The Nature of the Universe

[Turtle]

___I have no argument with that. Since intelligence (however defined) is our hallmark, and since a pricniple pattern of the unvivers is self-similarity, I see no contradiction for an intelligent natured universe.

[James Putnam]

___I have no argument with that. Since intelligence (however defined) is our hallmark, and since a pricniple pattern of the unvivers is self-similarity, I see no contradiction for an intelligent natured universe.

 

Thank you for your opinion. I will read more about your positions in your posts elsewhere in the forums.

[TeleMad]

When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is hypothyroidism.

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

This got me to thinking ... which is more intelligent, Pluto or Neptune? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

[TeleMad]

This got me to thinking ... which is more intelligent, Pluto or Neptune? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response. Okay, I guess that planets don't have intelligence.

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, a moon of Saturn or a moon of Jupiter? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

...

 

No response. Okay, I guess that planets don't have intelligence.

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, a moon of Saturn or a moon of Jupiter? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response from James to that question either. So I guess that neither planets nor moons have intelligence.

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, the Sun or proxima centauri? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

[Biochemist]

When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is hypothyroidism.

I think the strongest universal consistency would have to be the unending desire to find the perfect beer. But to make that one word, it would have to be "thirst."

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

TeleMad: Next question. Which is more intelligent, the Sun or proxima centauri? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response to that question either. I guess neither planets, nor moons, nor stars have intelligence.

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, the space that exists between Saturn and Jupiter or the space that exists between Neptune and Pluto? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

TeleMad: Next question. Which is more intelligent, the space that exists between Saturn and Jupiter or the space that exists between Neptune and Pluto? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response to that question either. I guess neither planets, nor moons, nor stars, nor space have intelligence.

 

This alleged fundamental "nature of the Universe" sure doesn't seem to be in the Univese much!!!

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, an asteroid or a comet? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

[maddog]

James,

 

From your original post [#1], you mentioned the following:

I take the position that life and intelligence are not the result of mechanical properties. I additionally take the position that the mechanical theories of the operation of the universe are incorrect.

...

However, my position is that mechanics is not the key to understanding the operation of the universe. I believe we will learn the true nature of the universe by discovering and analyzing the nature of intelligence. I believe it is the single, important fundamental property of the universe.

This is a stretch yet you seem to take the notion by Wheeler of "It from Bit". He has

conceived this idea that Intelligence is some fundamental property in the universe. Do a

google search on John Archibald Wheeler. There was an article in Sci Am say in the last

10 years on his theory.

 

You keep using the phrases like "I believe" and "my position". When you do that you

have to be willing to receive some "pot shots" from people who do not... :cup:

Better to present evidence right away when you say these taunts to create

contrary viewpoints. I have more to say in my next post.

 

Maddog

[maddog]

The Purpose: To determine what is true, false or presumptuous about our current level of understanding about the nature of the universe.

...

 

1. The increase of entropy gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

2. Gravity gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

3. Electric charge gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

4. The strong nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

5. The weak nuclear force gives direction to the future of the universe.

 

I offer the meaning of direction here to be an irreversible change from one state with a recognizable trend toward a new, future state. This definition can be modified by others. It should not be mine only.

Like others here I was having issue with this notion of direction. Though I at least see you have given

a stab at a definition. I did not see this the first time I read it. Since you do not define the relationship

of the future state to the current state, you then include Entropy into the definition. See from

Theromdynamics the notion of Entropy is a measure of the irrersible change of state in the order of a

system to a state of more disorder in the future (more states of randomness). Like Buffy was saying

using Vector Analysis, a Vector "gives direction" wherever you point it. :Headset: So where are you

pointing ? You definition could also work for any Anti-Entropic process as well. Entropy may not get

you where you wish to go however, if you plan to proceed down some ID path. It is going in the

opposite "direction". To more chaos and disorder. Thus your universe (Intelligent or not) will have a

Chaotic Future. I have some thoughts that the Second Law is incomplete (a missing term). The

problem here is that boundary conditions are always brought up to hand-wave away anamolies.

To generate "Intelligence" from "non-Intelligence" you need some universal principle that is for the

most part Anti-Entropic. This is currently not observed. Tell me where to look, I will go for it. I

strongly desire to find it.... :soccerb:

 

Your other points: 3 & 5 are part of the Electroweak theory so are already unified. There are

some way (progress) to add 4 into this mix (GUT). Adding 2 would require a quantum description

for gravity (my quest). So my question here is "how do the 4 forces of Nature [give direction] as in

a specific direction ? Or are we doing some philosophical substitution for "purpose" ? Each of the

four forces when expressed will move a particle when acting upon it.

