Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Ok, thanks again, I thought I had been specific about what are personal opinions and the problem(s), and what is known.
The only thing I have been doing is infering on the only known cause for a very specific problem. That is what I am guilty of I guess.

That doesn't make the problem any less real though. Or even a clue how this could ever happen. I thought I might have made it clearer with the analogies, anyway...

How did the transition from the constraints of blind physics ---to--- symbolic formal controls, encoded plans, recognition and interpretation occur? There is no in between possible even in the most simple of systems.

That is the question.

Originally posted by squiz

That is the question.

The only honest and humble answer to that question at this stage could be....."I don't know (yet). Let's work on it."

I guess (IMO only) many of the usual arguments for ID don't even get off the ground to begin with for me, because I see inferring a causal intelligence as a vastly different thing to inferences based on known physics for instance, whose relevance is more easily established. For example, our observations so far seem to show us that the only "intelligence" that we can detect, that might theoretically have the potential to one day be such a purposeful designer (if that is the claim), is very specific and appears as an emergent property of a long process of biological evolution itself.

To place intelligence at the beginning of this process amounts to quite a claim, one that would need equally very specific evidence and a lot of explanation, which is lacking IMO. So it still looks too much like "god of the gaps" to me, from the beginning.

That's why (IMO), the best hope at this stage is from the point of view of understanding consciousness itself and why I enjoy this angle more (it's my bias). This could potentially point to something far deeper than we understand at present in the scheme of things and could even place it in some form, if not at the beginning, at least in a way that could make it relevant. Though it might not either, I suppose it doesn't have to.

Though this is also just an opinion.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
and appears as an emergent property of a long process of biological evolution itself.

The problem represents the very beggining of biological evolution.

To place intelligence at the beginning of this process amounts to quite a claim, one that would need equally very specific evidence and a lot of explanation, which is lacking IMO. So it still looks too much like "god of the gaps" to me, from the beginning.

I disagree, It is not a gaps argument. It is based on what we do know. I seen some gaps arguments as a defense though.

The claim that semiosis/code, digital code can be the result of blind physics and does not require mind is an extraordinary claim, but we know a mind can and does do it.

That claim would require very specific evidence and a lot of explanation as you say. It defies all mechanistic physical causes, it goes against all reason, not only is the evidence lacking it is non existent and completely inconceivable. This is a remarkable claim and unfounded. Why are we not skeptical of this?

But we know what can do it and we intuitively know that language, code both mathematic and somantic makes no sense without intelligence being involved. It screams of design and there are many reasons beyond this.

reply to post by squiz


I guess you'll never see it squiz, but you have a classical god of the gaps argument. It says, you can't explain this yet, so god did it. That's it. End of story. Where is the hypothesis, experiments, can it be falsified? It seems you reject any possibility that it might be explainable (which isn't very open minded) and even if it isn't, there is no god that we know of (apart from mythology). Not only that, you seem to claim the effort to try and understand is an ignorant one?

This is just one of countless areas where god was thought sure to be responsible (by some), but was inevitably conspicuous by his absence. There is a long list. The Egyptians were sure Ra pulled the sun across the sky for similar reasons.

Unlike yourself, science isn't making any definite claims as yet afaik. They're more busy actually doing real science and trying to work it out. Without god's help, it appears. Think you better brace yourself, the inconceivable is on the cards. If history is any guide, they'll get there eventually.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by squiz

 

Where is the hypothesis, experiments, can it be falsified? It seems you reject any possibility that it might be explainable (which isn't very open minded) and even if it isn't, there is no god that we know of (apart from mythology). Not only that, you seem to claim the effort to try and understand is an ignorant one?

Where is your hypothesis that God did not create the universe? And can it be falsified? Is it (as far as you can think and tell) hypothetically possible for an intelligent being to exist, and create something like a universe?

You have to understand that the idea of their being a potential God isnt just pulled out of thin air. Either there is intelligence involved with the creation of this universe or there isnt. Yes or No. From science and experience what would lead one to 'believe' that an intelligence had no part in the creation of this universe? (because weve never seen one? Ive never seen an electron or an individual atom, or the air, or wind. When humans had never seen that the planet was curved, was it flat? Just as when we dont have direct visual evidence of an intelligence creating this universe, that concept is completely implausible to you?

This is just one of countless areas where god was thought sure to be responsible (by some), but was inevitably conspicuous by his absence. There is a long list. The Egyptians were sure Ra pulled the sun across the sky for similar reasons.

