MrIntelligentDesign

THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. BACKGROUND Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt”. But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it. They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality. You can choose which camps you want. NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin. Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this: One problem (P) = one solution (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1. One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one. The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions. One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3. Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three. (I am not thinking units here, OK?) The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON. OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1. Let us make more examples in reality: When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event. OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously. For example: Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink. In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method. Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence: Do you wanna guess? Let me share it here. Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon. If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle. THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery. If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound! Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics… I will be sharing more…

To Moderator: Thank you for your reminder but please, bear with me since I have to till the ground to plant the new seed of discoveries for everybody so that everybody could know my background, my strength, my weaknesses and my abilities so that they could cope with the discussion. If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me. Thus, since I believe that it is reasonable/logical for any discussions to know your opponent first, thus, I asked them to read my science books. But since they are not allowed, thus, give me time to explain further the background etc..so that all of us could prepare. I wish that those debaters who will join could give their real names and profession in science so that I could know who are those scientists and those who are only laymans. If they are really scientists, they will not be ashamed to an intellectually fight in this discussion, for what is the use of 160 years of ToE's existence if they will never use its explanatory power against the new contender, right? I had asked them to agree with me the followings: Any explanations that has no experiment, we will consider them as religious explanations. Do you agree with this? I need to know where do we agree and not agree so that we could know where we stand... THUS, NO RELIGION IN SCIENCE and in SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION...do you agree with this? I hope the people here who are not afraid to be intellectually smashed could answer this and agree with this. I hope that everyone are serious. Thank you for your challenge and post. I am not a SUPER SCIENTIST. I am only a discoverer of the real intelligence and the founder/father of the new Intelligent Design <id>. It happened that when I applied these new discoveries in Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics (QM) , most of the unsolved, un-asnwered, mysteries, and very difficult topics in QM could be solved easily by using the explanatory power of the new Intelligent Design <id>. These are the things that I will be sharing to all of you. In the other thread, I gave you already a sample on how we should be dealing with Uncertainty Principle (UP) in where my new discoveries are pointing and strongly predicting that the UP is wrong (fantasy in layman's term) and the Certainty Principle (new explanation) is right... Thus, I cannot answer your post since that is not what I've discovered. Your post has no connection with origins of X in the entire existence, thus, I cannot answer that. BTW, the word "Sensei" in Japanese means "Teacher"...where did you learn/get that word?

How do you know that the newly discovered "real intelligence" is religious ignorance masquerading as science? Did you read my science books? Did you understand them? Do you have experiments to show that I'm wrong? Before you say or post that in science forum, you must prepare to answer those things and write them in book so that I could read them in detail. Me? Yes, I've been in online debate for 17 years and I knew well the arguments of ToE and the mainstream science for if I don't know them, I will NEVER say/claim that they those explanations were not realistic and scientific. To prove my case, I submitted my manuscripts to science journals but those scientists were dumb enough to understand my new discoveries (ToE was to blame for this) , thus, to show that I had the explanatory powers and my new discoveries are a powerful explanations that should be reckoned with, I wrote them in science books so that a serious scientist could read them and smash them if they could. REMEMBER that science is science. I maybe alone in this but reality and science are with me... Thus, if you don't know my new discoveries, you can still shut up your mouth and wait for me to share them since I'm still busy with my other book to be published this month. This book is a documentary science book on how the Peer Review system dealt with the new discoveries. Just wait and we will have fun in science..I promise that you will surely see who has science or not... To start with: we need to agree with this: Any explanations that has no experiment, we will consider them as religious explanations. Do you agree with this? I need to know where do we agree and not agree so that we could know where we stand... THUS, NO RELIGION IN SCIENCE and in SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION...do you agree with this? PREPARE to intellectual battle...THINK before you post please since you are facing a new discoveries that you had never seen in your life... Thus think logically and scientifically... --------------------------------- SOME INFO: I am a part-time scholar in Civil Eng' in National University, Manila and a full-time scholar of Maebashi Japan (that is why I am living here in Japan for 23 years), thus, you must know whom you are talking to in science. I am not inferior to all of you...thus, be aware of that... ありがとう arigatou = thanks

I knew it. I am just trying to test if my new discoveries and its arguments are strong enough that they could alarm the mainstream erroneous science. If I don't test it, I will have NO nerve to say that I am correct scientifically. But since you said that I could possibly change our science by asking me to be lenient and scientific, I perceived that my science is heading correctly. We have more time to discuss since i am still busy right now for my new upcoming book titled "Redacted by mod", I don't have time to do it in detail. But let us do it and let us have fun in science! After I finish publication of that book maybe this month, I will share some of my new discoveries and let us intellectually fight science vs science, head to head, experiment vs experiment. And let us see who has science... Thank you.

Thank you but it would be good if they could read some reference from me for debate so that they could know my stance and arguments since those who are willing to debate are still ignorant of the new discoveries?? The topic that I've discovered was literally dismissed for the span of 2000 years for it is very difficult. Do you think they could understand it in a small amount of space?

