Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!
But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.
So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.
Why would God be interested in free lunches?
Moderator: Moderators
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #161
I should make yet another clarification. This argument for God's existence is not a proof of God's existence. The premises that I provided are, I believe, reasonable premises based on what we know of the world. If someone wishes to take the agnostic position, then they are certainly welcome in this instance. However, if they wish to take the atheistic stance then the burden is on them to show why this argument is very unreasonable and cannot be taken seriously. Just postulating ignorance is not good enough for the atheist since they are actually saying that they are not ignorant. They are making a statement that they have some form of knowledge that the rest of us, including agnostics, are somehow overlooking.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #162
harvey1
Sounds like a conclusion.
The Arguement is that making a conclusive statement that a supernatural being is necessary for the universe to exist IS unreasonable and cannot be taken seriously just as it would be for me to try to "prove" a supernatural being could not possibly exist.
Your reasonable premises are not the only set of reasonable(and remembering the Newton, Einstein, Quantum mechanics lesson)and unreasonable but true premises. In fact they are IMHO quite outside the realm of reason, but you will never hear me say they(your premises)are outside the realm of the possible.
I am an Atheist as to the supernatural realm. I couldn't believe short of torture methods, but I do not say it is impossible for such a being to exist EVEN THOUGH I CONSIDER THE QUESTION(does god exist)TO BE ANSWERED, NO.
It is one of the most important principles of science that nothing is ever certain and must constantly be questioned.
But you approach things differently than I do. Atheism is the base condition, in order for superstition to be validated and added to the confirmed phenomina there must be positive, objective evidence. Otherwise, why add the complication??? Without that evidence how will you decide which superstition to follow, start with the oldest??? The easiest??? The richest???
Grumpy
Your tone is "I have proven this so Atheism is an invalid stance, Period."I should make yet another clarification. This argument for God's existence is not a proof of God's existence. The premises that I provided are, I believe, reasonable premises based on what we know of the world. If someone wishes to take the agnostic position, then they are certainly welcome in this instance. However, if they wish to take the atheistic stance then the burden is on them to show why this argument is very unreasonable and cannot be taken seriously
Sounds like a conclusion.
The Arguement is that making a conclusive statement that a supernatural being is necessary for the universe to exist IS unreasonable and cannot be taken seriously just as it would be for me to try to "prove" a supernatural being could not possibly exist.
Your reasonable premises are not the only set of reasonable(and remembering the Newton, Einstein, Quantum mechanics lesson)and unreasonable but true premises. In fact they are IMHO quite outside the realm of reason, but you will never hear me say they(your premises)are outside the realm of the possible.
I am an Atheist as to the supernatural realm. I couldn't believe short of torture methods, but I do not say it is impossible for such a being to exist EVEN THOUGH I CONSIDER THE QUESTION(does god exist)TO BE ANSWERED, NO.
It is one of the most important principles of science that nothing is ever certain and must constantly be questioned.
But you approach things differently than I do. Atheism is the base condition, in order for superstition to be validated and added to the confirmed phenomina there must be positive, objective evidence. Otherwise, why add the complication??? Without that evidence how will you decide which superstition to follow, start with the oldest??? The easiest??? The richest???
Grumpy
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #163
All, I apologize to anyone if I have a tone that my argument is a proof. That was not my intention. I was responding to an objection on why I made a statement to QED.
I think that many atheists try to straddle a fence. On the one hand an atheist wants to be an agnostic, because obviously it's hard to criticize theist assertions unless you can claim that we are ignorant on such ontological issues. But, in another conversation or topic, the atheist sees a need to not just be an agnostic, but to tell us something of the way reality should be considered to be (i.e., minus any mind or strong emergent features such as what a pantheist might believe). Some justify their atheism by asserting that if a question hasn't been found to be in the positive, then we are justified to believe in the negative until proven otherwise. But, this just undercuts their earlier statement that we are ignorant. No one just can have it both ways. Either they should claim ignorance because they don't know, or they should claim that actually humans aren't ignorant after all but do have access to knowledge about God.