Unlike yourself, science isn't making any definite claims as yet afaik. They're more busy actually doing real science and trying to work it out. Without god's help, it appears. Think you better brace yourself, the inconceivable is on the cards. If history is any guide, they'll get there eventually.

Ok nevermind. I now see you are just arguing against your preconceived personal notion and definition of God. Yes the God that you think does not exist most likely does not exist. But the universe exists, is it possible a God created it? Why is it impossible?

Never mind I think I got it. I cant prove a negative so its impossible for God to have created this universe.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
reply to post by squiz

 

I guess you'll never see it squiz, but you have a classical god of the gaps argument. It says, you can't explain this yet, so god did it. That's it. End of story. Where is the hypothesis, experiments, can it be falsified? It seems you reject any possibility that it might be explainable (which isn't very open minded) and even if it isn't, there is no god that we know of (apart from mythology). Not only that, you seem to claim the effort to try and understand is an ignorant one?

I'm sorry but it really seems to me that you don't see it. The gap in question, is the question. It is fully acknowledged. It is the epistemic cut from physics to language. I have given my hypothesis, I also presented a lecture from Meyers hoping to discuss the issues he presents as well because this is not his way of looking at the problem, but in return just got slanderous comments from nobodies that are irrelevant to the key issues.

I have tried to explain why it is unexplainable under materialism, I have broken it down and pointed out where physics is self evidently not involved. Where self evidently the system is irreducible even at the most fundamental level. Amounting to the clear and obvious fact that code is not physics.

The experiments? I am also basing it on what the experiments have shown. The pursuit of seeking a chemical origin have stalled well short and It is precisely because of these issues among others. We can rule out other hypothesis with a good degree of certainty scientifically. The only other hypothesis can be broken down to just chance and necessity. I am also looking at decades of work in this very question of the symbol, matter problem and semiotics.

And I am simply inferring to the only known cause based on causes in effect all around us, combined with the very real facts about information, code and semiotics and the the knowledge that physics simply cannot account for the phenomena, based on knowledge of physics, and it certainly can be falsified.

Yet you call it God of the gaps.

You said the honest answer was we don't know, but all you are saying is we can't explain it it so blind natural forces must have? You don't see the irony of claiming a god of the gaps argument with your own gaps argument?

This is just one of countless areas where god was thought sure to be responsible (by some), but was inevitably conspicuous by his absence. There is a long list. The Egyptians were sure Ra pulled the sun across the sky for similar reasons.

The other issue I have with your comment is in relation to the God done it mantra. The abillty to detect design is the scientific argument. The identity of the designer is another question. The critics always talk about being unscientific and hiding behind the name of science, yet it is they who continually want to drag theology into the picture.

Unlike yourself, science isn't making any definite claims as yet afaik. They're more busy actually doing real science and trying to work it out. Without god's help, it appears. Think you better brace yourself, the inconceivable is on the cards. If history is any guide, they'll get there eventually.

I have not made any definitive claims either, I gave my thoughts on proof many times, thank you, the one claim that seems to upsets everyone, that is objectively true, is that the only known cause for the phenomena in question is mind. No one will even dare to admit it? I also have never claimed proof. And I have referred only to real scienctific issues. Science is revealing something very different to the nature of reality IMO.

I thought you were becoming reasonable. But all you have done is call god of the gaps, when it is not at all, skipping the issue entirely, then supplied your own gap argument. Made a theological argument. Made a strawman out of my stance and capped off with scientism.

Originally posted by squiz
It is fully acknowledged. It is the epistemic cut from physics to language.

What if physics in it self is a language or code(or law)? I mean I personally think it is. The equations that symbolize physical activity, are our symbolic representation of physical values that interact in a language like way. Once we symbolize all physical phenomenon this is us translating the language of nature into a language we are suitable with reading and understanding. Then we can read nature, and predict its next move given circumstances.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Much like the quantum measurement problem. Yes this is sort of what I was implying in the broader sense. I think it is woven in, so to speak.

But in life the information is being interpreted without us. Something more like cybernetics. Where symbols control the matter. Where the information trancends the physical medium, Information amounting to plans and controls.

Plans to build machines that make other machines that duplicate, read, copy, translate and repair the very plans they themselves are constructed from.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Much like the quantum measurement problem. Yes this is sort of what I was implying in the broader sense. I think it is woven in, so to speak.

But in life the information is being interpreted without us. Something more like cybernetics. Where symbols control the matter. Where the information trancends the physical medium, Information amounting to plans and controls.

