so the question is "why"

[ollagram88]

i'm always amazed at how much science has accomplished in understanding our universe.

the one thing that i never could get an answer to, however, is WHY - why does does this universe exist? (or universes, depending on what you fancy).

i'm looking at the big picture here. one might ask, why are we here? well, billions of years of moving particles, evolution, ideal conditions, and the constants that make life possible tell us how we got here, and by that alone, the question of why can be considered irrelevant.

i'm not interested in the how, however, and it doesn't even have to concern life (because as science would like to tell us, we're pretty insignificant). i'm not asking how the universe functions. i don't care that it's possible for non-carbon based lifeforms to exist provided our universe was fine-tuned differently.

i'm asking WHY. why we have physical laws. why there exists matter. why the big bang(s) had to occur. why all that is, is?

is science just not there yet? if so, what can we guess based on our current knowledge? what does science and philosophy have to say about this? i don't want to insert God if God is not necessary to answer this question.

[ollagram88]

In asking why, one assumes there is a why. Questions based on assumptions are likely to be met with unsatisfying answers. Why assume there is a why? Would it be any less amazing if nothing existed? Those really seem to be the only two choices; nothing and other than nothing. One will be the case. Why marvel that it is one and not the other?

haha my my, this is an old topic of mine.

of course i assumed there is a why, and unfortunately, i framed this universe from man's perspective.

if we trace back to my "universe as a computer program" analogy, then yes, i assume it would be less amazing if nothing existed. isn't what is more complex, more amazing? amazing is a loose word, but surely if we define amazing as more artistically beautiful or intellectually complex, then something should be better than nothing? i suppose that is a debatable issue...

however, whether by chance or by some divine guidance, my being here is amazing. if consciousness arises from the brain, then what were the chances that all the particles that comprise my body came to create the person that i am now and the consciousness that i experience now? think of all the particles in this universe, and a speck of those particles that comprise me and granted me the experience of consciousness are "mine." to me, that's one of the most amazing things one can possible contemplate. and i can contemplate it because i am conscious, i am conscious because this universe IS... rather than is not.

[Beastt]

In asking why, one assumes there is a why. Questions based on assumptions are likely to be met with unsatisfying answers. Why assume there is a why? Would it be any less amazing if nothing existed? Those really seem to be the only two choices; nothing and other than nothing. One will be the case. Why marvel that it is one and not the other?

haha my my, this is an old topic of mine.

of course i assumed there is a why, and unfortunately, i framed this universe from man's perspective.

That's the only perspective you have open to you.

if we trace back to my "universe as a computer program" analogy, then yes, i assume it would be less amazing if nothing existed.

Computer programs which are other than pure math are likely to take on the perspective of the programmer. Do you know of a programmer who isn't a human?

isn't what is more complex, more amazing?

What makes you think somethingness is more complex than nothingness? We understand much about matter, energy... the physical (somethingness). Nothing is far more of a puzzle for physicists. It appears to be quite difficult to contemplate or even to grasp. Does nothing include a void in space-time or is space-time itself, something? If so, can it be said that something is really nothing? If it isn't, then we can certainly assert that there is no such thing as nothing anywhere in the known universe. Perhaps it's simply too complex to actually exist under the laws of the universe. Is it just possible that you may be tripping over assumptions again. It certainly seems to me that nothing is far more complex (difficult to grasp), than something. We have lots of examples of something with which to work. Can you point to an example of nothing?

amazing is a loose word, but surely if we define amazing as more artistically beautiful or intellectually complex, then something should be better than nothing? i suppose that is a debatable issue...

I think when you start dragging aesthetics into any objective issue, you're missing the very point you're attempting to make.

however, whether by chance or by some divine guidance, my being here is amazing.

Looking around, I would have to suggest that you're being here is quite mundane and common-place. Billions are currently here and more billions have been here before. It's likely far more billions will come after. Why is that so amazing?

if consciousness arises from the brain, then what were the chances that all the particles that comprise my body came to create the person that i am now and the consciousness that i experience now?

It wasn't by chance that the particles formed you. Certain aspects were by chance but most were in compliance with many known laws. Have you ever heard of two humans mating and producing other than a human offspring?

think of all the particles in this universe, and a speck of those particles that comprise me and granted me the experience of consciousness are "mine." to me, that's one of the most amazing things one can possible contemplate. and i can contemplate it because i am conscious, i am conscious because this universe IS... rather than is not.

It occurs to me that your use of the word "amazing" may be as misunderstood as the word "complex" when used by most people. When it is proclaimed that something is "complex" it tells us more about the person and their ability to grasp a concept than about the concept itself. To a second grader, long division might seem intensely complex -- meaning they have trouble grasping the concept. To you and I it's far less complex. And yet it's the same long-division. So you're simply describing your ability to grasp it by calling it "complex" and likely doing the same thing when you label things which are quite common-place, as "amazing".

[ollagram88]

That's the only perspective you have open to you.

rather, it's just one perspective i'm trying to understand. i'm open to other perspectives as well.

Computer programs which are other than pure math are likely to take on the perspective of the programmer. Do you know of a programmer who isn't a human?

well, i'm not the one that made this proposition scientists are the ones who postulated they can "figure out the universe." this implies discovering laws and algorithms that the universe operates by. this is akin to a computer program. without God, scientists should be able to figure out how the universe through pure mathematics and science alone.

What makes you think somethingness is more complex than nothingness?

unfortunately your definition of "nothingness" is different from my "nothingness." if a child sits there and does nothing to a piece of paper, while another child draws an amazing picture, which is more complex?

once again, i'm framing from the perspective of humans and their creations. however, the most accepted view of the universe seems to comply with that perspective. computer algorithms or physical laws?

I think when you start dragging aesthetics into any objective issue, you're missing the very point you're attempting to make.

is there not a philosophy of art and aesthetics? this question isn't rhetorical by the way, it's genuine. i was wondering.

also, humans as a whole can certainly recognize something beautiful over what isn't, and it's not entirely a subjective phenomenon.