I think that any "base condition" in our epistemology is the condition in which humans feel justified in believing something because of its pragmatic benefit. If such a belief gets in the way of more pragmatic beliefs (e.g., rationality), then in those cases we need to sacrifice a cherished belief in order to preserve the more important belief. In some rare instances, we ought to even sacrifice "rational beliefs." For example, it is probably rational to believe that humans will nuke each other in the not so distant future. But, it is not good for us to settle on that belief as a reality because it is very likely that we will nuke each other because it will have the air of inevitability. We ought to select the more pragmatic belief that perhaps we can avoid nuking each other--which means living more at ease in our day to day lives--and also work feverishly so that we don't nuke each other someday. This account, I think, is a much more reliable way to understand how reality really is.
As we humans find the most pragmatic beliefs based on years and years of negotiating against all the pragmatic beliefs we hold, we eventually come to a fairly good grasp of reality which, if we are lucky, will also be based on having come from a long line of pleasant surprises of having been proved right in our hopeful attitudes (e.g., finding out that we didn't ever nuke each other). This approach always puts evidence at the highest level of our investigation, but it does so under a theoretical framework that interprets the evidence positively--not with gloom and doom or in meaningless framework. If accepting gloom and doom (or accepting meaningless) is the only way to maintain a pragmatic view of survival (i.e., by being and staying rational creatures), then so be it.
The shame in all of this is that there's huge numbers of intelligent atheists and agnostics coming from all fields of inquiry. If we had that large number taking the approach of trying to be problem solvers for what most humans want: namely meaning, then I think we'd be much further ahead in having a better understanding of the world. Fortunately a few great minds have recognized this and have tried to pursue a meaningful outlook. But, they are in the minority I'm afraid.
I think that many atheists try to straddle a fence. On the one hand an atheist wants to be an agnostic, because obviously it's hard to criticize theist assertions unless you can claim that we are ignorant on such ontological issues. But, in another conversation or topic, the atheist sees a need to not just be an agnostic, but to tell us something of the way reality should be considered to be (i.e., minus any mind or strong emergent features such as what a pantheist might believe). Some justify their atheism by asserting that if a question hasn't been found to be in the positive, then we are justified to believe in the negative until proven otherwise. But, this just undercuts their earlier statement that we are ignorant. No one just can have it both ways. Either they should claim ignorance because they don't know, or they should claim that actually humans aren't ignorant after all but do have access to knowledge about God.
I think that any "base condition" in our epistemology is the condition in which humans feel justified in believing something because of its pragmatic benefit. If such a belief gets in the way of more pragmatic beliefs (e.g., rationality), then in those cases we need to sacrifice a cherished belief in order to preserve the more important belief. In some rare instances, we ought to even sacrifice "rational beliefs." For example, it is probably rational to believe that humans will nuke each other in the not so distant future. But, it is not good for us to settle on that belief as a reality because it is very likely that we will nuke each other because it will have the air of inevitability. We ought to select the more pragmatic belief that perhaps we can avoid nuking each other--which means living more at ease in our day to day lives--and also work feverishly so that we don't nuke each other someday. This account, I think, is a much more reliable way to understand how reality really is.
As we humans find the most pragmatic beliefs based on years and years of negotiating against all the pragmatic beliefs we hold, we eventually come to a fairly good grasp of reality which, if we are lucky, will also be based on having come from a long line of pleasant surprises of having been proved right in our hopeful attitudes (e.g., finding out that we didn't ever nuke each other). This approach always puts evidence at the highest level of our investigation, but it does so under a theoretical framework that interprets the evidence positively--not with gloom and doom or in meaningless framework. If accepting gloom and doom (or accepting meaningless) is the only way to maintain a pragmatic view of survival (i.e., by being and staying rational creatures), then so be it.