Plans to build machines that make other machines that duplicate, read, copy, translate and repair the very plans they themselves are constructed from.

edit on 12-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Ok interesting. And is your main argument; There is one reality, and that is the universe, and it was created by an intelligence? There is one reality that was created by an intelligence and there are many universes? There is one reality, that created and intelligence (or more) and they created this universe?

Or are you just arguing for the probability that there is an ultimate reality, there is at least this universe in it, and this universe is natural. But in the natural universe intelligent life arose, and humans are the product of a intelligent lifes design?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by squiz
It is fully acknowledged. It is the epistemic cut from physics to language.

What if physics in it self is a language or code(or law)? I mean I personally think it is. The equations that symbolize physical activity, are our symbolic representation of physical values that interact in a language like way. Once we symbolize all physical phenomenon this is us translating the language of nature into a language we are suitable with reading and understanding. Then we can read nature, and predict its next move given circumstances.

This is very close to my belief physics is a set of laws the universe uses. These laws when put into place means that everything was set in motion and outcomes became predictable, I think that the universe could be considered intelligent but its simulated. To get a computer to accomplish a task you code the rules in to a program. The rules alows the computer to handle the equations and produce information. Theres programs that simulate conversations and very good at it but truth is its nothing more then rules set up for the computer to use.

Originally posted by dragonridr

This is very close to my belief physics is a set of laws the universe uses. These laws when put into place means that everything was set in motion and outcomes became predictable, I think that the universe could be considered intelligent but its simulated. To get a computer to accomplish a task you code the rules in to a program. The rules alows the computer to handle the equations and produce information. Theres programs that simulate conversations and very good at it but truth is its nothing more then rules set up for the computer to use.

Your comments seem to favor the the idea of an intelligent cause. I wonder then why you were playing devils advocate this entire time?

Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood your analogy. In which case I'd be interested to learn more about your position if you'd be willing to share.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by squiz
It is fully acknowledged. It is the epistemic cut from physics to language.

What if physics in it self is a language or code(or law)? I mean I personally think it is. The equations that symbolize physical activity, are our symbolic representation of physical values that interact in a language like way. Once we symbolize all physical phenomenon this is us translating the language of nature into a language we are suitable with reading and understanding. Then we can read nature, and predict its next move given circumstances.

This is very close to my belief physics is a set of laws the universe uses. These laws when put into place means that everything was set in motion and outcomes became predictable, I think that the universe could be considered intelligent but its simulated. To get a computer to accomplish a task you code the rules in to a program. The rules alows the computer to handle the equations and produce information. Theres programs that simulate conversations and very good at it but truth is its nothing more then rules set up for the computer to use.

Yes. Well what I think is really interesting is, the universe is finite right? It has to be, there cant be in one moment an infinite quantity. There can be a finite quantity that can take on infinite forms in infinite time, but at any one particular moment the totality of what exists cannot be infinite (this is also sketchy semantics but I think I can envision what I mean by that and will be able to clarify if need be). So even though the universe is finite, Finite amount of energy (even though it cant be created or destroyed so its infinite ), finite number of possible atoms (as far as we know and could imagine) finite number of galaxies right now, and planets and stars. The infinitude is staggering. The probability of it all, that such a limited number of atoms can create all the variety, due to the differences in physical variable circumstances such as angular momentum of planet and stars, distance, and exact atomic composition of planet, and quantity of atoms and composition of stars, and there is so much variety.

Then we zoom in on earth, and see all the variety of what biology is capable of on this planet alone with these physical circumstances, the immense variety, even though everything is finite, there are rules and limits and laws, and finite, yet seemingly infinite variety is possible( I think laws, order, finitude, might be necessary for any system, any organization).

Well what I want to say about this is, because there is a finite amount of energy, and a finite number of laws controlling this energy, obviously there are limits, rules and regulations. So because there are limits, that means that a finite number of things are possible, I dont mean this in a deterministic way, I mean it that as far back in the past as existed, and as far into the future as energy will exist, there are parameters, there are limits, there are exact ways things are, and can be, because the exact way things were and could have been. Cause and affect. An analogy would be a person who designs a video game. That video game exists with hardware, physical constraints, dependent on physical laws of our reality, and it relies on electric energy source to function. It is also programmed, software. More limitations, rules, code, laws. So this game is then put onto the market, and before anyone even buys this game, the game has limits, in a platos realm of forms kinda way, all potentials exist. the maps are set, the story line, the achievements, the Easter eggs. Say the main character of the video game for example explores maps, there are exact values of that digital space map, that the main character can potentially walk, and though it is all finite, because of the laws of probability and because of the nature of time, there is a seemingly infinite number of ways that main character can explore a map, if one is paying attention to detail at least. move left 1, move right 1, move up, turn around, turn around, turn around, go left, go right. etc... you get the picture.