Looking around, I would have to suggest that you're being here is quite mundane and common-place. Billions are currently here and more billions have been here before. It's likely far more billions will come after. Why is that so amazing?

i think it's here that, this time, you are the one falling victim to the "perspective from man." either that, or you are mistaking me for one of those "i'm so special" hippies because i'm not an atheist. you're only talking about people on earth. think of how vast this universe is. it is then one should ask, "what were the chances that i got to experience consciousness?" the particles that comprise my body are so miniscule and irrelevant to the particles that make up this entire universe. to me, THAT'S amazing.

It wasn't by chance that the particles formed you. Certain aspects were by chance but most were in compliance with many known laws. Have you ever heard of two humans mating and producing other than a human offspring?

if you see my response above, you'll see that it actually was by chance. you're talking about the formation of a human - i'm talking about the chances of experiencing consciousness through a brain or any other mechanism for creating consciousness.

It occurs to me that your use of the word "amazing" may be as misunderstood as the word "complex" when used by most people. When it is proclaimed that something is "complex" it tells us more about the person and their ability to grasp a concept than about the concept itself. To a second grader, long division might seem intensely complex -- meaning they have trouble grasping the concept. To you and I it's far less complex. And yet it's the same long-division. So you're simply describing your ability to grasp it by calling it "complex" and likely doing the same thing when you label things which are quite common-place, as "amazing".

generally what i meant is that what is complex is amazing. certainly something as "complex" as 184 divided by 7 might not be that amazing compared to other questions or phenomena of the universe, but something as complex as how the universe formed is a more amazing question to answer.

once again, i don't think my being here is as "common-place" as you think. it's common-place relative to humans who have walked this earth; relative to the entire universe, the chances of me experiencing consciousness (or me being here) are incredbibly slim (based on the current scientific view on how consciousness arises). to me, this is amazing due to the forces at work that brought me here that no one in the world has a precise answer to. not until scientists truly understand how consciousness works will we start to get close to that answer.

[Beastt]

That's the only perspective you have open to you.

rather, it's just one perspective i'm trying to understand. i'm open to other perspectives as well.

And how do you -- a human -- hope to grasp non-human perspectives?

well, i'm not the one that made this proposition scientists are the ones who postulated they can "figure out the universe." this implies discovering laws and algorithms that the universe operates by. this is akin to a computer program. without God, scientists should be able to figure out how the universe through pure mathematics and science alone.

Are you familiar with the hopes and projections set forth for the newly completed LHC in Geneva, Switzerland? One of the projected possible discoveries is "the answer to everything" -- everything scientific concerning physics, that is.

unfortunately your definition of "nothingness" is different from my "nothingness." if a child sits there and does nothing to a piece of paper, while another child draws an amazing picture, which is more complex?

Again, that would depend upon one's definition of nothing. Here you seem to be talking about the absence of action (aside from the fact that observation alone can alter the state of particles). Before you seemed to be talking about the complete absence of everything and I suggest that such a state may be beyond the ability of the universe to support.

once again, i'm framing from the perspective of humans and their creations.

Well, strictly speaking; humans have never "created" anything. Every atom of every human invention has existed for billions of years before we existed and indeed, billions of years before the Earth existed. The evidence suggests that nothing which exists today has ever not existed in one form or another. We "transform" and call it "creation". But no human has ever witnessed or initiated an actual creation event.

however, the most accepted view of the universe seems to comply with that perspective. computer algorithms or physical laws?

Given that we've never found any characteristic, trait or property of the universe which is other than regulated by physical laws, most of which can be modeled to a significant degree of accuracy mathematically, I see little cause to partake in fantastical imaginings of the unevidenced.

is there not a philosophy of art and aesthetics? this question isn't rhetorical by the way, it's genuine. i was wondering.

It's a worthy question. Given that philosophy is regulated by logic, and aesthetics, while following some rules, doesn't necessarily adhere to logic, I think it doubtful.

also, humans as a whole can certainly recognize something beautiful over what isn't, and it's not entirely a subjective phenomenon.

I wonder. I think I see what you're saying but some of the reasons it appears other than subjective may have to do with cultural boundaries and standards. For instance, I know people who can look at a lightly charred piece of cow flesh and see a beautiful steak. I see partially burned animal flesh.

i think it's here that, this time, you are the one falling victim to the "perspective from man." either that, or you are mistaking me for one of those "i'm so special" hippies because i'm not an atheist. you're only talking about people on earth. think of how vast this universe is. it is then one should ask, "what were the chances that i got to experience consciousness?" the particles that comprise my body are so miniscule and irrelevant to the particles that make up this entire universe. to me, THAT'S amazing.

Are you equally amazed, while standing in a rain storm, that a drop of rain fell directly onto the top of a tiny piece of gravel 3.531 inches from your big toe at an angle of 86.351°?

If you were to take a short ride in a helicopter with a marble in your pocket, and then dropped the marble from 1000-feet, is it amazing that the marble lands precisely where it lands, despite all of the other places it might have landed and didn't? This seems to be roughly similar to your suggestion. If conscious life is to exist, then there will be organisms who experience consciousness. To think it amazing that any one of them is one of them, seems to overlook the point for the sake of seeking misrepresented astronomical odds.

if you see my response above, you'll see that it actually was by chance. you're talking about the formation of a human - i'm talking about the chances of experiencing consciousness through a brain or any other mechanism for creating consciousness.

Tell me; which do you see as holding the greatest odds, being one of billions to experience consciousness, or being one of the untold quadrillions who never will? I think you may be postulating beyond the realities.

generally what i meant is that what is complex is amazing. certainly something as "complex" as 184 divided by 7 might not be that amazing compared to other questions or phenomena of the universe, but something as complex as how the universe formed is a more amazing question to answer.

How much more complex is E=MC^2 than 184/7?

