial or incorrect. OTOH, you have given no proof why any of it should be discarded and relegated to fiction. Your theories are just theories as well. If you expect anyone to give them any more credence than any other theories then you owe proof that your theories are correct and that others are wrong where they conflict with each other. Examples:

 

Mechanical physics is not the key to understanding the universe. It is a facade that separates us from observing the real nature of the universe. It clouds our scientific vision so we cannot see the real fundamentals of the universe. Nevertheless, its artificiality is laid bare by its lack of relevance to life and intelligence. Mechanics offers only imagined possibilities of non-life, non-intelligent causes for the patterns found in empirical evidence of the motion of matter.

 

Prove it. Surely you don't think you can expect anyone to believe this statement unless you can prove that it is false. Your simple claim that is is wrong does not make it so. Offer some evidence that is wrong or an alternate theory with evidence to support your theory. If you think it is a FACT that it is wrong then provide the required evidence to prove conclusively that it is wrong.

 

Mathematics is not the language of the universe. It is a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Whatever meaning becomes attached to our equations is in the thoughts of the theorist. If the theory is wrong then the equations will mirror our wrong ideas and their complications back to us. To overstate the importance of mathematics is to leave us vulnerable to blindly following equations whose interpretations have acquired unreasonable and even absurd meaning.

 

Again, prove it. Your simple claim, theory, that is is wrong does not make it so. Offer some evidence that it is wrong or an alternate theory with evidence to support your theory. Your simple say-so is not good enough.

 

If theoretical physicists do formulate a theory-of-everything, it will represent only a rudimentary interpretation of the operation of the universe. It would be rudimentary by virtue of its being mechanical. Their theory-of-everything would not be a theory of everything. It would be an attempt to unite mechanical theory. It would not advance our understanding of the most important effects of the universe, life and intelligence.

 

Prove it. If you are going to make a statement as though it is FACT then you should be able to prove it. You offer only a theory of why you think this is so. To state it as FACT requires testable, irrefutable evidence.

 

I expect there is lot for us to yet learn about it.

 

I expect we will never know all there is to know. We will always learn new things as a result of new technology that enables us to collect information we cannot obtain before. This in turn enables us to create new technology we lacked the knowlege to create before which again enables us to collect new information.

[James Putnam]

You speak of intelligence as if it is something you can touch, pick up, move around, and hold high above your head. You speak of it as if it was a noun with mass.

 

Hi orbsycli,

 

I speak of intelligence as a property of the universe. I consider it the most important property. It is not an object. However, we have learned to think in material terms. Intelligence needs to be looked at separate from the materialist viewpoint and yet fully related to our experience of living within the universe. I think the best way for me to share my view is for you to read Human Intelligence. I write more about intelligence in other essays; however, if you are interested, this is the first one to consider. It is sufficient for you to evaluate my point of view.

 

James Putnam