 

It was your tirade into how "incorrect" Newton's 2nd Law "F = ma" that rubbed me a bit the wrong

way. Mind you, I don't take offense for you calling "incorrect". I just say you need to introduce

where this is failing. Newton's Laws got people to the moon and back. We do orbital calculations

that are accurate enough to plan to use the mass of a planet to propel a satelite faster towards its

destination. But you really create controversy when you propose Einstein was "incorrect" and

don't say why ??!? :Whistle: :cup: :naughty:

 

You say the preparations expecting to a rant going and then say some pretty provocative things

and think we are beating up on you... I would just say plan to back up what you challenge or

expect some abuse from people who might disagree. :cup:

 

Maddog

[TeleMad]

Maddog: This is a stretch yet you seem to take the notion by Wheeler of "It from Bit". He has conceived this idea that Intelligence is some fundamental property in the universe.

 

No, not intelligence, information.

[James Putnam]

James,

 

From your original post [#1], you mentioned the following:

 

This is a stretch yet you seem to take the notion by Wheeler of "It from Bit". He has

conceived this idea that Intelligence is some fundamental property in the universe. Do a

google search on John Archibald Wheeler. There was an article in Sci Am say in the last

10 years on his theory.

 

You keep using the phrases like "I believe" and "my position". When you do that you

have to be willing to receive some "pot shots" from people who do not... B)

Better to present evidence right away when you say these taunts to create

contrary viewpoints. I have more to say in my next post.

 

Maddog

 

Hi Maddog,

 

My position is that intelligence is the primary property of the universe. This is not a religious belief. It also did not come from reading someone else's argument in favor of it. It came as an inescapable conclusion based upon the means by which we comprehend the operation of the universe. I do not expect this statement by itself to change anyone's mind. However, the idea, for me, was original to me based upon scientific evidence. I did not assume that something this inescapable was really original to me. I do not know who was the first, but I subsequently learned this position was logically argued as early as the fourth century.

 

I say "I believe." and "My position is..." because, I am attempting to soften my presentation. I remember receiving strong objection to plainly stating what I believe is fact as if it is fact. The criticism was that I needed to support what I say. I do argue from the weaker position. I do not think this is because my arguments are weak. Rather, the opposition has the backing of the vast majority of the scientific community. Those who would argue against me can confidently and easily point to the established work of others to refute what I say. I cannot do this. There is no community from which I can draw easy automatic support. My positions are not even favorably received by the established intelligent design advocates. Even so, I am not unarmed. My own website is my support. I cannot recreate that work in a forum setting. I cannot insert derivations into forum messages. However, I can point to existing indicators of serious problems. Others can dismiss my conculsions, but the problems are not caused by me and do not depend upon what I think.

 

There are two indicators I have cited: The arbitrary theoretical interpretation of f=ma; and, the fact that all information is received by us in the form of photons. These two examples can be evaluated without regard to my opinions or conclusions. I will move on to your next message to continue this.

 

James

[maddog]

No, not intelligence, information.

Telemad,

 

I stand corrected. It was a long time ago when I read that article. B)

 

Maddog

[maddog]

My position is that intelligence is the primary property of the universe. This is not a religious belief.

...

I do not know who was the first, but I subsequently learned this position was logically argued as early as the fourth century.

I don't have a problem with your position. I do find it fascinating actually. I would

like to see some reasoning. Personally, you meander and take too long. I would

much enjoy if you would get to the point. Sorry.

I remember receiving strong objection to plainly stating what I believe is fact as if it is fact. The criticism was that I needed to support what I say. I do argue from the weaker position.

I would strongly object to false facts as well. You do need support for unfounded claims.

What someone believes is unfounded. :)

My own website is my support.

Maybe you could mention it once in a while.

There are two indicators I have cited: The arbitrary theoretical interpretation of f=ma; and, the fact that all information is received by us in the form of photons.

These were the two issues I was wishing to address, so I guess now is good enough.

1) I am not sure what you mean by "arbitrary theoretical interpretation of f=ma"

(with emphasis on "arbitrary). See this equation has worked very well in the

paradigm called the universe. It was only found to be erroneous when dealing with

light itself (Einstein). One whom you say is also incorrect ! So what is so fundamentally

wrong given both interpretations of time and space are incorrect ?!? B) I don't

want another 42 page answer. I want a succint and to the point one, please.

 

2) Radiation is not the only way we measure information. Signals can also be sent

via electric currents (electrons or protons for that matter) or magnetic flux can be a

detector (this is information). Computer memories use electric currents. Hard drives

use both electric currents and magnetic flux (can be separate). Yes, Maxwells

equations are used here. Photons or light waves are not the only example of EM.

In fact QED by Richard Feynman was later expanded to link all the particles into these

diagrams.

 

I will say to quantize information (rephrasing my earlier post) and not Intelligence

would put you on the path that Wheeler was referring to in "It from Bit". This is

possibly another way to look at energy. You can believe Intelligence is fundamental.

