He is probably arguing (not 100% sure though) that nature follows natural laws. These laws can be described with mathematical equations. These mathematical patterns carry some quasi-intelligent properties. Therefore, nature acts as a form of intelligent design, but its not intelligent design.
Chemistry plus Biology = Abiogenesis:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
Another interesting video posted originally elsewhere....
A favorite Creationist Argument is that of "Information". It is the notion that DNA is information, therefore, we should intuitively expect it to be the product of an Intelligent agent of some sort. Not that that would explain where the intelligent agent got his intelligence or existence.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No it's the other way around. The appearance of intelligent behavior causes religious people to substitute a sentient intelligent God for a non-sentient quasi-intelligent mathematical universe.
You see the difference?
Last edited:
More.......
https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/fluid-assembly-chair
Self-Assembly Lab, MIT
Project Leads: Skylar Tibbits, Baily Zuniga, Carrie McKnelly, Athina Papadopoulou
Fluid Assembly is part of a series of investigations by MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab looking at autonomous assembly in complex and uncontrolled environments (water, air, space etc). In this experiment a number of components are released into a tank of turbulent water. Each of the components is completely unique from one another and has a precise location in the final structure. The process was filmed over 7 hours, after which a full assembled, precise chair was created. The chair was selected to demonstrate differentiated structures as opposed to repetitive growth or self-similar structures. This experiment points towards an opportunity to self-assemble arbitrarily complex differentiated structures from furniture to components, electronics / devices or other unique structures. Once self-assembled, the structures can be removed, tested, used or disassembled and thrown back into the chamber.
https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/fluid-assembly-chair/2018/1/14/9cfy7ma4solezujdjukg2k3qyj5wmg
https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/fluid-assembly-chair
Self-Assembly Lab, MIT
Project Leads: Skylar Tibbits, Baily Zuniga, Carrie McKnelly, Athina Papadopoulou
Fluid Assembly is part of a series of investigations by MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab looking at autonomous assembly in complex and uncontrolled environments (water, air, space etc). In this experiment a number of components are released into a tank of turbulent water. Each of the components is completely unique from one another and has a precise location in the final structure. The process was filmed over 7 hours, after which a full assembled, precise chair was created. The chair was selected to demonstrate differentiated structures as opposed to repetitive growth or self-similar structures. This experiment points towards an opportunity to self-assemble arbitrarily complex differentiated structures from furniture to components, electronics / devices or other unique structures. Once self-assembled, the structures can be removed, tested, used or disassembled and thrown back into the chamber.
https://selfassemblylab.mit.edu/fluid-assembly-chair/2018/1/14/9cfy7ma4solezujdjukg2k3qyj5wmg
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You are getting closer.....physical self-assembly and mathematical self-organization.....well done.....
I skipped though a lot of waffle
Physics works ONLY one way
SOME of those ways look certain ways
SOME of those ways look to us (WHY?) who the frig knows, look nice
We, with our intelegence, go arrrh isn't that a pretty pattern
Somewhere else in the Universe I am betting a same same but totally different intelegence is going to look at the same same but totally different pattern and go glik u frig hgtrd gytea (translate - frigg ugly brown stuff)
IT IS WHAT IT IS FULL STOP
DON'T KEEP ANTHROPOMORPHISING THE UNIVERSE
Sure label stuff to obtain consensus about what you are talking about but anything other than the names of its agreed properties and a overall name - the rest is undefined waffle
Coffee time
Physics works ONLY one way
SOME of those ways look certain ways
SOME of those ways look to us (WHY?) who the frig knows, look nice
We, with our intelegence, go arrrh isn't that a pretty pattern
Somewhere else in the Universe I am betting a same same but totally different intelegence is going to look at the same same but totally different pattern and go glik u frig hgtrd gytea (translate - frigg ugly brown stuff)
IT IS WHAT IT IS FULL STOP
DON'T KEEP ANTHROPOMORPHISING THE UNIVERSE
Sure label stuff to obtain consensus about what you are talking about but anything other than the names of its agreed properties and a overall name - the rest is undefined waffle
Coffee time
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
so apart from life what other intelligent things does this principle create?You are getting closer.....physical self-assembly and mathematical self-organization.....well done.....
