Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Intelligent Universe

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:27:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here I will attempt to address any of your questions regarding the concept of an intelligent Universe. For example, Mirza suggests that this idea is more illogical than atheism and religion and is entirely baseless.

Others seem to think that this invokes supernaturalism and makes less sense than God. However, it does not assert or posit anything extra other than what already exists; the Universe. It only makes a claim about the nature of reality and the Universe.

Instead of saying an external intelligence was required to create the universe, it says that the Universe itself is intelligent.

Some say this is baseless, however, many arguments for an intelligent designer also apply to this (though they are weak.)

However, philosophers like Alan Watts (and even scientists) have come up with much more satisfactory arguments for an intelligent Universe.

I, however, am currently in the process of formulating a formal argument for this based on self-determined particles (I'll get into this later when I finish.)

Discuss.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's a video describing it in more detail. (Just some supplimental information.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgqWzM7ckTk
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:44:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:31:29 PM, Puck wrote:
How about you start by defining your terms. :P

For me, a conscious or intelligent being is a transmitter/receiver of information.

More specifically, what your particular version actually means.

My particular version is two pronged. First, I take the panpsychist view of the matter vs mind issue, in other words I reject matter and believe everything is mind. This is justified by belief in the holographic principle.

Second, I believe that this holographic matter is also intelligent. That's the best way I can sum this up.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:47:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:39:56 PM, Puck wrote:
Or, you could explain it. I'm assuming you actually can in a concise coherent form. :P

I didn't post that video as my explanation, hence why I called it "supplimental." (I was actually trying to post it before anyone responded to the thread.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:54:49 PM, Puck wrote:
Strings is fail. :(

Holographic principle is not reliant on string theory. I believe David Bohm came up with holographic universe before string theory.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:04:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is your version strings or not, holographic principle is used in strings, and last I checked you were a strings advocate.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:11:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:04:09 PM, Puck wrote:
Is your version strings or not, holographic principle is used in strings, and last I checked you were a strings advocate.

Sorry, it's a miscommunication of terms. I'm referring to what is formally called the "Holographic Paradigm." (I am no longer as strong of a strings advocate anymore. This is entirely different issue than what I'm talking about.)

From Wiki:

"The holographic paradigm is a theory based on the work of David Bohm and Karl Pribram and extrapolated from two misinterpretated ideas:

That the universe is in some sense a holographic structure — proposed by David Bohm
That consciousness is dependent on holographic structure — proposed by Karl Pribram

This paradigm posits that theories using holographic structures may lead to a unified understanding of consciousness and the universe."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:14:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
However, philosophers like Alan Watts (and even scientists) have come up with much more satisfactory arguments for an intelligent Universe.

Alan Watts wasn't much more than just a popularizer of Eastern philosophy (ew), and I doubt scientists can give a convincing philosophical argument for the intelligence of the universe unless you have some hard, and frankly astounding, scientific facts demonstrating such a phenomena.
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:45:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:15:17 PM, Puck wrote:
Everything is an artifact of light?

Okay, assuming all this is true, what is the point of it?

I don't know if any of you have ever seen the movie "down the rabbit hole", but what you are saying sounds a little like what the movie talks about.

You claim that everything is just light, holographic, but it really doesn't explain factors such as emotions, physical feeling, dreams, belief conception, etc.

For example take the debate:

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to here it, does it still make a noise?"

Many would argue along the lines of 'no it wouldn't because, something it would have to be stemmed from a persons belief and conception for it to make the sound"

However we know that if we leave a video camera up, it will still make a sound when later watched. This would probably be refuted by having an intelligent conception around the site of the falling tree, thus enabling the sound.

You can see how this goes back and forth into a never ending circle. So again, what's the point?

Whether a god is real, or isn't real, whether evolution happened or didn't happen, or whether were all just holographic forms of light or not, my question is again, what's the point?

We are here by some great miracle either way, and none of these theories really adversly effect anyone, because WE simply don't know what will happen to us after death, or before life.

Of course it's always fun to have our own beliefs and philosophies though.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:13:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 4:45:51 PM, philosphical wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:15:17 PM, Puck wrote:
Everything is an artifact of light?

Okay, assuming all this is true, what is the point of it?

Understanding the nature of reality is important for obvious reasons.

You claim that everything is just light, holographic,

I never said "light," but if that helps you to visualize the concept, you can think of it that way. I never said that everything is literally made of light/photons, though.

but it really doesn't explain factors such as emotions, physical feeling, dreams, belief conception, etc.

And neither does the theory of gravity... However, it can help us make sense of these things.

