Intelligent Design is not creationism

[Turok]

Ztroll:
>So, which came first?
>The Universe, or the math of the Universe?

Kj:
>The Universe.

Ztroll:
>Dodge
>Okay, once again:
>Which came first, the Universe or the math of the Universe.

The zTroll calls a direct answer to his question a "dodge", and then asks the same exact question again ... LOL -- well, a troll's gotta do what a troll's gotta do.

JB

 

[nealvan]

Quote from Turok:

Ztroll:
>So, which came first?
>The Universe, or the math of the Universe?

Kj:
>The Universe.

Ztroll:
>Dodge
>Okay, once again:
>Which came first, the Universe or the math of the Universe.

The zTroll calls a direct answer to his question a "dodge", and then asks the same exact question again ... LOL -- well, a troll's gotta do what a troll's gotta do.

JB

Rocks don't create people. The big bang theory and evolution is false. Reactions in space are always occurring.
For one to say that the fabric of the universe evolved but evolved from what. Somewhere something had to be created. There is no such thing as evolution in this context. The universe is merely a realm, a dimension. The math came first. The universe was created by a higher consciousness of many intelligences. What you see is creations from super-beings that are constantly gathering intelligence. They may be 500-1000s of years old but they are far more advanced than any human. There's nothing to stop man from doing these things other than we are not capable. Religions make earth mans to be the center focus but this is not so in other realms and other advanced entities (similar to humans but very different). Why you ask such questions you can't understand?

 

[2cents]

Quote from kjkent1:

I think that the Higgs boson will be found. I also think that Everett's many worlds is the quantum version of Susskind's string theory.

Most of these things will probably be sorted out before this thread ends.

i certainly don't want to detract from the entertainment at hand on this thread but just thought this may be of interest:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206798 not just the thread but all the other threads from the same poster

string theory is kinda falling out of favour at this juncture but one way or another, the singularities have to go!

in the meantime, i gotta jump into my portable Kerr BH...

ciao & have fun ;-)

 

[I am...]

Quote from kjkent1:

Thus, in the absence of the human species, there are no ideas at all (at least no human ideas -- there may be dolphin ideas -- which could even be thunk on porpoise).:eek:

True enough. Follow this where it leads and you will see that there is no universe. Let's consider it...

If a tree falls in the middle of the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, then it does not make a sound.
Sound isn't sound until you hear it. Likewise, a wave of energy does not appear to be matter until you see or tough it.

This requires duality. Without it, there is nothing to interact with. However, duality is a myth. If duality is a myth, then not only is there no tree, but there is no universe. Without you to perceive it, the universe is not here. And if the universe is not here, then you are also not here.

In order to make the illusion of existence, you must take oneness and seemingly divide it. It's all a trick. Quantum physicists are in a good position to recognize this...that duality is a myth.

Jesus

 

[2cents]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Dodge.

Okay, once again:

Which came first, the Universe or the math of the Universe.

Oh, and symbolism itself is non physical, it is an idea only...

a parting gift:

nothing and everything is the same thing, there is no beginning, no end, there is only one "thing" and you may want to term it "the universe" for convenience of discourse on this thread. this "universe" has no maths. the abstract constructs we humans build to make sense of it notably, but not only, and that we term "maths", will go with us. they can & will be "re-discovered" partially or totally by any other life form anywhere depending on which facet of this "universe" they are exposed to... the same applies to the semantic illusions you can't seem to grow out of, son...

namaste

 

[Turok]

nv:
>The universe was created by a higher consciousness
>of many intelligences. What you see is creations from
>super-beings that are constantly gathering intelligence.
>They may be 500-1000s of years old but they are far
>more advanced than any human.

Well, I guess it's settled then.

JB

 

[kjkent1]

Quote from 2cents:

i certainly don't want to detract from the entertainment at hand on this thread but just thought this may be of interest:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206798 not just the thread but all the other threads from the same poster

string theory is kinda falling out of favour at this juncture but one way or another, the singularities have to go!

in the meantime, i gotta jump into my portable Kerr BH...

ciao & have fun ;-)

Nevermind that...check out this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma...&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/23/scicosmos123.xml

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

So if all humans vanished, there would be no ideas remaining?

And if all radios vanished, there would be no radio waves traveling in space?

Quite funny.

"Thus, in the absence of the human species, there are no ideas at all at least no human ideas"

That would mean the theory of evolution would not be true in an independent manner at all, the concept of random chance would not exist without a human being having "thunk it" which means that all this evolutionary babble is nothing but a product of the human mind, not a natural process that existed, or exists independent of the human mind's sustaining an idea of it.

Mathematical truths would cease to exist as ideas because no one could think them?

Again, too funny.

All scientific theory (just a bunch of ideas) are not actual discoveries of that which exists independent of human thought are just products of human mind, not a true condition that preceded human mind's thought process. Those who promote theories are not actually examining fact of nature independent of human mind, they are just advancing a byproduct of some electrical impulses.

Yall are pee in your pants funny.

In this physical universe, is there anything that can come into being without the potential to come into being first preceding it?

Show how actuality comes to be without the potential to come to be first.

The Universe came into being from no potential (i.e. the math) for a Universe?

You really do believe in magic...or the cart before the horse.

Quote from kjkent1:

Asked and answered.

As for your statement that symbolism is non-physical. Well, thanks for your opinion, but I don't agree. In my opinion, there is no idea without the electrochemical actions of a human brain to thunk it.

Thus, in the absence of the human species, there are no ideas at all (at least no human ideas -- there may be dolphin ideas -- which could even be thunk on porpoise).:eek:

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

if all humans vanished, the theory of evolution would not be true in an independent manner at all, the concept of random chance would not exist without a human being having "thunk it" which means that all this evolutionary babble is nothing but a product of the human mind, not a natural process that existed, or exists independent of the human mind's sustaining an idea of it.

It's funny... there comes a point in time when the statements made by this person became so bizarre, so detached from reality, that you realize with stunning clarity that Rearden Metal has it 100% right and we are all actually getting taken for a ride.

This statement doesn't need to be dismantled. There is no need to point out the several ways in which it doesn't make any sense. It is beyond absurd. Z purposely abjures any attempt at semantic consistency and simply strings a series of words together which seem to contradict the statements of his opponents.

I'm telling you guys... we're all being had and Z is having the last laugh. This statement proves it.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from kjkent1:

If they exist in non-physical space, then they are not measurable and cannot be assigned a probability.

If they can be measured, then please provide a scientifically verifiable experiment with which we can measure concepts and thereby assign a probability.

It's true that measurements are essential to the conduct of science, but science is only one specialized way of experiencing truth. How about your own subjective experiences - do they not exist? Even if we ignore the abstract values of your last post, it's undeniable that the specific configuration of the onscreen black markings on the white background are the result of unmeasurable events that took place in your mind.

The probability of thought is 1.0 . We know this because specific thoughts can correspond to highly specific adjustments in the physical world. For instance, the thoughts of engineers result in bridges, skyscrapers, microchips, etc. - things that couldn't reasonably be regarded as simply occurring through random chance.

We know that will exists because the weightlifter hoists a massive weight over his head because he wills it so. And what about the feelings of a grieving mother? Are those feelings not part of the totality of reality even though they are confined to her experience?

There's so much more to truth than that which can be gauged by science.