I'm giving you a free explanations of the new Intelligent Design <id> so that we could shorten our discciuion time and know my new discoveries FREE. Are you really serious in science? If yes, then, serioulsy, download my FREE book, study it and know it and let us discuss here. After you read that book, I'm sure that you have now an idea of what I've discovered! You can prepare yourself and adjust. It is free this week for all of you... link deleted by mod

Thank you for that.

You can download my scienc book FREE this week in Amazon so that you could cope with new science and new discoveries... link deleted by mod If you could not find the answer there, then, I will share it here. But download it since it is FREE now...

Thank you for your effort. The reasons why I am talking this topic because 1. Scientists who support UP are not careful about "existence". Since I discovered the real intelligence for the new Intelligent Design <id>, the new <id> is so careful when dealing with existence since existence is part of the origin topic in science that should be cleared first. I mean, if we have no clue of the existence of Cosmos or universe, then, we are not even careful to know existence since where we based our explanation of "existence"? Thus, I agree with you that we must be very careful in the topic of existence. 2. Yes, I read the math and equartions but the one who formulated that eqaution assumed that he knew exstence and he thought that his assumption was correct. I will show you an analogy: We can compute/calculate the volume of the earth by using two equations. One is for flat earth and one is for round earth, but a sane scientist will use the round earth, right? Thus, it is probably the same with the assumptions of UP that it is like a flat earth that is why we cannot arrive to any explanation of double slits and entangement. 3.You had opened a topic called "theoretical predictions". Are all predictions in science good? I mean, let us make the same analogy: for flat earth (U) and round earth (CP). If flat earth is true, we can build a 24 meters length apartment, two storeys. We can surely do it, therefore, flat earth is true. As you can see that this prediction is applicable in both scenario for round earth and flat earth, thus, I think that it is not correct to accept all predictions as science and real. Thus, I think that UP is using like a flat earth for the wrong assumptions of UP... 4. Because we don't know existence, we had just assumed that "particles decays go out of existence. Via scatterings, others come into existence.". I think we don't yet know the particles. For example, why and how a particle should have a dual nature, a particle-wave property? I mean, we still don't know much nature in science, thus, UP is like a flat earth idea...we need to find the round earrth (Certainty Prionciple)... Sorry if it takes too long...

Thank you for telling me that those reviewers are only humans and not infallible since most of the detractors/critics of the new Intelligent Design <id> had been accusing me that I don't have real science since those peer-reviewers were dumb to understand new discoveries. They rejected the manuscripts for the new Intelligent Design <id>. I'm wondering what would they replace "intelligence" in reality, "dumb" explanation? But if they are incompetent, why they should still hold that place? I mean, in engineering, if an engineer is incompetent, he/she reigns or being fired...just a thought..

Actually, you are just following/fulfilling my prediction that you will be needing three answers to three questions from the power of ToE.

Of course, I read some of the math involved but math and their equations were formulated with an assumptions that any existence could originate without any input of intelligence but in real life, that is counter-intuitive. I mean, I am hoping to discover a new equation/s that rule the particles in accordance with existence since particles and their nature follow also the rules of existence. I mean, the math or equations involved in the current Uncertainty Principle (UP) are all probably wrong since any particle will surely follow the laws of existence and not the laws of Uncertain Principle (UP). Existence is certain, thus, all X whether X is universe or particle or life...etc surely follow the rule/principle of exsitence. Thus, I think that UP is wrong since it has a wrong assumption, resulting in a wrong equation, resulting in a wrong explanation of nature and resulting from not knowing what are the entanglement and the result in a double slits experient. Some of you may say that UP works but we can also make an explanation of flat earth to a round earth and works, thus, I think as an analogy, UP is a flat earth and my Certainty Principle (CP) is a round earth. Is there anybody here who would like to discover (or help me discover) that equation to show that UP is wrong and CP is correct and let us get a Nobel in Physics?

You knew, I've been studying science for the last 15 years since I discovered the real intelligence and I am the father/founder of the new Intelligent Design <id>. My discovery predicted, I mean that if I used the real intelligence in Quantum Mechanics, that there is no such thing as UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE becuase existence is a certain phenomenon, then, if existence will follow the principle of uncertatinty, then, we will never have an existence. It is too obvious. I mean, if all particles and the coming to-be-discovered particles are meant to exist, they will never follow UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. I think as an analogy, that the whole existence exists in a 4D world, but since we are trying to explain it in 3D, then, we will never surely understand particles and their nature... My new discovery predicted that CERTAINTY PRINCIPLE rules existence and if we use a multi-dimensions of time, we can probably understand the result of double slits and the entanglement... But I don't know how to calculate or show it in math...but in reality as shown in my new discovery about intelligence, I think I'm right... Can someone help me calculate it and then publish it in science journals and, of course, I will probably get a Nobel Prize...is that fair?

What would happen if the peer-reviewers have no idea of your new discoveries no matter how hard you try help them to understand? What would you do?

Hello! I'm new here so I think I have to introduce to you myself. Please Moderator, you can move this to INTRODUCTION PAGE but I could not find it here. So, I post here. Sorry if I got a mistake. I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence". I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science. Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered. Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence? OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence. Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically. Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence. In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not? Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car? Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle? If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal... We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally... or particles or sub-particles or anything... ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, interrelation is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.