Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just deferment.

Where would outside help gets its outside help from ?

Explain where the actual inside help is located.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

CMB........ Complete Materialist Bollocks

No, just the simple observation that everything we see in nature that’s complex consists of less complex components. There are no examples of it being the other way around.

And you reckon it’s NS who’s lost it?

We know that maths is extremely complicated and doesn't depend on stuff for it's complexity whatever any materialist tells you.

Except of course maths just the study of numbers. When those numbers happen to provide models congruent with observable phenomena, then the reasoning of maths can provide insight or predictions about nature. Practical mathematics is still essentially a human activity though.

[torridon]

Explain where the actual inside help is located.

Inside.

There is no 'outside' so far as we know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Inside.

There is no 'outside' so far as we know.

Yes where inside? You just repeated what I said.

[torridon]

CMB........ Complete Materialist Bollocks

We know that maths is extremely complicated and doesn't depend on stuff for it's complexity whatever any materialist tells you.

Maths describes quantitative relationships.  If those relationships are complex then so will the maths be. Complex stuff derives from lots of simpler stuff, just as large stuff derives lots of smaller stuff, aggregated.  This shouldn't be controversial.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



Except of course maths just the study of numbers.

So you admit that something is being studied...or did you just want us to see the word study and ignore the rest?

[torridon]

Yes where inside? You just repeated what I said.

Maybe its behind the sofa.

[Alan Burns]

just the simple observation that everything we see in nature that’s complex consists of less complex components.  There are no examples of it being the other way around.

Which is true for all intelligently designed creations.  I learnt from an early age that you can build very complex Meccano models using simple components.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe its behind the sofa.

Maybe you are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maths describes quantitative relationships.  If those relationships are complex then so will the maths be. Complex stuff derives from lots of simpler stuff, just as large stuff derives lots of smaller stuff, aggregated.  This shouldn't be controversial.

Yes but it's all there ready. It doesn't have to evolve. It doesn't have to be waited on and it's the same wherever you are or whatever the substrate on which ,let us not forget, it is not dependent on.
Also there is maths which describes nothing visible. After all a lot of multiverse thinking is based on maths which does not ''describe'' anything material.

[torridon]

Which is true for all intelligently designed creations.  I learnt from an early age that you can build very complex Meccano models using simple components.

Termites build cooling towers using simple components.  So, is it valid to infer an intelligence-first principle from that observation ?  To do so would be to forget that termites and their air condition expertise did not spring out of nowhere overnight, but rather, they and their behaviours evolved over millions of years, just as humans and their meccano building skills did.  If we model the universe in terms of opposing tendencies to order and disorder, intelligence is something that evolves gradually in the service of the tendency to order.  In the absence of any such context, intelligence makes no sense. Intelligence is a product of the universe not the cause of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So you admit that something is being studied...

Aw look, liar boy's back in town. Here's what I actually said before you took your scissors to it:

"Except of course maths just the study of numbers. When those numbers happen to provide models congruent with observable phenomena, then the reasoning of maths can provide insight or predictions about nature. Practical mathematics is still essentially a human activity though." (Emphasis added)

And then you have the front to add:

...or did you just want us to see the word study and ignore the rest?

Pity you don't know what "irony" means - that's a doozy.

[ekim]

Termites build cooling towers using simple components.  So, is it valid to infer an intelligence-first principle from that observation ?  To do so would be to forget that termites and their air condition expertise did not spring out of nowhere overnight, but rather, they and their behaviours evolved over millions of years, just as humans and their meccano building skills did.  If we model the universe in terms of opposing tendencies to order and disorder, intelligence is something that evolves gradually in the service of the tendency to order.  In the absence of any such context, intelligence makes no sense. Intelligence is a product of the universe not the cause of it.

The opposing side of the argument is that intelligence was always there from the beginning (In the beginning was the Logos (Intelligence) and is the motivator of 'the tendency to order', whilst at the same time some form of awareness is necessary to sustain that order in the face of the forces of disorder.  The simple components of the termite mound did not have the intelligence to order themselves and without the intelligence of the termites the mound would  succumb to the forces of disorder.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

The opposing side of the argument is that intelligence was always there from the beginning (In the beginning was the Logos (Intelligence) and is the motivator of 'the tendency to order', whilst at the same time some form of awareness is necessary to sustain that order in the face of the forces of disorder.  The simple components of the termite mound did not have the intelligence to order themselves and without the intelligence of the termites the mound would  succumb to the forces of disorder.

That's not an "opposing side of an argument" - it's just an evidence-denying assertion.

[ekim]

ekim,

That's not an "opposing side of an argument" - it's just an evidence-denying assertion.

If you are referring to the evidence associated with the 'emergent property' idea, it's probably denying the interpretation of that evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Termites build cooling towers using simple components.  So, is it valid to infer an intelligence-first principle from that observation ?  To do so would be to forget that termites and their air condition expertise did not spring out of nowhere overnight, but rather, they and their behaviours evolved over millions of years, just as humans and their meccano building skills did.  If we model the universe in terms of opposing tendencies to order and disorder, intelligence is something that evolves gradually in the service of the tendency to order.  In the absence of any such context, intelligence makes no sense. Intelligence is a product of the universe not the cause of it.