The shame in all of this is that there's huge numbers of intelligent atheists and agnostics coming from all fields of inquiry. If we had that large number taking the approach of trying to be problem solvers for what most humans want: namely meaning, then I think we'd be much further ahead in having a better understanding of the world. Fortunately a few great minds have recognized this and have tried to pursue a meaningful outlook. But, they are in the minority I'm afraid.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #164
Harvey, you've made a good point that a reason for believing in God is that it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I assume that you also feel it's not the only reason. Your comments about atheists taking a positive stance about our knowledge of God's existence leads us back to our many debates here. I'm thinking about reopening the topic On What Basis is an Intelligent God Possible w/o Evolution? because if (as they would seem to me to be) mind and thinking are exclusively an evolved solution to the problems of existing in 3D space/time, then on that one issue we have a good reason to reject the popular notion of God.
Personally I don't think the business of self-fulfilling prophesies are as simple as you make them out to be. Complacency and an over-reliance on wishful thinking can lead to equally disastrous outcomes -- if not the same outcomes that we fear. So it doesn't help much to bring this up in IMHO. But I would also suggest that most of us in these debates care greatly about human welfare and so too do those great minds that you speak of. I don't recall us coming to any agreement in the marathon topic God and the Meaningful Life so many atheists will probably remain puzzled as to why an absence of "meaning" or "purpose" behind the universe should have any impact on us at all -- let alone serve in any way as support for the existence of God.
Perhaps we ought to revive this old topic as well. I notice that Cathar1950 always seems to have the last say in these matters. He can't always be right can he?
Personally I don't think the business of self-fulfilling prophesies are as simple as you make them out to be. Complacency and an over-reliance on wishful thinking can lead to equally disastrous outcomes -- if not the same outcomes that we fear. So it doesn't help much to bring this up in IMHO. But I would also suggest that most of us in these debates care greatly about human welfare and so too do those great minds that you speak of. I don't recall us coming to any agreement in the marathon topic God and the Meaningful Life so many atheists will probably remain puzzled as to why an absence of "meaning" or "purpose" behind the universe should have any impact on us at all -- let alone serve in any way as support for the existence of God.
Perhaps we ought to revive this old topic as well. I notice that Cathar1950 always seems to have the last say in these matters. He can't always be right can he?
Post #165
Why are you bothering with this line of argument? The posters contributing to this thread are smart enough to realise that the phrase "the paradoxes" can have an entirely different meaning to the phrase "all the paradoxes".``No one has ever touched Zeno without refuting him'' [A.N. Whitehead]. We will not refute Zeno in this paper. Instead we review some unexpected encounters of Zeno with modern science... One can superficially think that the resolutions of the paradoxes was provided by calculus centuries ago by pointing out now the trivial fact that an infinite series can have a finite sum... More subtle under the surface truth that Zeno's paradoxes is that even if one assumes the infinitely divisible space and time calculus does not really resolves the paradoxes but instead makes them even more paradoxial and leads to the conclusion that things cannot be localized arbitrarily sharply.
Why attempt to make your point by butchering the meaning of words? Wouldn't the logical way to respond be to read your own evidence, show us exactly where the authors mention the Arrow paradox and where they use calculus as argument against it - and then quote them?
The questions above are, of course, rhetorical. We know why you didn't take the logical option, because this paper addresses Zeno's Arrow on the grounds of Special Relativity and the Uncertainty Principle, not calculus.
I will thank him if I see him again before September.First off, please thank your colleague for me. What a kind guy to look at something like this and for his son to post it. I also appreciate that you mentioned it.
Why insist on a material connection between events? Why can they not be connected through their particular time/event line? A causal relationship via duration rather than some material connection?f distinct events E1 and E2 are materially connected, and E1 occurs prior to E2 existing (and E1 no longer exists after E2 comes into existence), then if they are materially connected how can E1 no longer exist and how can E2 come about as a result of E1 (i.e., since to be materially connected both events must exist at the same time)?
.This was the relevant passage from my perspective. I could have typed the whole paper, but that was a lot of typing even that small paragraph
You cannot take one paragraph out of an article and use it as evidence without considering it's context. You certainly can't put forward the suggestion that the author may be contemplating a metaphysical explanation on the basis of a single paragraph.