Again, you're simply talking about your own capacity to grasp a concept. To someone from 300-years ago, the dashboard of a modern car would appear to be an befuddling mass of knobs, switches and controls. You and I slide into the seat of the same car and with a glance, have a pretty good idea of how everything operates because we're familiar with it. But no matter who is observing the dashboard, the dashboard itself doesn't change. It doesn't become more complex with someone from 3-centuries looking at it and it doesn't become less complex when you or I look at it. "Complex" is simply a rating for the individuals capacity to grasp a concept. It tells us little (if anything), about the concept itself.

once again, i don't think my being here is as "common-place" as you think. it's common-place relative to humans who have walked this earth; relative to the entire universe, the chances of me experiencing consciousness (or me being here) are incredbibly slim (based on the current scientific view on how consciousness arises).

Is this not similar to the amazingly slim odds that the water would fit the sides of a puddle so precisely? I think you're looking at it backward to provide a self-serving misconception of the realities.

to me, this is amazing due to the forces at work that brought me here that no one in the world has a precise answer to. not until scientists truly understand how consciousness works will we start to get close to that answer.

If one were to look at a bit of volcanic rock, we could marvel to an equal degree that a piece of stone would have precisely that configuration of bubbles. We could do the same with a piece of rubber sponge or a handful of soap suds. I defy you to produce two handfuls of soap suds that are precisely alike. Does that make any glob of suds all that amazing, or it is just the perspective you've chosen which allows you to see it as more amazing than it is?

Consciousness is still a bit of a puzzle but I tend to see it as somewhat of a side-effect of a neural network where not only are connections made from neuron to neuron to seek pathways of memory and cognition, but because they are so interlinked (not requiring the sequential pipeline of an integrated circuit), they can monitor their own interaction, resulting in us being aware that we are thinking, imagining, tired, etc. I'm sure that's a vast over-simplification, but perhaps as a base model, it squeezes much of the amazement from the mechanics. Once something is fully understood, it can be beheld as amazing or not. But most amazement seems to arise from a lack of understanding, rather than from a comprehensive understanding.

[ollagram88]

And how do you -- a human -- hope to grasp non-human perspectives?

is our definition of human-perspective similar? basically, to not necessarily only think human-centric, as if to not think the stars revolve around the Earth. this could include recognizing that humans have a limited sense of dimensions.

Are you familiar with the hopes and projections set forth for the newly completed LHC in Geneva, Switzerland? One of the projected possible discoveries is "the answer to everything" -- everything scientific concerning physics, that is.

looked it up, sounds very interesting.

Before you seemed to be talking about the complete absence of everything and I suggest that such a state may be beyond the ability of the universe to support.

i think this issue was actually addressed earlier in this topic months ago.

i understand how "nothing" might actually be more complex than "something" (from a physical standpoint, that is), but yes, when i speak of it, i mean to say a complex computer program as opposed to a blank file without any code.

Well, strictly speaking; humans have never "created" anything. Every atom of every human invention has existed for billions of years before we existed and indeed, billions of years before the Earth existed. The evidence suggests that nothing which exists today has ever not existed in one form or another. We "transform" and call it "creation". But no human has ever witnessed or initiated an actual creation event.

well yes, physically. but we can create ideas and concepts and "apply" things that are out there to "create."

Given that we've never found any characteristic, trait or property of the universe which is other than regulated by physical laws, most of which can be modeled to a significant degree of accuracy mathematically, I see little cause to partake in fantastical imaginings of the unevidenced.

so do we agree that our best, most evidenced description of the universe is mathematical/algorithmic?

It's a worthy question. Given that philosophy is regulated by logic, and aesthetics, while following some rules, doesn't necessarily adhere to logic, I think it doubtful.

well, i am aware that it's an actual field of study. i go to rutgers new brunswick, which has the number 1 philosophy department in the nation (or hovering around there these days) and they offer philosophy of art class. i just don't know what the actual subject entails nor if it's applicable to the discussion.

I wonder. I think I see what you're saying but some of the reasons it appears other than subjective may have to do with cultural boundaries and standards. For instance, I know people who can look at a lightly charred piece of cow flesh and see a beautiful steak. I see partially burned animal flesh.

what about biological predispositions? like recognizing facial symmetry as beautiful? i think there's a good deal of work out there dedicated to math and art and what is considered beautiful; i don't know if i could use the concept "beautiful," but certainly there consistencies in techniques used in art around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

Are you equally amazed, while standing in a rain storm, that a drop of rain fell directly onto the top of a tiny piece of gravel 3.531 inches from your big toe at an angle of 86.351°?

If you were to take a short ride in a helicopter with a marble in your pocket, and then dropped the marble from 1000-feet, is it amazing that the marble lands precisely where it lands, despite all of the other places it might have landed and didn't? This seems to be roughly similar to your suggestion. If conscious life is to exist, then there will be organisms who experience consciousness. To think it amazing that any one of them is one of them, seems to overlook the point for the sake of seeking misrepresented astronomical odds.

whether a rain drop hits me 3.531 inches from my big toe or my little toe is irrelevant to me. that i experience consciousness versus not experiencing it, on the other hand, is a big thing! the fact is that the importance of consciousness precedes any concern for rain drops or marbles, because without consciousness, nothing else can be relevant to me.

what i speak of sounds like rubbish, and there's a great chance that it is, but to me, i'm still amazed.

Tell me; which do you see as holding the greatest odds, being one of billions to experience consciousness, or being one of the untold quadrillions who never will? I think you may be postulating beyond the realities.

the latter, of course? perhaps i am misunderstanding something.