So I guess a point I wanted to make was, before the universe existed, there was the potential the universe was possible to exist. Before the automobile existed there was the potential for it to. I guess we refer to the term 'intelligence' as the ability to choose to cause things to occur, to have control over outcomes, to plan, etc. Thats fair.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dragonridr

This is very close to my belief physics is a set of laws the universe uses. These laws when put into place means that everything was set in motion and outcomes became predictable, I think that the universe could be considered intelligent but its simulated. To get a computer to accomplish a task you code the rules in to a program. The rules alows the computer to handle the equations and produce information. Theres programs that simulate conversations and very good at it but truth is its nothing more then rules set up for the computer to use.

Your comments seem to favor the the idea of an intelligent cause. I wonder then why you were playing devils advocate this entire time?

Unless, of course, I've completely misunderstood your analogy. In which case I'd be interested to learn more about your position if you'd be willing to share.

Simple im a physics major beliefs are one thing science is another. But my main difference is its the universe that has an intelligence of sorts which was set up when it was created no god necessary.To be honest knowing somethings in charge of the choas has a certain comfort but im not going to manipulate science to do so.

If someone wants to believe in god have no problem with that at all. My problem usually involves when people try to say i'm right your wrong and then tries to manipulate people with science or religion. Religions have been doing the same thing for centuries they manipulate ignorance as a form of control of the masses. My view if science has disproved your beliefs time to change them.Problem is with creationists they did not reevaluate they repackaged the same message. When presented with evidence that contradicts a belief you have two choices either see that you were wrong or try to twist things to make it look like your right. When people mislead others for there own personal beliefs thats just wrong.I guess i'm a strong believer in free will and hate it when people use science the media or anything for that matter to push their beliefs on others.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Where is your hypothesis that God did not create the universe? And can it be falsified? Is it (as far as you can think and tell) hypothetically possible for an intelligent being to exist, and create something like a universe?

This is the same type of logical fallacy (you can't prove god didn't build it,so he must have). Haven't got a hypothesis and don't need one. I'm not trying to prove he didn't build it.


(see below regarding your hypothetical)

You have to understand that the idea of their being a potential God isnt just pulled out of thin air

.

No, it's usually worse, from belief in religious mythology. I would say god isn't even pulled out of thin air at this stage.

Either there is intelligence involved with the creation of this universe or there isnt. Yes or No. From science and experience what would lead one to 'believe' that an intelligence had no part in the creation of this universe? (because weve never seen one? Ive never seen an electron or an individual atom, or the air, or wind.

Fallacy again. If god were able to be detected/measured and put into a theory as workable as electron theory, I would certainly believe you.

Even if abiogenesis was shown to be viable (likely IMO), this wouldn't disprove god. It would put a dent in the claims of a certain group who like to fit god in everywhere though.

When humans had never seen that the planet was curved, was it flat? Just as when we dont have direct visual evidence of an intelligence creating this universe, that concept is completely implausible to you?

We don't need visual evidence of god (although that would be nice), re the electrons you mentioned. It's not implausible, but it is irrelevant at this stage. There would be a way to make it relevant, hasn't happened yet though.

As yet god remains relevant through personal experience and belief.

Ok nevermind. I now see you are just arguing against your preconceived personal notion and definition of God. Yes the God that you think does not exist most likely does not exist. But the universe exists, is it possible a God created it? Why is it impossible?

It's possible an intelligence was involved. Whether it is likely, or can be shown to be so, being another matter entirely.

I have my own ideas that there is something that isn't really intelligence as such, but something that allows for our puny notion of intelligence, to evolve. Something more fundamental, that is beyond logic. Only from my own experience and observation. Unlike certain people who arm themselves with pseudo science and try to convince everyone, I realise that I can't really make it scientifically valid and that it isn't based on science to begin with.

I would certainly like it to be a truth though. It would also fly in the face of the notion of "god" as generally held, as something that makes conscious choices in any anthropomorphic way and also renders the idea of the "soul" as unlikely, in fact unnecessary. This isn't science though, no amount of claims or wishful thinking will make it valid science. I am also open to the possibility that I am completely wrong and it was all a trick of the mind.

Never mind I think I got it. I cant prove a negative so its impossible for God to have created this universe.

