Kartazion Posted October 24, 2020 Posted October 24, 2020 To my surprise science could never explain how the universe works if it is governed by some underlying intelligence. That would be misunderstanding the 'everything'. Where are the limits of everything? Technological only? Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe. Reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123416-hijack-from-theory-of-everything/ https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123339-source-of-all
Kartazion Posted October 24, 2020 Author Posted October 24, 2020 17 hours ago, QuantumT said: Unless that force wants to be undetectable. I do not understand. Because if this force is detected, how would you be if it is intelligent? ____________________ @joigus @zapatos I prefer summarized like this: Quote The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains eleven-dimensional M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory (a theory, based on an early model of the universe, proposed by Albert Einstein and other physicists) may not exist. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book) How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe? This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not? If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how?
Bufofrog Posted October 24, 2020 Posted October 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Kartazion said: How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe? This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not? If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how? Read the book.
joigus Posted October 24, 2020 Posted October 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Kartazion said: How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe? Hawking worked in mysterious ways... 1
Kartazion Posted October 25, 2020 Author Posted October 25, 2020 23 hours ago, Bufofrog said: Read the book. If you read between the lines you see that God can also exist. To say that 'invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe', is ambiguous. This description does not say that it/he does not exist. 23 hours ago, joigus said: Hawking worked in mysterious ways... Why ? Quantum physics is not it? Mysterious? The theory of everything should be able to answer: - Yes, we can prove it. How? - No, we can't prove it. Why? I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? I now understand why no one is answering correctly. Kartazion
joigus Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 25 minutes ago, Kartazion said: I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? I now understand why no one is answering correctly. No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking: Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO.
zapatos Posted October 25, 2020 Posted October 25, 2020 51 minutes ago, Kartazion said: I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? Ooh, scary! Good thing we Deep State/Global Government to keep the general public in the dark.
Kartazion Posted October 26, 2020 Author Posted October 26, 2020 3 hours ago, joigus said: No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking: Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO. Ridiculous as a metaphor. The world that runs the universe I'm talking about is not a world made of candy and people. Don't tell me that extraterrestrials would be at the origin of the Big Bang. 3 hours ago, zapatos said: Ooh, scary! Good thing we Deep State/Global Government to keep the general public in the dark. But no official announcement from that side I imagine.
Bufofrog Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 4 hours ago, Kartazion said: I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? Why couldn't it be revealed? 1
joigus Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 6 hours ago, Kartazion said: Ridiculous as a metaphor. It's not a metaphor; it's an analogy. Do you know the difference?
Kartazion Posted October 26, 2020 Author Posted October 26, 2020 14 hours ago, joigus said: No. It's neither delicate nor embarrassing. It's a little bit like asking: Can science prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe? Split of Theory of everything It's just as delicate and as embarrassing IMO. Ridiculous your analogy.
joigus Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 27 minutes ago, Kartazion said: Ridiculous your analogy. Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question? 1
dimreepr Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 15 hours ago, Kartazion said: I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? It's only embarrassing for you. Because it shows you have an irrational dependence on an imaginary friend, for validation. No? If you could prove that a god exists, I don't think it would change much for the general public; which god, which ethnicity, which gender etc...
Bufofrog Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 17 hours ago, Kartazion said: I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? I now understand why no one is answering correctly. I still would like to know why 'it would it be impossible to reveal to the general public'?
joigus Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. Edited October 26, 2020 by joigus
Kartazion Posted October 26, 2020 Author Posted October 26, 2020 3 hours ago, dimreepr said: If you could prove that a god exists, I don't think it would change much for the general public All right. I can continue then. 3 hours ago, joigus said: Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question? These are your words. It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. 26 minutes ago, joigus said: I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. It's because you said it yourself: I do not know why this commentary has disappeared from the thread. But is still present on your profile. -3
dimreepr Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, joigus said: I also would like to know why it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. Mostly because; he/she/it has no idea what he/she/it is talking about.. 5 minutes ago, Kartazion said: All right. I can continue then. Please do, however, I can't promise to shit in the right place... Edited October 26, 2020 by dimreepr 1
Bufofrog Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 2 hours ago, Kartazion said: These are your words. It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. -1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules. Really bad form, kartazion!
Kartazion Posted October 26, 2020 Author Posted October 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Bufofrog said: -1 for the dishonestly quoting joigus, reported to boot since this is a violation of site rules. Bufofrog... you are unable to prove that I said these words.
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, Kartazion said: Bufofrog... you are unable to prove that I said these words. ! Moderator Note It's there for all to read. You added words to an attribution to make it fit your point, words joigus didn't say. That's fallacious and unethical. You need to take a vacation, and we need a vacation from such intellectual dishonesty.
joigus Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Kartazion said: It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. Thanks @Bufofrog and @Phi for All for noticing and acting accordingly. I was asking --rhetorically-- and Kartazion removed the question words so that the rhetoric was changed. Edited October 26, 2020 by joigus
zapatos Posted October 26, 2020 Posted October 26, 2020 5 hours ago, Kartazion said: These are your words. Boo. Bad form. Really one of the worst offenses you can perpetrate on this site.
Kartazion Posted December 1, 2020 Author Posted December 1, 2020 @zapatos @joigus @Phi for All I don't know what you're talking about. Apparently the rhetoric you allude to, and that you thought you saw, is completely absurd and does not hold up. Look, I reiterate with a simple definition in bold: On 10/26/2020 at 12:40 PM, joigus said: Are you implying that asking whether science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe is a ridiculous question? These are your words which are stupid. It's a total ineptitude to ask that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. -2
joigus Posted December 1, 2020 Posted December 1, 2020 (edited) @Kartazion. Here's the point. Apparently you're clueless. Your question ( \( Q \) ), rests on a notion. Let's call that notion \( W \), \( Q = \) Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe? \( W = \) an intelligent world Now, let's introduce another notion, equally arbitrary: \( W' = \) 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but which communicate so as to generate a meta-intelligence (An intelligence that cannot be achieved by any of them, but by their mutual cooperation: Mind you, cells are stupid, but they manage to produce intelligence in a brain, so the analogy is not that far-fetched.) Let's establish an isomorphism \( \varPhi \): \[\varPhi\left(W\right)=W'\] \[\varPhi\left(Q\left(W\right)\right)=\left(Q\left(\varPhi\left(W\right)\right)\right)=Q\left(W'\right)\] IOW, my question is your question disguised under an isomorphism. And I don't know how "stupid" it is. But it's your question. 6 hours ago, Kartazion said: These are your words which are stupid. --yawn. Edited December 1, 2020 by joigus 1
Recommended Posts