Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Dmytry

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Straudos

Quote: I believe the universe is intelligently designed, but I don't call that entity God, but rather the Creator.

I'm pretty sure this is what people mean by "God" - the designer and creator of the universe. Why are you reluctant to use the word?

To assert that the universe is created is one thing; kindof pointless, but anyway. The word 'god' is however quite a bit broader than just 'creator'.

To assert that this creator would bother to spawn stone tablets, prophets or have other properties commonly associated with 'god', are entirely orthogonal assertions.

I propose creator machine. It simply runs random program for all eternity (for infinite number of steps), it runs another random program, and so on, forever.
Most programs just enter infinite loop but some are processing data in the loop, applying same rule over and over again. Simulating universes, essentially. Complicated rules are rare (unlikely to arise by chance), while simple rules are common (and a lot of programs can end up looping same loop). We're more likely to find ourselves in universe with simple rules, but not too simple as with too simple physics laws nothing interesting happens and no life arises.
Its every bit as good explanation as God.
edit: actually its better. It can provide some probability theory insights to anthropic principle, and descriptive complexity of such machine can be smaller than that of physics laws of our universe.

Indeed sounds a lot more plausible than other conceptions of a creator ive seen mentioned.

As for complexity of physics, youve gotta love dF=0, d*F=*J; Maxwell's equations in 3+1 space expressed in exterior calculus. Pretty much the 1+1=2 of spacetime.

What complexity? Which tuning?

Well there's still dimensionless constants here. Like that constant. But that constant can very well come out from some process involving just integers. That would also explain why its "constant".

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Eelco
I cant say i understand it anywhere near at all. If you are not even capable of translating these short snippets to english (and i somehow doubt you can), please spare me more of where this came from.

Well, again, in my own words:
The highest truth is that there is one infinite Creator. This Creator is only capable of seeing itself as "I", there is no "you" or "me" to it, because it knows that it is all alone. In order to entertain itself, it creates (that's what the Creator does) a universe in which it is able to perceive itself subjectively. With the expression "perceiving itself subjectively", I mean that it is able to see parts of itself as not being parts of itself, which creates the possibility of "you" and "me". That's as good as I can explain it, I'll spare you from any more of this. [wink]

Does this string of assertions actually lead anywhere?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Does this string of assertions actually lead anywhere?

Well, I did explain the basic motivation for the creation of the universe. What more do you expect from a few sentences?

Quote: Original post by Dmytry
Well there's still dimensionless constants here. Like that constant. But that constant can very well come out from some process involving just integers. That would also explain why its "constant".

True. I always fail to see how they are relevant though. 'What if they would have been different?' Well, they are not, what more can you say?

Quote: Original post by jColton

Quote: Original post by Marmin
Okay, I'm not sure if birds like Owls or Eagles are not conscious of themselves, but I was speaking of 'lower' birds like Robins or blackbirds. I observe them frequently, and I'm pretty sure they have no consciousness of their own mortal existence whatsoever. Although they can learn simple things that does not make them have self-awareness (which is imo different than awareness of other birds, which some of them have). It may be they are learning it. Still they are very nice birds. Other than this awareness (which is a burden actually for survival) they behave pretty much like humans .Eat, mate, sleep.

How do you define consciousness? From your posts you seem to think that consciousness is the same thing as complex thought?

I define consciousness as being self aware. Animals will flee larger predators out of fear for their own lives. The instinct of survival is one of the very defining factors for being conscious to me. Again, this could be alternate definitions.

Quote: Original post by Marmin
I'm pretty sure they have no consciousness of their own mortal existence whatsoever.

Find a flock of birds and run at them. That will show you that they fear for their mortal existence. They don't fly away for some arbitrary reason, they run for survival.

That is instinct. From Wikipedia: Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed.

It is not related to self-consciousness afaik. But i'm not a biologist. If you can prove it, you may win the Nobel prize.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Does this string of assertions actually lead anywhere?

Well, I did explain the basic motivation for the creation of the universe. What more do you expect from a few sentences?

You didnt explain anything at all. You gave a bunch of baseless assertions.

Quote: Original post by Marmin
That is instinct. From Wikipedia: Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. The stimuli can can be variable due to imprinting in a sensitive period or also genetically fixed.

It is not related to self-consciousness afaik. But i'm not a biologist. If you can prove it, you may win the Nobel prize.

How can a species evolve a survival instinct if it has no sense that it needs to survive. Just because an animal can't express that it knows its alive in the same way we can (thoughts and words) doesn't mean it doesn't know.

(Oh, and about the Nobel prize, I'm pretty sure you could win one too if you could prove without a doubt that birds aren't self aware.)

Philosophizing about why the universe exists is like philosophizing about why a round rock rolls down a steep hill.

Questions like "What is the purpose of the rock?" and "Why does the hill do that to the rock?" and "What is the rock feeling?" are stupid and pointless.

The short answer to "Why does the rock roll down the hill?" is: It just does, now stop worring about it and trying to make it more interesting than it really is. A slightly longer answer involves mathematics and physics: The rock is affected by gravity and friction and torque, etc.

Any answers that involve Creators, the rock's feelings, the hill's intentions or anything asinine like that is simply the result of someone who likes to hear themselves talk/type.

The big bang and the universe are a lot more complicated than the gravity operating on that rock. But that doesnt automatically make it something magical.

Quote: Original post by jColton
How can a species evolve a survival instinct if it has no sense that it needs to survive. Just because an animal can't express that it knows its alive in the same way we can (thoughts and words) doesn't mean it doesn't know.

(Oh, and about the Nobel prize, I'm pretty sure you could win one too if you could prove without a doubt that birds aren't self aware.)

a simple question: is bird aware of its food? Of partner? Of children? As much as bird could be aware of something. If no, then that's sure quite weird definition of awareness you got there, and it sounds like showing that human is aware of something could be a challenge as well.
If yes, then do you believe that bird have some blind spot for itself as to not be self aware or what?

Quote: Original post by AndreTheGiant
Philosophizing about why the universe exists is like philosophizing about why a round rock rolls down a steep hill.

Questions like "What is the purpose of the rock?" and "Why does the hill do that to the rock?" and "What is the rock feeling?" are stupid and pointless.

The short answer to "Why does the rock roll down the hill?" is: It just does, now stop worring about it and trying to make it more interesting than it really is. A slightly longer answer involves mathematics and physics: The rock is affected by gravity and friction and torque, etc.

Any answers that involve Creators, the rock's feelings, the hill's intentions or anything asinine like that is simply the result of someone who likes to hear themselves talk/type.

The big bang and the universe are a lot more complicated than the gravity operating on that rock. But that doesnt automatically make it something magical.

On this note, the philosophical question I have always wanted answered is this: why must there be a "why"?