Again, you're simply talking about your own capacity to grasp a concept. To someone from 300-years ago, the dashboard of a modern car would appear to be an befuddling mass of knobs, switches and controls. You and I slide into the seat of the same car and with a glance, have a pretty good idea of how everything operates because we're familiar with it. But no matter who is observing the dashboard, the dashboard itself doesn't change. It doesn't become more complex with someone from 3-centuries looking at it and it doesn't become less complex when you or I look at it. "Complex" is simply a rating for the individuals capacity to grasp a concept. It tells us little (if anything), about the concept itself.

i think even i have lost myself on why we delved into these semantics, and that is my fault. let me clear up this "complex" issue.

to go back to my original statement, "isn't what is more complex, more amazing?"

simply put, i think complexity implies some degree of being amazed. however, you said that was because of one's inability to grasp a complex concept that one is amazed.. but i disagree. i say it is very possible to be amazed by something you understand, especially the more you understand it. in fact, a deeper understanding of something can often foster greater appreciation for the beauty of something, which often the case for art, and i'm sure to a scientist or mathematician. so whether i am amazed at the great complexity of a computer program, a child's drawing, solving a difficult math problem, or fathoming the chances that i experience consciousness, they are all complex ideas and amazing ones to me.

therefore, i don't necessarily think the idea that complexity implies amazement is due to my inability to grasp, because i've shown that as complexity increases, a greater understanding of it can actually increase my amazement of it.

Is this not similar to the amazingly slim odds that the water would fit the sides of a puddle so precisely? I think you're looking at it backward to provide a self-serving misconception of the realities.

i see where you are coming from. if that's really the case, then i just need to understand the flaws in my way of thinking. could you elaborate? this is me being open to a non-human-centric perspective

If one were to look at a bit of volcanic rock, we could marvel to an equal degree that a piece of stone would have precisely that configuration of bubbles. We could do the same with a piece of rubber sponge or a handful of soap suds. I defy you to produce two handfuls of soap suds that are precisely alike. Does that make any glob of suds all that amazing, or it is just the perspective you've chosen which allows you to see it as more amazing than it is?

again, what's the difference between soap A and soap B, in lieu of the difference between consciousness and no consciousness? i don't think that analogy works out.

Consciousness is still a bit of a puzzle

to which i can confidently say at that point in your description consciousness, we both know it is a concept not fully understood. your idea is one perspective and there is certainly evidence to support it, and i certainly think it's likely, but we can't say for sure.

[ken1burton]

Ollagram88

The Why is because God is an intelligent designer. Would it do any good for an intelligent designer not to create life without some of that life intelligent enough to appreciate it, To look for answers about the creation itself. Even questioning it being a Creation?

God might have evolved as some form of Energy being. But life as we know it on earth is not able to come into existence, Death would follow too close, and the life form would never survive to evolve the complex systems it would need to just live past the first day.

You want something from nothing, Not really that hard. But with no energy at all, We need to be at Absolute Zero. We can get Energy on one side if we can get Below Absolute Zero on the other. Similar to how a compressor works.

Below Absolute Zero would have to be solid MASS. Now, If we can keep energy away from it, We can build up more and more energy, and that will form Matter. So REAL Anti-Matter is below Absolute Zero. So if REAL Anti-matter met an equal amount of Energy, They would eliminate each other.

Where what is called Anti-Matter which is really matter with a different polarity eliminates each other in a release of Energy or both forms of matter revert to the energy contained in each.

Now where would God hide REAL Anti-Matter? M&M hides the peanut by coating it with Chocolate. So why not hide the REAL Anti-Matter withing the Protons. The Protons working like a coating to keep the energy out.

However the Energy within (Protons reject other positive charges) would be nullified by an equal amount of Real Anti-Matter being eliminated, the energy to repel the other positive charges being reduced to NOTHING.

If you try to split an Atom, You force Energy INTO the Area of the REAL Anti-Matter, and you start with an IMPLOSION, as that energy and an Equal amount of REAL Anti-Matter forms NOTHING, A Void, a hollow space, and as Matter rushes to fill that space, it is like air rushing in to fill the void left by a lightning bolt, You get a Clash.

Albert Einstein did a Experiment, and LOST SOME ENERGY. Not Possible? He was playing around with experiments of near Absolute zero temperatures. The Darn Experiment IMPLODED, Then Exploded, and some of the Energy was lost and not able to be accounted for.

The only way you can show that REAL Anti-Matter (Mass below absolute zero temperatures) exist, is by the measurement of the energy which no longer exists.

NOTE: When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.

Half of the Atoms seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether. HOW about that?

Nice thing about God, He not only created mankind with minds which question, He also does not mind answering questions.

Ken

[Beastt]

Ollagram88

The Why is because God is an intelligent designer. Would it do any good for an intelligent designer not to create life without some of that life intelligent enough to appreciate it, To look for answers about the creation itself. Even questioning it being a Creation?

God might have evolved as some form of Energy being. But life as we know it on earth is not able to come into existence, Death would follow too close, and the life form would never survive to evolve the complex systems it would need to just live past the first day.

You want something from nothing, Not really that hard. But with no energy at all, We need to be at Absolute Zero. We can get Energy on one side if we can get Below Absolute Zero on the other. Similar to how a compressor works.

Below Absolute Zero would have to be solid MASS. Now, If we can keep energy away from it, We can build up more and more energy, and that will form Matter. So REAL Anti-Matter is below Absolute Zero. So if REAL Anti-matter met an equal amount of Energy, They would eliminate each other.

Where what is called Anti-Matter which is really matter with a different polarity eliminates each other in a release of Energy or both forms of matter revert to the energy contained in each.

Now where would God hide REAL Anti-Matter? M&M hides the peanut by coating it with Chocolate. So why not hide the REAL Anti-Matter withing the Protons. The Protons working like a coating to keep the energy out.

However the Energy within (Protons reject other positive charges) would be nullified by an equal amount of Real Anti-Matter being eliminated, the energy to repel the other positive charges being reduced to NOTHING.

If you try to split an Atom, You force Energy INTO the Area of the REAL Anti-Matter, and you start with an IMPLOSION, as that energy and an Equal amount of REAL Anti-Matter forms NOTHING, A Void, a hollow space, and as Matter rushes to fill that space, it is like air rushing in to fill the void left by a lightning bolt, You get a Clash.

Albert Einstein did a Experiment, and LOST SOME ENERGY. Not Possible? He was playing around with experiments of near Absolute zero temperatures. The Darn Experiment IMPLODED, Then Exploded, and some of the Energy was lost and not able to be accounted for.