Whether a god is real, or isn't real, whether evolution happened or didn't happen, or whether were all just holographic forms of light or not, my question is again, what's the point?

It has profound metaphysical implications. It's the realization that we're all one consciousness expressing itself differently. Think of it as a self-created video game and we are all characters in it. We're all part of the same virtual reality and only separate to a certain extent. The purpose, like any video game, is to have an experience. That's what we're here for. To experience reality; and evolution is part of that experience. God is just irrelevant altogether in this paradigm.

We are here by some great miracle either way,

If the Universe is intelligent, it is no miracle that we are here. I don't know how you concluded that.

and none of these theories really adversly effect anyone,

Is it required to? It is what it is. It may or may not affect people. For me, it affects the way I think about things on the grander scale.

because WE simply don't know what will happen to us after death, or before life.

That's fine.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 8:51:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:13:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:45:51 PM, philosphical wrote:
At 2/24/2010 4:15:17 PM, Puck wrote:
Everything is an artifact of light?

Okay, assuming all this is true, what is the point of it?

Understanding the nature of reality is important for obvious reasons.

Understanding nature is a kind of biased statement, seeing as we have no factual proof that this theory is correct. Saying it is nature is confirming it as fact. Now I'm not saying it isn't true. And i'll even admit that it is a thoughtful concept. But there is just so many other beliefs that conflicts with it that are just as plausible. So I applaud you for the theory and idea of it, but I don't think it should be stated as a fact, but more as a belief. Nature, however, is everything that makes up this world.

You claim that everything is just light, holographic,

I never said "light," but if that helps you to visualize the concept, you can think of it that way. I never said that everything is literally made of light/photons, though.

Well, I know, more like a hologram.
My challenge on your theory, though, is what would be the purpose of that opposed to the belief of a god, or some other sort of life giving source. Generally there should be a purpose supporting a belief to make it logical one. For example, most christians believe that if they do what god commands, they will get something in return: Eternal happiness. Saying that were just here to be a hologram or light source, or whatever you call it, doesn't seem to serve a purpose. Yeah it's an idea, mayeb even the accurate one, but it's kind of awkward to believe that the universe would just randomly create an illusion for no specific reason, wouldn't you agree?


but it really doesn't explain factors such as emotions, physical feeling, dreams, belief conception, etc.

And neither does the theory of gravity... However, it can help us make sense of these things.

Well the theory of gravity is something that adversely effects us, where as I am not seeing how yours does. The theory of gravity physically takes part in our lives, and has a purpose, which is to hold us down.


Whether a god is real, or isn't real, whether evolution happened or didn't happen, or whether were all just holographic forms of light or not, my question is again, what's the point?

It has profound metaphysical implications. It's the realization that we're all one consciousness expressing itself differently. Think of it as a self-created video game and we are all characters in it. We're all part of the same virtual reality and only separate to a certain extent. The purpose, like any video game, is to have an experience. That's what we're here for. To experience reality; and evolution is part of that experience. God is just irrelevant altogether in this paradigm.

Sounds interesting, but if were here to experience, what are we doing it for? The common theory for religous beliefs is that we are testing are worthiness on earth, to see which side we would really take given a body and free will. I'm am a little un-educated on your theory, so I have questions for you.
Assuming yours is correct, what would be the ultimate purpose of 'experiencing' the world as one conscienceness?
What would you presume would happen after death?
And is this theory of life, a continuing cycle?

We are here by some great miracle either way,

If the Universe is intelligent, it is no miracle that we are here. I don't know how you concluded that.

No, my point is that there are so many different things that COULD be the answer to why we are here. None of them can be proven as fact though, and that's what makes them theories. I believe in my religion, however at the same time would accept the fact that its only a belief and it very well could be the wrong one. So in conclusion, what I am saying here, is we simply do not know. Were here for one reason or an other, none of which can be proven as fact. Or for lack of a better word: A miracle.

Life is so speculating and its reasons so undecided and unconclusive, that we can only be in wonderment of its many mysteries.


and none of these theories really adversly effect anyone,

Is it required to? It is what it is. It may or may not affect people. For me, it affects the way I think about things on the grander scale.

Well I'm challenging you here, because I don't understand what the point in trying to convince a bunch of people some random theory that doesn't have any purpose whatsover is.
But I'm seeking this as an educational purpose and hoping you will explain to me, as you said at the start of this forum conversation, so enlighten the unknowing please.


because WE simply don't know what will happen to us after death, or before life.

That's fine.

