Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 6, 2017.
Translatable with human symbolic algebraic mathematics of values and functions. E = Mc^2
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I know the answer to my question..so obvious that you miss it...and it has been said before only a little differently...
Who designed the designer?
Answer...the same folk who designed the intelligent design arguement, if you could call a picked out of the air notion like that an arguement....it just like the who created god question...the believers created god and recreate god each time they make the god claim.
Sure, but that's cheating.
The question is implicitly predicated with (and expects the contributors to grant) the predendum: "Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the designer exists...."
My problem is even pretending I cant force myself to entertain, if only for a moment, that a designer could exist and admittedly I am no better than Jan when he is asked to imagine for the sake of discussion there may be no god...know thyself warts and all.
"Who designed the designer"?
How about, the Universe designed itself by abstract natural mathematical values and functions permitting and restricting the universal behaviors of "information sharing", the logic inherent in Universal patterns.
IMO, It is an axiom.
God may of designed an alien who designs planets with life.
The seed is filled with the relevant design specs and it is shot(meteor perhaps) into a pool of a water based substance.
I tend to go with the simple answer from a complex question. I look at the planet, and really it's quite beautiful. I could complain about people but at the end of the day, I go with Superman's fathers opinion on that one.the planet has got such a rich past too.
I look inside living things and see that all animals AND humans are coded, even with a randomise function!
The alternative... abiogenesis? If I could see a demonstration of this, I would believe, like everyone else who ponder these type of questions.
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
Abiogenesis via Darwinian evolution is the best explanation so far, for what you see. That's certainly what it looks like. "Belief" is not involved.
I don't know, I haven't followed it for a while but it hasn't seemed to change((abiogenesis).
It's one of those things when I use my imagination and logic to question things that science hasn't answered. It's good, letting the kid out of you for a while Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But that is indicative of pattern forming, no? A fractal develops and grows, A human pattern develops and grows.
This is where I see no alternative to Tegmarks' mathematical universe, which wholly consists of developing and growing patterns from Planck scale up to the formation of the universe itself.
I agree, but rather than arguing against developing and growing patterns, evolution is itself a pattern forming function, the gradual growth of patterns into ever greater complexity of both physical and environmental patterns.
Really interesting, never heard of it before. Will remember it, and hopefully have the time to read up on it properly one day. I'm no good at maths so might struggle.
So does this eliminate the need of a designer?
You won't have to.
You'll be reminded a hundred times, across a score of posts, for the foreseeable future.
It touches on the fundamentals of all scientific disciplines, no?
p.s. Dave, I know I do introduce Bohm and Tegmark a lot but that is for the newer readers who might not look back far enough to find these, what I believe to be important scientific perspectives. Worthy of repeated revisiting.
It is also hard not to cite Einstein often. GR touches on everything also, no? Darwin (evolution)?
Okay mate. I'll learn it off you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Understanding Tegmark is easy. No need to be a mathematician. In fact, it is easier to understand than many previously accepted theories. David Bohm is a lot deeper when we get into the philosophical perspectives of the universe.
But according to both, the single common denominator in the universe is it's mathematical nature which can be found in all self-forming and self-similar patterns which make up everything in the universe, as well as the universe itself.
Yes, it does by rendering an intelligent causality moot. Mathematics form an abstract self-referential pseudo-intelligence which is "sufficient unto itself".
I'm looking for the thread, is it in this sub-forum?
I'm sure you have no problem visualizing patterns in physical things . This lecture by Tegmark goes deeper and proposes that consciousness itself is a pattern and more importantly that we already have all the knowledge of how this becomes explicated in reality.
Once this is understood, a lot of prior assumptions and conflicting arguments go away and things get conceptually simpler. Just as cool as all other possible explanations....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think consciousness is external. Personal experience. No evidence.
In other words when you die you(consciousness) don't.
Play the link. You'll see where he is going with concept of a purely mathematical universe.
What I picked up on is pretty major, which made up my mind.
Separate names with a comma.