The only way you can show that REAL Anti-Matter (Mass below absolute zero temperatures) exist, is by the measurement of the energy which no longer exists.

NOTE: When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.

Half of the Atoms seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether. HOW about that?

Nice thing about God, He not only created mankind with minds which question, He also does not mind answering questions.

Ken

How is this entire dissertation other than a proclamation of the God of the gaps? And if God is an intelligent designer, his intelligence falls well below our own. Even we can see that utilizing a single port through which air and food must both pass, is an inherently poor design leading to the failure of many of these "creations" every day. That's but one example. There are dozens and dozens more.

To suggest that God created life on Earth is to suggest that God has rather feeble capabilities as a designer. Is that the kind of "god" you assert exists?

[Beastt]

And how do you -- a human -- hope to grasp non-human perspectives?

is our definition of human-perspective similar? basically, to not necessarily only think human-centric, as if to not think the stars revolve around the Earth. this could include recognizing that humans have a limited sense of dimensions.

Earth-centered would be "geocentric". Human-centric is obviously, human-centered. But any thought from humans is likely to be only from a human perspective. Being nothing other than human, how are we to hold the perspective of a non-human? I believe we can hold any of innumerable human perspectives, but not any non-human perspectives.

Are you familiar with the hopes and projections set forth for the newly completed LHC in Geneva, Switzerland? One of the projected possible discoveries is "the answer to everything" -- everything scientific concerning physics, that is.

looked it up, sounds very interesting.

We have determined much about the universe and likely have far more to figure out. However, having reached a point where we can even conceive of an "answer to everything", it would appear ignorant to assume there is a God, yet to be discovered via science. What science continually demonstrates is that the universe operates on cold, hard, indifferent principles, many of which can be modeled with a significant degree of accuracy, via mathematics.

Before you seemed to be talking about the complete absence of everything and I suggest that such a state may be beyond the ability of the universe to support.

i think this issue was actually addressed earlier in this topic months ago.

i understand how "nothing" might actually be more complex than "something" (from a physical standpoint, that is), but yes, when i speak of it, i mean to say a complex computer program as opposed to a blank file without any code.

And yet one should consider that a "blank file, without any code", still contains the same kind of physical matter and electro-magnetic information as a file containing data. In fact, the arrangement of flux we can convert to data is actually more highly ordered than a "blank file". Since order is easier for us to understand, perhaps it is the file containing data which is less complex.

Again, "complex" tells us about the capacity of the observer to understand what he is observing. It tells us little (if anything), about what he observes.

Well, strictly speaking; humans have never "created" anything. Every atom of every human invention has existed for billions of years before we existed and indeed, billions of years before the Earth existed. The evidence suggests that nothing which exists today has ever not existed in one form or another. We "transform" and call it "creation". But no human has ever witnessed or initiated an actual creation event.

well yes, physically. but we can create ideas and concepts and "apply" things that are out there to "create."

Do we really "create" ideas, or do we link together what we have observed in ways which explain more fully, those things we see? I'll grant you that humans engage in the processing of input and sometimes, this results in extensions to human understanding. But the idea of "creating" anything tends not to hold much merit upon close examination.

Given that we've never found any characteristic, trait or property of the universe which is other than regulated by physical laws, most of which can be modeled to a significant degree of accuracy mathematically, I see little cause to partake in fantastical imaginings of the unevidenced.

so do we agree that our best, most evidenced description of the universe is mathematical/algorithmic?

Yes, I believe we can agree on that with the caveat that our best mathematical models are but useful approximations.

It's a worthy question. Given that philosophy is regulated by logic, and aesthetics, while following some rules, doesn't necessarily adhere to logic, I think it doubtful.

well, i am aware that it's an actual field of study. i go to rutgers new brunswick, which has the number 1 philosophy department in the nation (or hovering around there these days) and they offer philosophy of art class. i just don't know what the actual subject entails nor if it's applicable to the discussion.

The difference between strict logic and philosophy most often seems to be the word "if". Philosophy usually starts with an "if", which may be logical or illogical in nature, then attempts to move forward. But since the "if"s are often not falsifiable, the end product is often little more than conjecture.

I wonder. I think I see what you're saying but some of the reasons it appears other than subjective may have to do with cultural boundaries and standards. For instance, I know people who can look at a lightly charred piece of cow flesh and see a beautiful steak. I see partially burned animal flesh.

what about biological predispositions? like recognizing facial symmetry as beautiful? i think there's a good deal of work out there dedicated to math and art and what is considered beautiful; i don't know if i could use the concept "beautiful," but certainly there consistencies in techniques used in art around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

Speaking from a strictly human-centric perspective, then there is a level of aesthetic appeal which is evolutionary and in most cases, innate. But people can also become fascinated with non-symmetry and find beauty within it, even in faces. If we assume the majority is the natural model, then aesthetics are partially programmed through genetics. But in that some individuals, often those who seek a greater understanding of visual appeal, can break such boundaries, I don't know that we can genuinely find a true logical basis.

Are you equally amazed, while standing in a rain storm, that a drop of rain fell directly onto the top of a tiny piece of gravel 3.531 inches from your big toe at an angle of 86.351°?

If you were to take a short ride in a helicopter with a marble in your pocket, and then dropped the marble from 1000-feet, is it amazing that the marble lands precisely where it lands, despite all of the other places it might have landed and didn't? This seems to be roughly similar to your suggestion. If conscious life is to exist, then there will be organisms who experience consciousness. To think it amazing that any one of them is one of them, seems to overlook the point for the sake of seeking misrepresented astronomical odds.

whether a rain drop hits me 3.531 inches from my big toe or my little toe is irrelevant to me. that i experience consciousness versus not experiencing it, on the other hand, is a big thing! the fact is that the importance of consciousness precedes any concern for rain drops or marbles, because without consciousness, nothing else can be relevant to me.