It is ok with me. Tell me why you think "I would want to believe it". Give me some

corroboration to back it up. I will listen. B)

 

Maddog

[James Putnam]

Like others here I was having issue with this notion of direction. Though I at least see you have given

a stab at a definition. I did not see this the first time I read it. Since you do not define the relationship

of the future state to the current state, you then include Entropy into the definition. See from

Theromdynamics the notion of Entropy is a measure of the irrersible change of state in the order of a

system to a state of more disorder in the future (more states of randomness). Like Buffy was saying

using Vector Analysis, a Vector "gives direction" wherever you point it. B) So where are you

pointing ? You definition could also work for any Anti-Entropic process as well. Entropy may not get

you where you wish to go however, if you plan to proceed down some ID path. It is going in the

opposite "direction". To more chaos and disorder. Thus your universe (Intelligent or not) will have a

Chaotic Future. I have some thoughts that the Second Law is incomplete (a missing term). The

problem here is that boundary conditions are always brought up to hand-wave away anamolies.

To generate "Intelligence" from "non-Intelligence" you need some universal principle that is for the

most part Anti-Entropic. This is currently not observed. Tell me where to look, I will go for it. I

strongly desire to find it.... :)

 

Your other points: 3 & 5 are part of the Electroweak theory so are already unified. There are

some way (progress) to add 4 into this mix (GUT). Adding 2 would require a quantum description

for gravity (my quest). So my question here is "how do the 4 forces of Nature [give direction] as in

a specific direction ? Or are we doing some philosophical substitution for "purpose" ? Each of the

four forces when expressed will move a particle when acting upon it.

 

It was your tirade into how "incorrect" Newton's 2nd Law "F = ma" that rubbed me a bit the wrong

way. Mind you, I don't take offense for you calling "incorrect". I just say you need to introduce

where this is failing. Newton's Laws got people to the moon and back. We do orbital calculations

that are accurate enough to plan to use the mass of a planet to propel a satelite faster towards its

destination. But you really create controversy when you propose Einstein was "incorrect" and

don't say why ??!? B) :P B)

 

You say the preparations expecting to a rant going and then say some pretty provocative things

and think we are beating up on you... I would just say plan to back up what you challenge or

expect some abuse from people who might disagree. :)

 

Maddog

 

The definition of direction you quoted above was stated by me, but it is not my preferred definition of direction. For me, a repeating or oscillating universe would have direction. My preference is to define direction as being represented by our ability to look back into the past and forward into the future. I was only trying to find a common point of agreement, that would allow me to proceed. Either the universe has direction or it does not. To me it seems clear it has definite direction; however, when I attempted to begin, there was objection as to whether or not the universe has direction. The purpose of the properties I cited was to find agreement on any one or more, where it could be said, with agreement by enough debaters, that the universe has direction. If entropy served that purpose, then it would be sufficient by itself. The reference to entropy had only to do with finding agreement on the existence of direction. I did not intend to use it to argue that the existence of life is an exception to this law and therefore must have been caused supernaturally. I do not argue in favor of supernaturalism. My position is that life and intelligence evolved by means of natural properties of the universe. What I argue is that the natural properties as defined by theoretical physics are not the true natural properties. Therefore, the necessity to critique physics theory.

 

You mention Buffy. There is something I should have said earlier about Buffy in particular, but I feel it also applies to other members. Buffy is amazing. She is a formidable opponent. It is like debating against an encyclopedia or the book of knowledge. However, my debate with her and others suggest to me that I need to clarify something. My position, insofar, as I know, is unique. I don't think it is so easy to anticipate where I am going. I need to find a point of understanding between myself and others here, that will allow me to move forward. I have tried to do that. One of the beginning arguments does concern the arbitrary interpretation of f=ma. I disagree with your description of my discussion of f=ma as a tirade. I do not need to tirade, I have already done the work necessary to support my position. Your response to it, as given above, is not a response to what I have challenged. I have not questioned the mechanical usefulness of f=ma. I will not go back and try to cite earlier messages. I will assume the failure of communication is mine. I will make my point again. I will move on to your next message to continue this. I will get to Einstein.

 

James

[TeleMad]

James Putnam: When I choose one word to describe what I believe is the nature of the universe, it is Intelligence.

 

Telemad: Next question. Which is more intelligent, an asteroid or a comet? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?

 

No response to my last question either. I guess neither planets, nor moons, nor stars, nor space, nor asteroids, nor comets have intelligence.

 

This alleged fundamental "nature of the Universe" sure doesn't seem to be in the Univese much!!!

 

Next question. Which is more intelligent, the M 51 galaxy or the NGC 1300 galaxy? Which do you think would score higher on an IQ test, James?