What evidence is there that intelligence is in the service of the tendency to order? Why not disorder or both?
Why is intelligence not an organising principle?
How could a universe with an overall tendency to disorder start with maximum order? Does this not point to intelligence?
What if intelligence becomes so great entropy is reversed and time is looped. You then have the problem of what comes first......... intelligence or the universe as we know it or to put it in the context of this discussion...intelligence or the evolution of intelligence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

If you are referring to the evidence associated with the 'emergent property' idea, it's probably denying the interpretation of that evidence.

No, it's just denying the evidence. Emergence observably happens - you can see it in nature, you can recreate it with software, your can model it robustly. How is happens is an interesting area of study, but the fact that it does is not in doubt. The same is true of gravity, and positing a top down intelligence for emergence is epistemitcally equivalent to positing pixies with very thing strings for gravity.

[Gordon]

The opposing side of the argument is that intelligence was always there from the beginning (In the beginning was the Logos (Intelligence) and is the motivator of 'the tendency to order', whilst at the same time some form of awareness is necessary to sustain that order in the face of the forces of disorder.  The simple components of the termite mound did not have the intelligence to order themselves and without the intelligence of the termites the mound would  succumb to the forces of disorder.

If 'Logos' (which sounds like an example of reification) is proposed as the necessary precursor of 'intelligence' there is then the issue of the precursor of 'Logos' to address: presumably 'Logos' advocates would claim 'Logos' was a special case so as to avoid the regress, which sounds like termites all the way down approach to me.

In addition, such an approach doesn't address the potential incremental aspect of emergence. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If 'Logos' (which sounds like an example of reification) is proposed as the necessary precursor of 'intelligence' there is then the issue of the precursor of 'Logos' to address: presumably 'Logos' advocates would claim 'Logos' was a special case so as to avoid the regress, which sounds like termites all the way down approach to me.

In addition, such an approach doesn't address the potential incremental aspect of emergence.

What's the problem with reification?
After all Bluehillside is arguing that mathematics IS reified.
Of course Logos does not have to be a special case and arguing that there can't be one because it would need one itself just looks stupid from people who propose that the universe could be infinitely old.

That you all look rather prattish is your own faults for taking a ''shut up...ve ask ze questions'' stance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What evidence is there that intelligence is in the service of the tendency to order?

The “tendency to order” as you put it (it's a phenomenon rather than a tendency, but ok) observably happens in non-isolated systems. What more evidence do you want?

Why not disorder or both?

We can talk about that if you want to, but it doesn’t change the fact that order occurs.

Why is intelligence not an organising principle?

Why don’t pixies pull apples off trees with very thing strings?

How could a universe with an overall tendency to disorder start with maximum order?

Argument from personal increduliuty.

Does this not point to intelligence?

No – just to maximum simplicity, and thus to minimal entropy.

What if intelligence becomes so great entropy is reversed and time is looped. You then have the problem of what comes first......... intelligence or the universe as we know it or to put it in the context of this discussion...intelligence or the evolution of intelligence?

What if?

See above re pixies.

What if anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad asks a question
''How could a universe with an overall tendency to disorder start with maximum order?''

Hillside replies
''Argument from personal increduliuty.''

Vlad then hands Hillsides arse back to him in a sling by pointing out...
''It's a question not an argument''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What's the problem with reification?

The problem with it is that it’s a logical fallacy.

After all Bluehillside is arguing that mathematics IS reified.

Stop lying.

Of course Logos does not have to be a special case and arguing that there can't be one because it would need one itself just looks stupid from people who propose that the universe could be infinitely old.

The straw man always was your favouritest fallacy wasn’t it. No-one says that there “can’t” be one. No-one says that there “can’t” be leprechauns either.

That you all look rather prattish is your own faults for taking a ''shut up...ve ask ze questions'' stance.

Do me a favour. Will you at least look up the term “irony”?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Vlad asks a question
''How could a universe with an overall tendency to disorder start with maximum order?''

Hillside replies
''Argument from personal increduliuty.''

Vlad then hands Hillsides arse back to him in a sling by pointing out...
''It's a question not an argument''.

Vlad then realises that the arse was in fact a boomerang when he grasps that asking faux "how" questions tells him nothing about the robustness of the prevailing explanatory model.

[Gordon]

What's the problem with reification?

It is a fallacy.

After all Bluehillside is arguing that mathematics IS reified.

He isn't.

Of course Logos does not have to be a special case and arguing that there can't be one because it would need one itself just looks stupid from people who propose that the universe could be infinitely old.

Careful with all that straw in this hot weather, Vlad. I haven't argued that there couldn't be 'Logos' but I have flagged up that its advocates would need a convincing argument in support of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He isn't.

His very sentiment ''information is physical'' is a reification.