I can't help but feel you're missing the point, and perhaps doing so intentionally. There are roughly 6.4 billion conscious humans on the planet and many, many more conscious non-humans. To then look upon one's own consciousness with a sense of amazement that they, among all of the other possibilities, are conscious, is ignoring the obvious. Just as a marble, dropped into the Grand Canyon, will find a resting place, multi-cellular organisms are prone to consciousness. To see it as amazing that any singular organism is conscious requires no less self-centered focus than for a spot in the Grand Canyon to think itself special because a marble dropped from above has come to rest in that location.

With very few exceptions, being born a higher-level animal tends to come with automatic consciousness. I'm not sure it's anything to be amazed at, anymore than having a physical outer covering.

what i speak of sounds like rubbish, and there's a great chance that it is, but to me, i'm still amazed.

That doesn't make it rubbish. But I think there are substantial grounds upon which to assert that such amazement is born of being dramatically self-centered (not as an overall personality, but as a position from which to see grounds for amazement).

Tell me; which do you see as holding the greatest odds, being one of billions to experience consciousness, or being one of the untold quadrillions who never will? I think you may be postulating beyond the realities.

the latter, of course? perhaps i am misunderstanding something.

I think that's a distinct possibility. Again, if a meteor falls to Earth, it will find a resting place. That particular resting place shouldn't be seen as having any great significance, even when billions of other potential resting places exist. If one is to be amazed that they, among all possibilities, are endowed with consciousness, they should be no less amazed that a single grain of sand on a beach covered in grains of sand, came to rest on the shore.

One can certainly be amazed at the wonders open to them as a sentient conscious being. But to be amazed that they are such a being seems to me to be extremely self-centered.

Again, you're simply talking about your own capacity to grasp a concept. To someone from 300-years ago, the dashboard of a modern car would appear to be a befuddling mass of knobs, switches and controls. You and I slide into the seat of the same car and with a glance, have a pretty good idea of how everything operates because we're familiar with it. But no matter who is observing the dashboard, the dashboard itself doesn't change. It doesn't become more complex with someone from 3-centuries ago looking at it and it doesn't become less complex when you or I look at it. "Complex" is simply a rating for the individuals capacity to grasp a concept. It tells us little (if anything), about the concept itself.

i think even i have lost myself on why we delved into these semantics, and that is my fault. let me clear up this "complex" issue.

to go back to my original statement, "isn't what is more complex, more amazing?"

My answer is, "no".
And I don't consider this to be a point of mere semantics. I think it stems from the individual's tendency to perceive themselves as the ultimate judge of the vast universe. "Complex" or "simple" says little or nothing about a concept I perceive. It tells me about my ability to perceive it.

simply put, i think complexity implies some degree of being amazed.

I would assert that it implies more a degree of having difficulty grasping the concept one sees as complex.

however, you said that was because of one's inability to grasp a complex concept that one is amazed.. but i disagree. i say it is very possible to be amazed by something you understand, especially the more you understand it.

I disagree. How amazed are you at the operation of a light switch? Someone who has never seen electric lights and knows nothing of circuitry, might be able to loosely grasp the concept, but they will remain amazed that they can control the light in a room simply by flipping a switch and trusting that a flow of sub-atomic particles along wires is responsible for the activation of the bulb. You and I understand this so clearly, that (to me, at least), it's nothing I marvel at.

On the other hand, I do grasp the functioning principles of a hard drive. But because my grasp of the concepts is barely better than tenuous, I find it worthy of a level of amazement. Very likely in another 100-years (assuming mankind gives up his current love of ignorance), the operation of an out-dated system of storage such as magnetic media will likely be addressed with a sense of the mundane because the concept is so thoroughly and commonly understood.

in fact, a deeper understanding of something can often foster greater appreciation for the beauty of something, which often the case for art, and i'm sure to a scientist or mathematician. so whether i am amazed at the great complexity of a computer program, a child's drawing, solving a difficult math problem, or fathoming the chances that i experience consciousness, they are all complex ideas and amazing ones to me.

As one who dabbles in high-level (read that, "easier"), programming languages, I see less complex programming samples as rather boring. I've been more than familiar with them for well over 30-years. When first introduced to them and the principles and concepts behind the language itself, I found it quite amazing. But now, some 30-years later, if I were to look at code such as;

• Code: Select all

  For A = 1 to 10
    Print A
  Next

It appears extremely mundane... "boring" even. On the other hand, when attempting to grasp the fundamental concepts behind writing a similar routine in assembly language, the amazement returns because it requires new concepts for which I hold a far less comprehensive grasp.

Here is an example of some code which I wrote, and therefore do hold a degree of understanding. But I grasp it better in sections. Attempting to simply absorb all of the code as a single working unit is more difficult for me.

• Code: Select all

    For Z = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.3
      zX = Sin(Z) * Xpand + X
      zY = Cos(Z) * Ypand + Y
        For W = 0 To 6.28 Step 0.3
          wX = Sin(W) * (Xpand - 200) + zX
          wY = Cos(W) * (Ypand - 200) + zY
            For V = 0 To 12 Step 1
              vX = Sin(V) * (Xpand - 900) + wX
              vY = Cos(V) * (Ypand - 900) + wY
                MC = Abs(vX - X) + Abs(vY - Y)
                MC = (MC / 36)
                Line (vX, vY)-(wX, wY), RGB(20, 20, (255 - (MC * 2.5)))
                For B = 0 To 12 Step 0.1
                    bX = Sin(B) * (Xpand - 1140) + vX
                    bY = Cos(B) * (Ypand - 1140) + vY
                     MC = Abs(bX - X) + Abs(bY - Y)
                     MC = (MC / 36)
                    Line (bX, bY)-(vX, vY), RGB(0, (255 - (MC * 1.6)), 0)
                    PSet (bX, bY), RGB(0, 125 - (MC * 1.2), 0)
                  DoEvents
                Next
                HLD = (255 - (MC * 1.6))
                PSet (vX, vY), RGB(HLD * 0.8, HLD * 1.7, HLD * 0.8)
            Next
        Next
    Next

The output from this bit of code can be seen here.
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff61 ... 5clean.jpg

I'm more amazed with this than the previous example because, while I do understand it, my understanding is less comprehensive and more tenuous. And while it's true that it's more complex, that is reflected only in my limited ability to fully grasp it as a singular unit. Broken down into sub-units, I hold a greater understanding, and the amazement begins to wane.