No, you can't give anything resembling a working model for god and how he does his thing (electrons ?), that would be a positive that you are lacking. It seems all you have at this stage, is claims. This won't necessarily make it wrong and it's ok to base belief on that, but when it comes to convincing others, it might not be enough.

Originally posted by squiz

I'm sorry but it really seems to me that you don't see it. The gap in question, is the question. It is fully acknowledged.

It is a question for most of us and remains so. It no longer is a question where you are concerned.

You have already filled that gap with a god, that you fail to explain in any meaningful way.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Simple im a physics major beliefs are one thing science is another. But my main difference is its the universe that has an intelligence of sorts which was set up when it was created no god necessary.

As a physics major what makes you believe that some kind of intelligence was "set up"? Isn't there a conflict of interest with an idea like that and physics? Or Is this based off of certaiin material that youre learning? I'm just curious

My problem usually involves when people try to say i'm right your wrong and then tries to manipulate people with science or religion.

I'm totally with you. It goes both ways. Fact remains you can't prove or disprove that which is unknown. You can only make a case for it either way.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dragonridr

Simple im a physics major beliefs are one thing science is another. But my main difference is its the universe that has an intelligence of sorts which was set up when it was created no god necessary.

As a physics major what makes you believe that some kind of intelligence was "set up"? Isn't there a conflict of interest with an idea like that and physics? Or Is this based off of certaiin material that youre learning? I'm just curious

My problem usually involves when people try to say i'm right your wrong and then tries to manipulate people with science or religion.

I'm totally with you. It goes both ways. Fact remains you can't prove or disprove that which is unknown. You can only make a case for it either way.

The beginning is where the rules were created. And were just starting to scratch the surface as to what the rules are. And trust me some seem to be really strange like possibly backwards causality for example. When the universe was created laws were created fundamental forces created so where we are at today couldnt have happened any other way.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dragonridr

Simple im a physics major beliefs are one thing science is another. But my main difference is its the universe that has an intelligence of sorts which was set up when it was created no god necessary.

As a physics major what makes you believe that some kind of intelligence was "set up"? Isn't there a conflict of interest with an idea like that and physics? Or Is this based off of certaiin material that youre learning? I'm just curious

My problem usually involves when people try to say i'm right your wrong and then tries to manipulate people with science or religion.

I'm totally with you. It goes both ways. Fact remains you can't prove or disprove that which is unknown. You can only make a case for it either way.

The beginning is where the rules were created.

That's part of the question though, isn't it... When exactly was the beginning.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by dragonridr

Simple im a physics major beliefs are one thing science is another. But my main difference is its the universe that has an intelligence of sorts which was set up when it was created no god necessary.

As a physics major what makes you believe that some kind of intelligence was "set up"? Isn't there a conflict of interest with an idea like that and physics? Or Is this based off of certaiin material that youre learning? I'm just curious

My problem usually involves when people try to say i'm right your wrong and then tries to manipulate people with science or religion.

I'm totally with you. It goes both ways. Fact remains you can't prove or disprove that which is unknown. You can only make a case for it either way.

The beginning is where the rules were created.

That's part of the question though, isn't it... When exactly was the beginning.

That's a really good question, actually. Scientists can estimate when the big bang took place, but beginning could actually be a relative term. For all we know "big bangs" could have happened billions of times. So when you say beginning, it could reference this current big bang expansion. It could reference the very first big bang expansion. It could reference other dimensions, other universes, one giant multiverse, spacetime itself, hyperspace outside of this dimension, the origins of strings and membranes (if String/M-theory are correct). There's just way too much to take into account. The 'rules' could just be the universal defaults.. just measurements of the way it is. All matter attracts to each other if it takes up space, curving and warping space time. Is linear time applicable everywhere or is it just perception of movement?

Perhaps dark energy is actually another universe pulling this one towards it. I have heard people suggest that this universe is one of many that revolve around a much bigger one. Galaxies are pretty much huge star clusters formed around super massive black holes. As stars are sucked in their revolution speed increases significantly. To put in in perspective, the stars at the center of the milky way revolve around it in seconds, while our sun takes over 200 million years to make one revolution. So, assuming the laws of physics apply everywhere, one would imagine that the closer our universe gets to the hypothetical bigger one, the faster it would revolve and hence the faster it would seem to be moving through space. It really makes you wonder. Could that be the answer to dark energy? We may never know. We'll see where our technology takes us over the next thousand years.

Now obviously I'm delving into philosophy here, I've given up on the science debates in this thread because science isn't what's being used to form the majority of conclusions.