What led you to the assumption that McLaughlin was considering a metaphysical resolution? Was it the word 'phantom'? In a preceding passage he also mentions the word 'ghostly'. Neither are used to imply some possible metaphysical cause.
McLaughlin used the words 'phantom' and 'ghostly' as descriptive terms for the phenomenon found in mathematics where some formal mathematical models can produce varying and mutually incompatible results when applied to a problem. In the context of McLaughlin's article, 'phantom' has the same metaphysical connotations as 'phantom' in phantom pregnancy, i.e. none.
Post #166
My understanding of Zeno's Paradox is that it proves that the sum (1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...) is, in fact 1. An infinite sum results in a finite answer.
And, yet, put a computer to work on the sum and you never find an answer.
Thus reality is not composed of finite algorithms. Unless... there is a reality to the fizzle. One fizzle is that number so small that nature treats it as zero; makes it absolute zero. If there is a fizzle then infinite algorithms terminate.
Everything falls. Each elementary particle falls along geodesics. The shape of these geodesics is determined by the vector sum of the probabilities that shape them. Presence of matter distorts these geodesics so that "toward" that matter has much, much greater probability than "away from" that matter. When the probability of going "away" reaches one fizzle, the particle has no choice and (probabilistically) "appears" closer to the attracting matter.
Wave functions collapse partially but spontaneously when probabilities reach one fizzle.
If we convert the interpretation of the four forces to be probabilities, then the vector sum of these probabilities "determines" where a particle will be "next." With the fizzle, things can actually happen. By "happen" here, I mean to become probability 1. It is the becoming probability 1 that defines "past." It arises when all the other possibilities have fizzled.
Nature trims the probability tree with fizzles.
And, yet, put a computer to work on the sum and you never find an answer.
Thus reality is not composed of finite algorithms. Unless... there is a reality to the fizzle. One fizzle is that number so small that nature treats it as zero; makes it absolute zero. If there is a fizzle then infinite algorithms terminate.
Everything falls. Each elementary particle falls along geodesics. The shape of these geodesics is determined by the vector sum of the probabilities that shape them. Presence of matter distorts these geodesics so that "toward" that matter has much, much greater probability than "away from" that matter. When the probability of going "away" reaches one fizzle, the particle has no choice and (probabilistically) "appears" closer to the attracting matter.
Wave functions collapse partially but spontaneously when probabilities reach one fizzle.
If we convert the interpretation of the four forces to be probabilities, then the vector sum of these probabilities "determines" where a particle will be "next." With the fizzle, things can actually happen. By "happen" here, I mean to become probability 1. It is the becoming probability 1 that defines "past." It arises when all the other possibilities have fizzled.
Nature trims the probability tree with fizzles.
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #167
I'm not advocating wishful thinking. I think all beliefs are pragmatic based once we consider that evolution has shaped the way we think by optimizing the most pragmatic way of thinking: using our ability to reason. By and by we've become so used to our way of thinking as being epistemic based that we don't even think it is pragmatic-based thinking anymore. I think we need to get it right and see that everything we believe is a negotiation on the best pragmatic view.QED wrote:Personally I don't think the business of self-fulfilling prophesies are as simple as you make them out to be. Complacency and an over-reliance on wishful thinking can lead to equally disastrous outcomes -- if not the same outcomes that we fear.
Now, pragmatism could become wishful thinking if we abuse or misplace our priorities on only those aspects of pragmatic thought which emphasize a good feeling. However, as everyone knows, sometimes it is more pragmatic to have negative emotions for the creature's overall health (e.g., if in a fierce fight for survival, the creature has a pragmatic advantage if it is angry and in a heightened state of awareness). Similarly, humans must seek the optimal pragmatic attitudes and beliefs which best suit their needs as humans. Since reasoning is so important to our well-being and survival, wishful thinking for the sake of wishful thinking actually attacks our overall pragmatic outlook. On the other hand, unnecessary gloom and doom and meaninglessness also attacks our overall pragmatic outlook as well.