If you clicked the link you can see that it assembles an array of colored dots which appear to resemble something like a pollen grain. And yet the code itself does nothing more than establish a set of rules -- four rules in all. Each is nested within the previous and this is where it obtains the ability it presents. Each of the rules is simple enough to understand. The outputs are likewise, simple to understand, with again, four outputs (drawing instructions), in all. Fully grasping the interaction of the rules -- the input of each nested rule being the output of the parent rule, is certainly understandable, but far less easily absorbed as a whole. So the level of amazement increases because the level of understanding is reduced. That said, amazement does require some level of understanding for such an example. (And note that I eliminated code for allocating memory, developing window parameters, etc. I left only the raw code which does the actual work of creating the image.)

This also helps to illustrate how relatively simple rules, working together, can present something which we perceive to be highly complex. In reality, each rule here does one of two things: it either plots two points on a grid and marks them with a single dot, or it plots two points on a grid and draws a straight line between them. Everything is based upon sine and cosine, which when used sequentially, presents a curve -- a portion of an ellipse. It's not really complex when broken down. But it appears highly complex when one views only the output. The more we understand about it, the less "amazing" it becomes.

Take two rules: viscosity and gravitational attraction. Together, neither seems all that complex (or difficult to grasp), nor do they produce anything notably similar to intelligence. Now pour a bucket of mixed sand, soil and gravel into 20-feet of standing water and watch how gravitational attraction, working in unison with viscosity, sorts the contents of the bucket into distinct layers and does so much faster than can human intelligence alone.

So it is the beginning of understanding is where the amazement lies. That's why we're not amazed that a ball will roll down a hill every single time it is released at the top. Only if we begin to explore the principles of gravity, the warping of space-time, friction, fluid-dynamics around the ball, and the like; do we begin once again to find amazement because these principles are less firmly and thoroughly understood (for most of us).

therefore, i don't necessarily think the idea that complexity implies amazement is due to my inability to grasp, because i've shown that as complexity increases, a greater understanding of it can actually increase my amazement of it.

But at the point where your understanding becomes comprehensive, your level of amazement will decline. That's because the amazement is generated by the tenuous nature of your cognitive capabilities concerning the given subject. Otherwise, those things most thoroughly understood by you, such as the way scissors work, or that a rubber-band will return to its original size and shape would be vastly amazing to you, while the wiring and principles around a light switch would be someone less amazing, and the fundamental dynamics of quantum mechanics would be nauseatingly boring. I think with some open consideration of these principles, you'll find that it's not the understanding which provides the amazement. It's the parts you don't understand or for which you hold only a moderate understanding, which elicits the greatest amazement in you.

Is this not similar to the amazingly slim odds that the water would fit the sides of a puddle so precisely? I think you're looking at it backward to provide a self-serving misconception of the realities.

i see where you are coming from. if that's really the case, then i just need to understand the flaws in my way of thinking. could you elaborate? this is me being open to a non-human-centric perspective

Elaborate is exactly what I was attempting to do in the example below utilizing the configuration of cells and walls within a sponge or volcanic rock. You could provide any number of 1-pound samples of volcanic rock and none of them would share exactly the same arrangement of bubbles (cells), and walls. Yet none would appear uniquely worthing of amazement over any of the others. And while I believe you grasp that, it becomes somewhat more difficult to apply to one's own consciousness, because without that, we lose our ability to be amazed. But it remains a self-centered perspective to find amazement at our own consciousness, even though we cannot experience the consciousness of any other creature. We can be aware that they are conscious, but we cannot know the perspectives their consciousness brings to them.

If one were to look at a bit of volcanic rock, we could marvel to an equal degree that a piece of stone would have precisely that configuration of bubbles. We could do the same with a piece of rubber sponge or a handful of soap suds. I defy you to produce two handfuls of soap suds that are precisely alike. Does that make any glob of suds all that amazing, or it is just the perspective you've chosen which allows you to see it as more amazing than it is?

again, what's the difference between soap A and soap B, in lieu of the difference between consciousness and no consciousness? i don't think that analogy works out.

What's the difference between your consciousness and that of a deer, or a mountain lion, or a meerkat? Why do you find your consciousness so amazing when consciousness is something which is so extremely commonplace? I would suggest that it is due to the fact that you can only know your own perspectives through your own consciousness, and are infinitely removed from the conscious perspectives of all other life. It is also due to your tenuous understanding of your own consciousness.

Consciousness is still a bit of a puzzle

to which i can confidently say at that point in your description consciousness, we both know it is a concept not fully understood. your idea is one perspective and there is certainly evidence to support it, and i certainly think it's likely, but we can't say for sure.

I would suggest that we can hold it as being by far, the most likely conclusion from which to work.

[ken1burton]

Beastt.

So God is a poor designer? Millions and Millions of creatures, Very diverse from each other. Most systems so complex Scientist can not even get close to understanding them. They did clone a sheep, But did not build one from Scratch.

When you speak of FAILURE of these creations, Did you know God created Earthly life as Terminal, Not meant for each creature to live without dying on earth, and He has rather feeble capabilities built into the Creatures also, It is called “Old Age� And kind of gets us more prepared to leave earth and go to God.

The Average earthly life span is how long with this flaw of one hole to both breath and eat with? And created Bumble bees which can not fly. But forgot to tell them about it.

Plus all the inter workings of the different life forms with one another. And it is a little like building a car from Scratch, a pile of Iron ore, etc. His runs.

I did not suggest that God created life on Earth, I stated it as a Fact. We see the different life forms. We can also see what Science is able to do, and what Science tells us it simple (Simple cell division, etc) but are unable to do themselves.

Not using one of God’s cells either. They can make one from NOTHING. Seeing mankind is so intelligent.

