Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25

# Computational Capacity of the Universe

 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AMPosted: 2 years agoComputational capacity of the universeSeth Lloydd"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and TechnologyMIT Department of Mechanical Engineering(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?b) not unique?If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?I hope these questions may interest. :)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2016 6:15:36 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Computational capacity of the universeSeth Lloydd"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and TechnologyMIT Department of Mechanical Engineering(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?No, the fixed amount of storage and processing is a part of the universe. How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer. That's impossible.If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information. If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..b) not unique?Not necessarily.If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?Yes, given a system is limited.How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records. You get access to Aakashik records when you are dreaming (REM sleep).(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
 Posts: 7,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2016 6:16:01 AMPosted: 2 years agoI'm not up to speed on the concept of the universe as a quantum computer. No doubt I will improve over time!What struck me is how expressing numbers as powers of 10 can 'tame' extremely large numbers. Would I have expected them to be even bigger? Maybe, but only because after about 10**10 my number sense shuts down!
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/21/2016 7:16:43 AMPosted: 2 years agoThank you for your thoughts, Riwaaz.At 4/21/2016 6:15:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer.Good question! What is it that 'holds' the information in the universe, and does its own nature contain additional information? If so, could it be accessed from within the universe whose information it stores?If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information. If the universe's information is finite, can future information be predicted from current information, transformed by the laws under which the universe operates?If so, does that mean future information is fully determined by present information?If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..What makes irrationality unpredictable? Is it truly unpredictable, or predictable but ineffective?b) not unique?Not necessarily.I agree. I think it's somehow intuitively more plausible that the universe is not unique if its information is finite. But why should it be more plausible?I'm not sure.If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?Yes, given a system is limited.That seems a reasonable conclusion.How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.Are we ever guilty of assuming our ability to acquire knowledge is infinite? If we abandoned that assumption, how might it change the way we treat knowledge and proof?Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records.If this universe were not unique, it might be quite credible that other universes may include records of this one -- or indeed, that this one may include record of others. In fact, I read a conjecture some months back that early on in the inception of this universe, black holes could access universes (i.e. information spaces) outside this one, but that shifting conditions changed that. But if that conjecture were true, there might remain in this universe some trace of what happened early on in other universes.
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/22/2016 6:28:10 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/21/2016 7:16:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Thank you for your thoughts, Riwaaz.At 4/21/2016 6:15:36 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?How can a part of something hold all the information it has to offer.Good question! What is it that 'holds' the information in the universe,Information is everywhere, it just needs to be deciphered.and does its own nature contain additional information?As I said before everything is information.If so, could it be accessed from within the universe whose information it stores?Imagine you are standing in a crop circle. Standing still can you know what design the field contains?If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?Even if you consider the universe as finite, it is not deterministic. Time and matter continue to create new information. If the universe's information is finite, can future information be predicted from current information, transformed by the laws under which the universe operates?No, there is uncertainty and unpredictability. You can't predict head or tail if I flip the coin.If so, does that mean future information is fully determined by present information?Destiny has been written but we can make free choice. Contradictory but true.If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?It makes the universe emergent, if you overlook the fact that irrationality exists and hence unpredictability..What makes irrationality unpredictable? Is it truly unpredictable, or predictable but ineffective?Let's talk maths. You can calculate the succeeding digits of Irrational numbers but you can't predict them.b) not unique?Not necessarily.I agree. I think it's somehow intuitively more plausible that the universe is not unique if its information is finite. But why should it be more plausible?That's because infinite is all inclusive.If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself?Yes, given a system is limited.That seems a reasonable conclusion.How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?Evaluation & classification itself is based upon the knowledge.Are we ever guilty of assuming our ability to acquire knowledge is infinite?Are we? For example, you can stream any video you like but that doesn't mean you can download the whole library there is.If we abandoned that assumption, how might it change the way we treat knowledge and proof?We would be set free on an exploratory mode.Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?Every thought that comes to mind is there in the Aakashik records.If this universe were not unique, it might be quite credible that other universes may include records of this one -- or indeed, that this one may include record of others. In fact, I read a conjecture some months back that early on in the inception of this universe, black holes could access universes (i.e. information spaces) outside this one, but that shifting conditions changed that. But if that conjecture were true, there might remain in this universe some trace of what happened early on in other universes.I don't dwell much in theories based on presumptions, why do we want to believe universe is finite. In my opinion theories only satiate the curiosity, they don't serve any purpose, don't have any applications either. Science with a mindset of its own? No, that doesn't interest me.(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
 Posts: 7,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/22/2016 6:50:36 AMPosted: 2 years agoIt's a different 'paradigm'. Instead of particles and forces we have too think in terms of(qu)bits and computation. It will take some getting used to.