Sure, I agree wholeheartedly. The difference though is that most atheists and agnostics are not sensitive enough to what religion means to most people in the world. Many atheists and agnostics, however, realize the importance of travelling to other habitable planets in the galaxy, so it is not surprising to see many of them conceiving how to travel at near light speed (or beyond) using warp drives, etc.. So, we see some people working on the impossible: engines that might someday take us to the stars. Even if they don't believe that the solution that they are working on will work (or even if it is possible at all), we still see many making positive contributions.QED wrote:But I would also suggest that most of us in these debates care greatly about human welfare and so too do those great minds that you speak of.
So, likewise, I think atheists and agnostics should try and make positive contributions on there being a God--even if they themselves are skeptical such a notion will work.
People say of the last day, that God shall give judgment. This is true. But it is not true as people imagine. Every man pronounces his own sentence; as he shows himself here in his essence, so will he remain everlastingly -- Meister Eckhart
Post #168
harvey1
This in no way means this:
As a scientist I know that sometimes what we think we know is wrong, sometimes bizarrely so.(Newton, Einstein, Particle Physics)
So as both a scientist and an Atheist I have to allow that the supernatural phenomina I could not BELIEVE if I wanted to, may eventually be shown to be true. It may be contradictory to Philosophy, but it is none-the-less true to real life! Nothing is pure(as philosophy and math are)in nature.
So I do not claim you are ignorant of ontological issues, believe what you will. But the burden of proof is on you if you say that supernatural causes have ANY influence on reality. I see none. I know of no one who claims to have.
Allowing supernatural concepts into our study of nature improves that study in what way???
Of course abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence!!! Though it also is not absolute proof of abscence, it is compelling enough to convince me that abscence is the baseline(and it has yet to happen that I have been wrong on this). If you want me to consider your concept of a god, to add it to that base of knowledge, the burden is on you to provide objective evidence. I am saying to you that knowledge of the supernatural IS possible, so far that knowledge indicates(100%)that the supernatural realm does not exist(at least as far as gods and devils, angels and demons)
Is this doom and gloom, NO, far from it
But, Harvey, the most positive thing I can do about the concept of the supernatural is to get you to see that we are just as "moral", "good","perceptive", "logical","reasonable" as any theist is, without adding the concepts you BELIEVE in.So, likewise, I think atheists and agnostics should try and make positive contributions on there being a God--even if they themselves are skeptical such a notion will work.
This in no way means this:
As an Atheist I consider the whole question settled. Enough evidence of natural processes and the complete lack of positive, objective evidence has convinced me that there are no supernatural phenomina of any type.I think that many atheists try to straddle a fence. On the one hand an atheist wants to be an agnostic, because obviously it's hard to criticize theist assertions unless you can claim that we are ignorant on such ontological issues.
As a scientist I know that sometimes what we think we know is wrong, sometimes bizarrely so.(Newton, Einstein, Particle Physics)
So as both a scientist and an Atheist I have to allow that the supernatural phenomina I could not BELIEVE if I wanted to, may eventually be shown to be true. It may be contradictory to Philosophy, but it is none-the-less true to real life! Nothing is pure(as philosophy and math are)in nature.
So I do not claim you are ignorant of ontological issues, believe what you will. But the burden of proof is on you if you say that supernatural causes have ANY influence on reality. I see none. I know of no one who claims to have.
If there is no evidence of your beliefs what could possibly be the justification for their consideration? Which belief system should we use? What are the criteria of those choices? The emergent mind is between your ears, not inherent in the universe. How small does the crack get and god still be relivant?But, in another conversation or topic, the atheist sees a need to not just be an agnostic, but to tell us something of the way reality should be considered to be (i.e., minus any mind or strong emergent features such as what a pantheist might believe).
Allowing supernatural concepts into our study of nature improves that study in what way???
I'm doing a math problem, I decide to factor in a unicorn(it is a number, after all), does this give me more or less accurate work?Some justify their atheism by asserting that if a question hasn't been found to be in the positive, then we are justified to believe in the negative until proven otherwise. But, this just undercuts their earlier statement that we are ignorant. No one just can have it both ways. Either they should claim ignorance because they don't know, or they should claim that actually humans aren't ignorant after all but do have access to knowledge about God.