That Port you spoke of, I think you might find that, that hole ends up at another port, and it is like the food, etc being outside the Body. All that decaying food, Good thing the gas generated has a place or two places to go. I know “BAD Design.�

Ken

[Beastt]

Beastt.

So God is a poor designer?

Well, I have some rather extreme doubts that this is actually the case. It seems far more likely that ancient man did a very poor job of creating God as an answer to questions they were ill-prepared even to ask. The truly sad part is that even in the face of answers which actually make sense, some still cling to the ancient myths and superstitions which served to do little more than refute themselves.

If one is to continue to assert that God exists and created the universe and life, then yes, he's a very poor designer. Very poor indeed.

Millions and Millions of creatures, Very diverse from each other. Most systems so complex Scientist can not even get close to understanding them. They did clone a sheep, But did not build one from Scratch.

From where do you draw the conclusion that science is unable to come close to answering the questions? Science has certainly come much closer than has any theistic proposition and shows great promise to move continually closer. Meanwhile, theism has presented a zero sum-total. It makes blind assertions and provides them with no support. And each time science draws to a verified conclusion concerning any of these theistic assertions, we find science to be correct and theism to be wrong.

And from where do you get the idea that shear numbers equates to good design. If I create a million cube-shaped baseballs, is my design any better than if I created only one? It'd be no better than if I designed teeth which are subject to decay and rest within a near perfect niche for the production of the bacteria which promote that decay, yet made no provision for them to heal as does the rest of the body.

When you speak of FAILURE of these creations, Did you know God created Earthly life as Terminal, Not meant for each creature to live without dying on earth, and He has rather feeble capabilities built into the Creatures also, It is called “Old Age� And kind of gets us more prepared to leave earth and go to God.

I don't know that nor do you. You believe that, but there is little in the way of credible evidence to support any such grand assumption and far more evidence to refute it.

Take a look at the human female reproductive system. The fertilized egg requires a number of precise conditions in order to implant itself. So were we to serve as the designer, we might assure that these conditions exist only within the uterus where the egg can properly develop. But that's not what we find. Instead, we find the necessary conditions within the fallopian tubes themselves. And should an egg implant there, it will result in an ectopic pregnancy. Prior to the development of relatively recent surgical techniques, such a pregnancy was most likely to result in the death of both the mother and the child. Even now, in the vast majority of cases, the fetus must be aborted to save the mother's life. How is that a good design? Would a proclaimed "perfect" entity come up with such a design, or is this more likely what we would expect to see from a trial and error system such as that produced strictly through natural systems like evolution?

The Average earthly life span is how long with this flaw of one hole to both breath and eat with? And created Bumble bees which can not fly. But forgot to tell them about it.

Bumble bees most certainly can fly and formulas on aerodynamics clearly support their ability to fly despite myths to the contrary.

As for choking, this results in 800-900 deaths annually, in the U.S. alone. And about two-thirds of those deaths occur in children under the age of three. But the whole point is that this would be completely avoided simply by utilizing two tubes; one to feed the digestive tract, and a separate one to route air in and out of the lungs. It's clearly a bad design to have all of this routed through the throat and to use a valve to try to keep the proper substances routed to the proper tubing beyond the throat.

Plus all the inter workings of the different life forms with one another. And it is a little like building a car from Scratch, a pile of Iron ore, etc. His runs.

Please try to remember that the idea that we are in any way any gods design is an unevidenced assumption. But if it's true, then we have a problem with a supposedly perfect entity creating designs which are so flawed, that even his designs can see the design problem. Many people could build a car that "runs". The problem is creating one that runs efficiently and reliably, handles well, effectively converts fuel to energy and provides for the comforts and safety of the occupants.

I did not suggest that God created life on Earth, I stated it as a Fact.

Even though it lacks any real credibility and most certainly cannot credibly qualify as a fact. That's what we call a blind-assertion contrary to the evidence. What the evidence shows is that if God is perfect, he didn't create us and if he created us, he isn't perfect.

We see the different life forms. We can also see what Science is able to do, and what Science tells us it simple (Simple cell division, etc) but are unable to do themselves.

Science can do many things today it couldn't do 50-years ago. Fifty years from now it will likely be able to do many things it can't do now.

Not using one of God’s cells either.

If you want to present an argument with any degree of merit or credibility, you should try to avoid such blind assertions. You seem to rely heavily on the fact that science has not yet produced a living cell from scratch, yet you offer no facts to support your assertion that cells belong to God.

It wasn't all that long ago that God was the answer to earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, disease, healing, cures, rain, hurricanes, volcanoes and everything else for which man lacked an explanation. Two of the remaining few are the existence of the universe and life. Science has aptly explained all of the rest despite not being able to produce their own earthquakes, volcanoes or tornadoes. Theists tend to cling to the remaining two mysteries rather than learning from the demonstrable answers provided for the dozens and dozens of other events once attribute to God which have now been demonstrated to have come about through purely natural mechanisms.

They can make one from NOTHING. Seeing mankind is so intelligent.

I assume you meant "can't make" since science has yet to produce a living cell from scratch. But science is doing as it has always done -- moved closer and closer, one step at a time, until it finally achieves its goal. Science can produce the building materials of life from non-biological materials and it can produce simple cell-like structures which can replicate via external means and engage in true Darwinian competition for nucleotide materials. It's not life by our definition, but it's another step closer.

That Port you spoke of, I think you might find that, that hole ends up at another port, and it is like the food, etc being outside the Body. All that decaying food, Good thing the gas generated has a place or two places to go. I know “BAD Design.�

Would you consider it to be a bad design were it to lead to the vast majority of premature deaths each year in a country the size of the U.S.? The leading killer (by far), is heart disease. And the causes of heart disease are overwhelmingly diet-related, and related to the diet the Bible prescribes for what is described earlier as a vegan digestive physiology. Why would God present us with the digestive physiology of a herbivore and then tell us to consume as an omnivore, fully knowing that it would lead to premature deaths for the majority of people who comply with the prescribed diet?