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/22/2016 11:11:11 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/22/2016 6:50:36 AM, keithprosser wrote:It's a different 'paradigm'. Instead of particles and forces we have too think in terms of(qu)bits and computation. It will take some getting used to.But why do we have to do that?(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
 Posts: 600 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/22/2016 12:22:06 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Computational capacity of the universeSeth Lloydd"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and TechnologyMIT Department of Mechanical Engineering(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?As the question is phrased, I would say no. If you had asked instead whether there exists some sequence of 0's and 1's that fully describes the universe, I would say yes. But the sequence would be longer than the number of elementary particles in the universe. (Unless it was somehow compressible to a shorter sequence, which seems unlikely.) So storing it within the universe seems a practical impossibility. Furthermore, knowing that such a sequence exists would not mean that you could discover it. For one thing, you would run up against Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?Not necessarily. It would have to be true that, in principle, the future states of particles are determined entirely by their current and past states. Quantum mechanics suggests otherwise, that there is some fundamental unpredictability, one might call it randomness, at the subatomic level.If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?b) not unique?I don't see that the finiteness of the universe is relevant to the question of a designer.One might argue that a finite sequence is more likely to have a duplicate than an infinite sequence. In fact, if one assumes an infinite number of finite universes, each representable by a finite sequence, then it follows that there must be infinitely many duplicates. This does not mean, however, that every universe would have a duplicate. In fact, there still could be infinitely many unique universes in such a scenario, including ours.If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?From a computational point of view, there are classical questions that cannot be answered by finite computation, such as the halting problem. I don't see why that would have any effect on epistemology, however. And one can always devise nonsensical questions, such as what is the color of love.Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?No, I do not believe the universe perfectly preserves all information. Such an assertion is equivalent to asserting that one can determine all past states of every particle from their present state. Again, quantum uncertainty seems to eventually erase such information.I hope these questions may interest. :)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/22/2016 4:06:36 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/22/2016 12:22:06 PM, Stronn wrote:At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Computational capacity of the universeSeth Lloydd"Arbeloff Laboratory for Information Systems and TechnologyMIT Department of Mechanical Engineering(Published Physical Review Letters, 10 June 2002)Merely by existing, all physical systems register information. And by evolving dynamically in time, they transform and process that information. The laws of physics determine the amount of information that a physical system can register (number of bits) and the number of elementary logic operations that a system can perform (number of ops). The Universe is a physical system.The amount of information that the Universe can register and the number of elementary operations that it can have performed over its history are calculated. The Universe can have performed no more than 10^120 ops on 10^90 bits (10^120 bits including gravitational degrees of freedom)[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...]Does it seem credible to you that the amount of information in our universe can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing? If not, why not, and what would need to be explained for this to be more credible?As the question is phrased, I would say no. If you had asked instead whether there exists some sequence of 0's and 1's that fully describes the universe, I would say yes.WRONGBut the sequence would be longer than the number of elementary particles in the universe. (Unless it was somehow compressible to a shorter sequence, which seems unlikely.) So storing it within the universe seems a practical impossibility. Furthermore, knowing that such a sequence exists would not mean that you could discover it. For one thing, you would run up against Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.If the universe as we know it can be captured by a fixed amount of storage and processing, in principle is it deterministic?Not necessarily. It would have to be true that, in principle, the future states of particles are determined entirely by their current and past states. Quantum mechanics suggests otherwise, that