What is your 'idea of GOD'?

I published here at sciforums excerpts ages ago but due to paranoia as evidenced in this thread it proved an exercise in futility. The paranoia is greatly reduced today after 6 years of persistence on my part btw.
It is directly associated with QM's quantum entanglement but expanded into life and human psychology and universality.
In fact an entire web site was produced that suffered continuous "take downs" to the point of absurdity...[hacked, dns rerouted, IP tracking and more.

Located at
http://zeropointtheory.com

I have not mentioned it for a while because it upsets too many persons when I do...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

every thing is connected not by gravity [ which is an effect ] but by the source of gravity which is it's cause. There is only one, singular source of gravity [universally] and this allows for amongst many things, cosmic metric expansion/contraction to be uniform universally. This common single "thing" is often confused and placed in religious terms due to ignorance and paranoia.
By virtue of an instantaneous entanglement it is easy to suggest a mechanism for collective intelligence, consciousness, unconsciousness etc...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The link doesn't work (in Google Chrome anyway). Using Quantum terminology but using in realms where it was not intended to apply is misusing the terminology don't you think.

I could refer to planets as "electrons" but it would be misusing the word "electron". It would be better to just call them "planets".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as an example:
Approach this image of Brahma in a scientific way...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Consider the use of 4 heads as being symbolic of the multitudes on this earth or universally.
What do you think connects all heads [wills] to the one point?
The ancient Indians, Nepalese, Tibetans, knew of zero well before their Western cousins did

 

I am sure you will find the domain zeropointtheory.com if you persist... if not you wont...it works fine in firefox, IE and opera
just Google: zeropointtheory.com and you will find it
I haven't worked on it for about 3 years and much revision is needed.
care to help?

re: http://zeropointtheory.com/index.php/introduction

 

The DNS server is no longer working. You have to pay your bills I guess

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hee hee.. try telling that to the hundreds of visitors...bah!

 

deleted as unecessary

 

Now it's working.

 

Narrow view of evolution??
Where have I said it is organic only (or is that you limiting the area of perceived narrowness)?
If you want evolution to encapsulate all change then that is akin to calling all animals "dogs", or calling all methods of moving "walking".
Yes, evolution is change, but evolution is a description of a type of process of change. All evolution is change, but not all change is evolution.
And when you're discussing science, or even philosophy, you need to be precise about what you are talking about, lest arguments arise purely due to the different usages of words.

So it is not that I have narrow views, it is rather that you are choosing to use such words, on a predominantly scientific website, to encompass a broader remit than their meaning suggests in such setting.

QQ, you really need to stop dismissing views that you disagree with through such arm-waving, especially when you have not shown that there is such a difference, or that even if there is such a difference that it has any bearing on the validity of the arguments as presented, or the ability of one to respond.
It just seems that you are arm-waving and looking for an excuse not to respond, while at the same time looking for the superior ground (E.g. It comes across as "oh, well, if you work with my view then that wouldn't be an issue.") yet singularly failing to explain how it resolves issues, other than using words so as to lose their actual meaning.

And large chunks of the individual elements within the universe will go through evolution (incl. non-biological evolution). But that does not mean that the whole universe, as a whole, evolves.

And I have explained how a closed system can not go through evolution. Through change, yes, but not evolution.
You have yet to respond to that, other than trying to claim "all change is evolution".

You are also committing the fallacy of composition - that properties of the whole necessarily exist within the individual parts, or that properties of the parts necessarily exist within the whole.

Not within a closed system, no. You would only ever have, within that system, the constituent parts (being the matter and the constant). Everything else is just a matter of changing forms of that matter. There is no selection, no environment with which to judge the forms. It is not evolution.

Not sure why you think this would be necessarily true. Oh, that's right, you consider all change to be evolution. So if an amoeba merely moves a Planck-length then it has "evolved", according to you.

I appreciate how desperate you might be to drag the conversation away from the arguments presented, toward your own pet theory. But other than clinging to your "all change is evolution" equivocation, there is little here that adds to the matter in hand,

As I said: no.
I have never said it to be, or even implied it to be.