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Ok, we can agree that a supernatural explanation wouldn't be a scientific explanation. (Because of science's methodological naturalism, which is a heuristic assumption.) But a supernatural explanation could nevertheless be the correct explanation, unless we find some way to eliminate that possibility. There mere fact that it doesn't fall within the scope of natural science doesn't rule it out, unless we adopt the much stronger assumption that the scope of science is coextensive with reality itself, which is metaphysical naturalism. If the supernatural explanation was the true explanation, then we would need to accept that natural science was incapable of producing the correct answer.
As James pointed out earlier, 'Abiogenesis' just means 'life from non-life'. Unfortunately, saying that 'life from non-life' is the only scientific answer to the problem of how life originated, tells us nothing we didn't already know. It's informatively vacuous.
It might be more informative if we add some content to it, namely that the scientific answer to the question of the origin of life is some as yet unknown combination of pre-biological chemistry and physics, along with as yet undetermined initial conditions. (I assume those things myself.)
But that isn't actually something that I or anyone else really knows, it's a hypothesis that defines a research program in fundamental biology. It certainly isn't an answer, at least until the chemistry and conditions are hopefully filled in.
Thanks I like waffles (just the physical type)I feel so much better now.......
Here is a waffle to go with your coffee........
And life from ID pushes the question back down the hole so that question changes to where did ID come from
The, to me, solution
- is to call physics god
- accept it along with energy
- has always been in existence but
- has never been intelligent in the form we define intelegence now and
- it is what it is and
- just because we turned up we don't get to remake the system
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Creative potentials of quasi-intelligent functions?
Everything we can observe and extrapolate for those things we cannot see.
Theoretical mathematics allowed us to cause the emergence of a Higgs boson from the Higgs field. IMO, that is a pretty convincing argument that the universe responds to mathematical Imperatives, regardless of the operands anf operators.
This is the dynamic language of the universe. It needs no motivated intelligence, just a quasi-intelligent mathematical operation to deliver all that is, was, and will be.
Last edited:
Can't really argue with that too much, except to say that over the last couple of hundred years, science has continually pushed the need for any ID or creationism back to near oblivion...So much so that the Catholic church finds nothing wrong with the BB or the theory of evolution, unlike that James Tour weirdo. Of course the Catholic church smugly then hangs its hat on the fact that the BB description starts at t+ 10-43 seconds, and science as yet cannot say how or why....In other words the usual tired old "god of the gaps" argument.
No, by definition it tells us that life emerged from non life. I see that as actually awesome and revealing in how the universe/space/time operates. Not knowing the exact mechanism is certainly frustrating and actually may remain frustrating...Far from being vacuous.
Of course, and any revelation and answer will be Abiogenesis.
You seem a nice bloke Yazata despite your philosophy [only joking] but I disagree and I am certainly not on my own. As I mentioned this subject is being discussed elsewhere and the [in my opinion] semantic and pedant objections raised here, are not of concern over there.
Some interesting videos posted, some longish, some shortish, all reputable and worth watching.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I can get behind this observation where it concerns the theological interpretation.
It is my POV that theology is an attempt to remake the teleological system into something other than what it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology
p.s. "purpose" not being "motivated consciousness", but being "unconscious movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction".
Last edited:
I said "transcript", not "summary". That way, someone asserting the existence of a step by step introduction of compelling arguments would not appear to be wasting everyone's time by posting videos.
Because people who hide on video - the common resort of charlatans, where deception is easy and rebuttal is a chore - have only dubious claims to integrity or expertise.
No, it isn't. It's common sense.
The fact that you describe it as "laughable" after watching a pile of video, is evidence of problems with the video.
There is a sufficient and well-accepted theory available - what is lacking is a solid description of the actual course of events, the history, to which that theory (Darwinian evolution) would apply.
Lacking that, we can only refer to it as a well-founded possibility - not the secure and overwhelmingly evidence backed theory it is for the origin of species etc. But it's right there, available.
I don't understand your meaning here
I would contend physics is the god religious are talking about but where they totally messed up is giving physics human characteristics (ANTHROPOMORPHISM)
Love that word
We have no idea how long (by our measurement system) physics has been in existence and in essence the speculation is moot if we contend physics has ALWAYS existed
We arrived on the scene and THINK WE CAN DO BETTER???
In a duel between us and physics, who do think would win?
No matter how intelligent you think humans are, non intelligent physics will metaphorically steamroller right over you
Science may work out HOW physics works and even harness its power
Change physics? don't make me laugh (ha)