there is some fundamental unpredictability, one might call it randomness, at the subatomic level.If the universe to date really does contain only a finite amount of information, does this make it more or less plausible that it is:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?b) not unique?I don't see that the finiteness of the universe is relevant to the question of a designer.One might argue that a finite sequence is more likely to have a duplicate than an infinite sequence. In fact, if one assumes an infinite number of finite universes, each representable by a finite sequence, then it follows that there must be infinitely many duplicates. This does not mean, however, that every universe would have a duplicate. In fact, there still could be infinitely many unique universes in such a scenario, including ours.If the processing power of the universe is limited, are there some questions that cannot be answered within the universe itself? How does that influence the way we should classify and evaluate knowledge?From a computational point of view, there are classical questions that cannot be answered by finite computation, such as the halting problem. I don't see why that would have any effect on epistemology, however. And one can always devise nonsensical questions, such as what is the color of love.Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?No, I do not believe the universe perfectly preserves all information. Such an assertion is equivalent to asserting that one can determine all past states of every particle from their present state. Again, quantum uncertainty seems to eventually erase such information.I hope these questions may interest. :)(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
 Posts: 7,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/23/2016 11:40:20 AMPosted: 2 years agoThere may be a useful analogy with energy, which also cannot be destroyed. Energy ends up as heat and everything ends up at the same temperature. If there is no temperature gradient no further use of the energy is possible, even tho there may be plenty of energy present. If that analogy is appropriate then the problem would be that information is not destroyed but it gets harder and harder to make use of it.It seems odd that,say, copying a file onto a freshly minted hard disk doesn't increase the amount of information in the universe, but if information cannot be created or destroyed then it must be that we over-value information that is useful to us, skewing our perception.Feel free to comment or not... I'm just thinking out loud.
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/25/2016 5:58:04 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/22/2016 6:28:10 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:Let's talk maths. You can calculate the succeeding digits of Irrational numbers but you can't predict them.Of course you can predict them. But you don't have to predict by guessing, you can use a formula to make the best prediction.What does it mean to "predict"? You can always predict something, it's just that there's a certain probability of being correct about your prediction. I can predict lottery numbers, but I have a low probability of being correct. I can even predict the times of radioactive decay events, but I have a low probability of being correct! I can predict the decimal expansion of irrational numbers and have a high probability of being correct.Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 988 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/25/2016 9:19:11 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?I hope these questions may interest. :)The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.
 Posts: 600 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/25/2016 7:00:26 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/25/2016 9:19:11 AM, Akhenaten wrote:At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?I hope these questions may interest. :)The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.Nothing in logic or mathematics prohibits duplicate infinities. In set theory, for example, one can have two sets, each consisting of the positive integers. Each set is infinite, yet the two sets are duplicates.
 Posts: 988 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 2:41:37 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/25/2016 7:00:26 PM, Stronn wrote:At 4/25/2016 9:19:11 AM, Akhenaten wrote:At 4/21/2016 5:24:24 AM, RuvDraba wrote:Do you believe that the universe preserves its information? I.e, that the universe's processing could be potentially reversed, if you knew the rules, and enough of its state information? So that you could recreate an ancient manuscript, or a dead brain from the information held in its remnants and the world around it?I hope these questions may interest. :)The basic logic of infinity means that the universe can't be repeated or copied.Nothing in logic or mathematics prohibits duplicate infinities. In set theory, for example, one can have two sets, each consisting of the positive integers. Each set is infinite, yet the two sets are duplicates.The universe is not limited by mathematical paradoxes.