Of course abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence!!! Though it also is not absolute proof of abscence, it is compelling enough to convince me that abscence is the baseline(and it has yet to happen that I have been wrong on this). If you want me to consider your concept of a god, to add it to that base of knowledge, the burden is on you to provide objective evidence. I am saying to you that knowledge of the supernatural IS possible, so far that knowledge indicates(100%)that the supernatural realm does not exist(at least as far as gods and devils, angels and demons)
I can think of no circumstance where pragmatic realism and rationality are ever far apart, I simply don't understand what you are talking about. What "more important belief"?I think that any "base condition" in our epistemology is the condition in which humans feel justified in believing something because of its pragmatic benefit. If such a belief gets in the way of more pragmatic beliefs (e.g., rationality), then in those cases we need to sacrifice a cherished belief in order to preserve the more important belief.
Not ever!!!In some rare instances, we ought to even sacrifice "rational beliefs."
The universe has no "Meaning", that is a purely human construct. So we only have the Meaning we give ourselves.For example, it is probably rational to believe that humans will nuke each other in the not so distant future. But, it is not good for us to settle on that belief as a reality because it is very likely that we will nuke each other because it will have the air of inevitability. We ought to select the more pragmatic belief that perhaps we can avoid nuking each other--which means living more at ease in our day to day lives--and also work feverishly so that we don't nuke each other someday. This account, I think, is a much more reliable way to understand how reality really is.
As we humans find the most pragmatic beliefs based on years and years of negotiating against all the pragmatic beliefs we hold, we eventually come to a fairly good grasp of reality which, if we are lucky, will also be based on having come from a long line of pleasant surprises of having been proved right in our hopeful attitudes (e.g., finding out that we didn't ever nuke each other). This approach always puts evidence at the highest level of our investigation, but it does so under a theoretical framework that interprets the evidence positively--not with gloom and doom or in meaningless framework.
Is this doom and gloom, NO, far from it
Grumpy"But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose—which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." - Richard Feynman
Post #169
Don't forget though that this process is sub optimal. Natural selection will lead thinking creatures towards a useful (for survival purposes) perception of reality but it will only go as far as pragmatism calls for. We are in a relatively new phase of this form of evolution -- now that subsistence living is no longer a burden for everyone, some people have the freedom to think deeply about the riddles of existence. But our minds and bodies are still stuck in the stone-age and I'm always concerned about the anachronistic way in which this might be influencing our thoughts.harvey1 wrote:I'm not advocating wishful thinking. I think all beliefs are pragmatic based once we consider that evolution has shaped the way we think by optimizing the most pragmatic way of thinking: using our ability to reason.
A danger sign for me is always when someone talks in anthropocentric terms about the world external to man. I can't recall you ever responding to people when they point out how mistaken it can be to see traits peculiar to humans (creativity, thinking, planning, mercy etc.) in the other workings of nature. As I've already mentioned I see thinking as an evolved response to the problems of navigating a 3D world. From these humble self-organized abilities would seem to flow the aforementioned traits in an understandable way. Any suggestion of these traits being prior to the "hard slog" of natural selection look like nothing but a complete non-starter. If you have a way that we can understand this then why not set it out in thread about intelligence without evolution.
Post #170
I hope I'm not the only one that appreciates this effort to describe the Quantum nature of, er, nature. I think it could be a useful way of looking at things for some. There's so much to admire about the Quantum world, the "tricks" that make everything "tick" must be so tantalizing for people who cannot break the habit of seeing a need for Intelligent Design. Whenever I see examples of natural economy (getting back on topic) I am set thinking about what need God would have of such short cuts (hint hint!).George S wrote:Thus reality is not composed of finite algorithms. Unless... there is a reality to the fizzle. One fizzle is that number so small that nature treats it as zero; makes it absolute zero. If there is a fizzle then infinite algorithms terminate....
...Nature trims the probability tree with fizzles.