Which leads me back to the same question. Point?
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:45:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
geo: hate to sound arsey but is your theory testable at all? IOW: even *if* such a thing were true, would we be able to know about it/find out about it other than through random theorizing? distinguish it from other states? what could we discover "out there" in the world that would support this assertion?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:09:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:45:58 PM, belle wrote:
geo: hate to sound arsey but is your theory testable at all?
IOW: even *if* such a thing were true, would we be able to know about it/find out about it other than through random theorizing?

It's a claim about the observable Universe. It doesn't posit a God that exists outside of space-time. As a matter of fact, PhD. Quantum Physicist, Amit Goswami wrote a book called "Self-Aware Universe" where he scientifically lays out the case for a conscious Universe.

http://www.amitgoswami.org...

distinguish it from other states?

Well it's all one state, one energy manifested differently.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:13:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:09:12 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

distinguish it from other states?

Well it's all one state, one energy manifested differently.

doesn't that presuppose what you are arguing for? lol
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:20:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:13:56 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:09:12 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

distinguish it from other states?

Well it's all one state, one energy manifested differently.

doesn't that presuppose what you are arguing for? lol

But so does your question. lol. To distinguish it from other states of matter is to deny that there is only one state; consciousness.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 12:43:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:20:18 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:13:56 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/25/2010 12:09:12 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

distinguish it from other states?

Well it's all one state, one energy manifested differently.

doesn't that presuppose what you are arguing for? lol

But so does your question. lol. To distinguish it from other states of matter is to deny that there is only one state; consciousness.

no. i was asking how we would theoretically distinguish the state "everything being made of consciousness" from the state "everything being made of matter"
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 1:17:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 12:43:12 AM, belle wrote:
But so does your question. lol. To distinguish it from other states of matter is to deny that there is only one state; consciousness.

no. i was asking how we would theoretically distinguish the state "everything being made of consciousness" from the state "everything being made of matter"

Oh, ok. I see what you're getting at. Well, the first step to doing that would be to disprove that the Universe is made of matter. If we can demonstrate that the Universe is holographic, then it nearly follows that it is conscious because they go hand in hand because of the observer effect.

Some basic information:

http://www.crystalinks.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 1:38:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 1:19:20 AM, belle wrote:
quantum entanglement= hologram?

Not really, that is assuming you're referring to Alain Aspect's experiment.

Explanation from the site:

"To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order.
For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."
-- http://www.crystalinks.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 1:49:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
ok. but how does that experiment prove that things must be a hologram? is that really the most parsimonious explanation for what was observed?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 2:00:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 1:49:18 AM, belle wrote:
ok. but how does that experiment prove that things must be a hologram?
is that really the most parsimonious explanation for what was observed?

It appears to be the most prominent and I don't see what makes it unparsimonious.

However, there's plenty of other reasons to conclude a holographic universe.

One of them being this:

"Scientists have established that electrons and other sub-atomic particles can either express themselves as a 'wave' form (non-physical) or as a particle (apparently 'physical'). And, get this: they only manifest as particles - 'physical' when we are looking at them!" - David Icke
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 4:48:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
You don't get it Geo.

I'm saying that there should at least be attempts of giving at least very little evidence. Religions may be true or false, but they have books where they believe God spoke in them. You got nothing at all. You can say whatever you want about anything then.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 7:45:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 2:00:03 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/25/2010 1:49:18 AM, belle wrote:
ok. but how does that experiment prove that things must be a hologram?
is that really the most parsimonious explanation for what was observed?

It appears to be the most prominent and I don't see what makes it unparsimonious.

However, there's plenty of other reasons to conclude a holographic universe.

One of them being this:

"Scientists have established that electrons and other sub-atomic particles can either express themselves as a 'wave' form (non-physical) or as a particle (apparently 'physical'). And, get this: they only manifest as particles - 'physical' when we are looking at them!" - David Icke

so. ignoring the vast amounts of evidence we have on things at semi-normal scales, you take quantum mechanics and run with it. when in fact, quantum mechanics can be explained *without* recourse holograms, and without contradicting everything we know about reality.

additionally, waves are physical phenomena :P

aaaaaaaand finally- how the heck does david icke know what a particle/wave is doing when no one is looking at it? hmmmm?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 9:57:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:44:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/24/2010 3:31:29 PM, Puck wrote:
How about you start by defining your terms. :P

For me, a conscious or intelligent being is a transmitter/receiver of information.


Under that classification your computer is conscious/inteligent.

More specifically, what your particular version actually means.

My particular version is two pronged. First, I take the panpsychist view of the matter vs mind issue, in other words I reject matter and believe everything is mind. This is justified by belief in the holographic principle.


Could you explain that provide evidence.

Second, I believe that this holographic matter is also intelligent. That's the best way I can sum this up.

Any reason why?

You have not really explained yourself.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.