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 2:48:29 AMPosted: 2 years agoYeah, the problem with math is you can't actually prove anything. All of math is based on axioms that can never be proven themselves. Axioms are just defined to be true. You can use basically any axioms you want, as long as they don't contradict each other (good luck proving that though). The problem is that the axioms might actually contradict each other because you can't prove that they don't (if your system of axioms is complex enough)!You assume whatever you want to be true, and then you derive conclusions that are true within that system.Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 2:55:04 AMPosted: 2 years agoSet theory doesn't prove anything about the "real world". There is no proof that set theory is consistent!Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 3:09:47 AMPosted: 2 years agoBesides, I can just invent a new set theory by using different axioms instead of the ZF axioms. Things that are true in ZF set theory may be false in the new set theory and vice versa.Tell me why a result in ZF set theory should apply to the real world, but not my new set theory? What makes ZF set theory special?Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 5,466 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 3:25:57 AMPosted: 2 years agoa) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.I don't think that's true.Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.Or, to clarify:a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?c) could they correlate by chance?If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data."Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.
 Posts: 6,138 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 4:33:03 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/26/2016 3:25:57 AM, Ramshutu wrote:a) a product of some design process, rather than simply emergent?This is the Science forum. Science has no reliable method of discerning design. The only method available is historical reference.I don't think that's true.Design can be determined through a combination or pattern of correlation non causally related data; with abductive reasoning used to discount a reasonable possibility of unknown causal relations, matched with the relative impossibility of chance correlation.Or, to clarify:a) Is there a discernible pattern that correlates directly to something completely different?b) Can you effectively rule out one causing the other?c) could they correlate by chance?If Pi, when converted into base 2, and divided into 5 bits; with a basic alphanumeric correlation (A=00000, B=00001, etc), repeated the pattern "we apologize for the inconvenience"), you could probably conclude design because:a) there is a correlation between a manifest constant of the universe and the english language.You mean we know it is designed because we can compare that representation or pattern to a previously accepted known human design item, ie historical reference.b) It is not plausible, given history, and our knowledge of language, that the value of pi guided, or managed the evolution of english. IE: natural causation.What you are talking about is encoding. Symbolically representing the data of the pi constant with meaningful symbols. I agree encoding is a sign of intelligent design. But unless it is seen in a known man made item, Scientific consensus will conclude natural phenomenon.c) The chances of those digits correlating by random chance; given a plausible search space of different letters, lengths and languages; is sufficiently low to preclude random chance.Yeah, but if you didn't know English, didn't know the letters, had no inclination of it representing pi. You wouldn't be arguing about how it was none randomly aligned English letters.This is why repeating patterns of primes is a good indicator of intelligence; because of the correlation, the chances of randomness, and the unlikelihood of random chance generating that data.1. again historical reference to what prime numbers are. And that we as humans have used them to signal our intelligence to presence to others. But if an Alien Race sent signals of S.O.S.. the scientific community would be more apt to a natural event. As they do with the observation of fast burst radio waves. I'm not saying those waves are intelligent origin. Just saying that in the absence of knowing what causes them, despite a mathematical pattern in them, No one takes seriously they are from intelligent design."Universal fine tuning", on the hand; has a correlation between life, and what we see in the values; but the same arguments for (b) and (c) don't really apply, because we don't know enough about the universe.Yes human beings lack enough historical reference to see design in anything but their own hand made stuff.But When the day comes that a virus and nanomachine are indistinguishable, will scientist then be open to life being intelligently designed? (rhetorical)
 Posts: 7,064 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/26/2016 8:44:09 AMPosted: 2 years agoScientists are already open to life being intelligently designed and created. Indeed, some (such as Craig ventner) are already doing it, or taking laying the groundwork for doing it.Generic engineering -now routine - is another example if intelligent modification of life.It is the necessity of intelligence (particularly in relation to life v1.0) that most scientists today dispue.