Actually I see I used a double negative unintentionally. Apologies if any confusion.

i do not consider DNA To be evidence of intelligence. It certainly enables us to be intelligent, but is not evidence of.
You need to be careful not to look at the known result of DNA (e.g. Humans), see that the result is intelligent, and thus conclude that DNA is therefore evidence of intelligence. That is a logical fallacy.
There is/was no guarantee that DNA would lead to intelligence and thus itself not evidence of intelligence.

Great. Good luck with that. Make sure you at least define what you mean by intelligence up front so there is no debate as to whether or not you establish it.
Whether what you mean by intelligence, and what the scientific community means, are consistent is another matter.
- "Yay, I turned lead into gold"
- "But that's not gold, that's molten lead."
- "No, I defined gold as being lead in liquid form. This is therefore gold!"

 

We are at cross purposes on just about all points...
example:

IMO, the genome itself is evidence of intelligence.
why? because it's structure and influence on life is so profoundly intelligent in composition and function. Not because of the life it supports. It may refer to a tree or a soya bean, and is intelligent in it's composition and function regardless of intelligence of the product.
I'll get to the issue of evolution from a global perspective later...
as a test please indicate what this sentence is saying to you:
"IMO, the genome itself is evidence of intelligent evolution."

 

That's circular logic. "It's intelligent because it works. It works because it's intelligent."

 

I don't know about it being circular but I like it....
"A car is good because it functions. It functions because the car is good"... no not circular at all, more like reinforcement and possibly validation by reversal
try:
It's dumb because it don't work. It don't work because it's dumb."

 

I'll ask a silly question so don't get offended ok?
Tell me Balerion, why is it that mankind can not create genome?
If mankind could create genome what would he be?
[from non-organic compounds]

 

@Sarkus,
After this comment I really don't think I have much more further to discuss with you...after all... time is precious.

 

While I appreciate that one could perceive DNA to be intelligent, depending on one's view of intelligence, your claim that it is evidence of "intelligent evolution" says to me that at worse you misunderstand evolution, and at best you assign it qualities that are meaningless.

Can you provide examples of stupid evolution?
And are you perhaps merely equating intelligent/stupid with successful/unsuccessful (as viewed with the benefit of hindsight)?

 

I understand: you'd rather spend that precious time on your pet theory than try to counter criticisms to your arguments.
:shrug: Whatever floats your boat.

 

Well explain your criticism properly and deserve a response. Calling to authority is insufficient..
and your inane denigration is deserving of what? do you think?
To say that I don't understand evolution from a number of various perspectives with out proper support is utterly useless and typical of someone who has not a single useful thought in his head.

 

Who cares what you think!.. sheesh! people think all sorts of stuff... back it up and support your retort...

You do realize don't you that we are discussing the very premise of the "old" and potentially obsolete view [yours] on evolution don't you...?
You can't use " oh this is what it means" as leverage when it is the meaning it self that is in discussion.
or are you of that sort of deficient intellectual caliber that can?
Edit: Actually after reviewing your responses etc .. you certainly appear to be handicapped regarding simple comprehension, in some way...so I wonder whether it is worth the effort to keep clearing up your narrow focus, prejudiced comprehension.

Fudging and glossing over obvious failures to comprehend don't wash either...

 

Where have I called to authority?
Where have I not explained myself properly?
I even set out the logic behind a closed system being unable to evolve, to no response from you.
You then conclude my use of terms such as evolution is "narrow", simply because I don't encompass all change as evolution. And I clearly state what i consider evolution to be.
So where have I been unclear, or not explained properly?

From someone who had nothing much further to discuss with me due to their time being precious... I couldn't care what it is deserving of.

I can only go by what you type. If you do understand it you've hidden that understanding frighteningly well.
Now, don't you have something more precious to be getting on with?
Or have you stopped throwing your toys out of your pram such that we can perhaps move on?