Who designed the designer?

Write4U said:
Actually they are very a propos. Physical patterns are designs by definition.

The question is if the patterns (designs) are self-ordered or if someone ordered them. I maintain it is the mathematical nature of the universe that allows specific patterns (designs) to self-order without the need for a motivated supernatural mathematician..
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
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.



Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
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,
Click to expand...
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...."
 
DaveC426913 said:
"Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the designer exists...."
Click to expand...

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.

Alex
 
DaveC426913 said:
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...."
Click to expand...
"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.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
The notion of an intelligent designer seems to be religions contribution to science... Not.
But it stuck me today to enquire who designed the designer.
Did God design the designer or was the designer an alien sent here to design life suitable for the planet Earth.
Alex
Click to expand...

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.
 
davewhite04 said:
I look inside living things and see that all animals AND humans are coded, even with a randomise function!
Click to expand...
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
davewhite04 said:
The alternative... abiogenesis? If I could see a demonstration of this, I would believe,
Click to expand...
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.
 
iceaura said:
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
Click to expand...

I agree.

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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
davewhite04 said:
I look inside living things and see that all animals AND humans are coded, even with a randomise function!
Click to expand...
iceaura said:
They aren't. They develop and grow, instead.
Click to expand...
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.
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Write4U said:
Tegmarks' mathematical universe,
Click to expand...
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?
 
DaveC426913 said:
You won't have to.
You'll be reminded a hundred times, across a score of posts, for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...
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)?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
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)?
Click to expand...
Okay mate. I'll learn it off you :)
 
davewhite04 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
So does this eliminate the need of a designer?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does by rendering an intelligent causality moot. Mathematics form an abstract self-referential pseudo-intelligence which is "sufficient unto itself".
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
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".
Click to expand...
I'm looking for the thread, is it in this sub-forum?
 
davewhite04 said:
I'm looking for the thread, is it in this sub-forum?
Click to expand...
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....:cool:
 
Write4U said:
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....:cool:
Click to expand...

I think consciousness is external. Personal experience. No evidence.

In other words when you die you(consciousness) don't.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top