How many times do I need to explain this? "Quasi-intelligent" is a proper term for the description of a non-living but mathematical aspect of the Universe.
You pulled out your dictionary to look up the meaning of "intelligent", but you didn't look up "quasi".
Nor have you considered how "quasi-" and "intelligent" would combine together to form the term "quasi-intelligent".
Nor have you attempted to provide any concise definition for that term, which you invented, despite being asked to provide such a definition many times.
Let's face it. You don't know what "quasi-intelligent" means, do you? You just made it up.
i.e. This is the alternative solution to an age-old question.
"IS THERE A GOD (an Intelligent Creator)?
No, but "THERE IS A MATHEMATICAL (a quasi-Intelligent self-referential dynamically creative universe)
You seem to be claiming by inventing the word "quasi-intelligent", you have proven the existence of a god-like thing?
You don't think you're over-reaching just a tiny bit, there?
By the way, I don't for a second believe that you think the words "self-referential dynamic creative universe" actually mean anything when strung together in that particular order. You're just making shit up and hoping I'll be stupid enough to buy your bullshit act.
Franky, Write4U, I find your whole schtick a bit insulting. We've been at this discussion for a while, and you're still randomly cutting and pasting irrelevant but basic scientific facts. I have a good science education, Write4U. Do you really think you've taught me stuff I didn't already know, with your cutting and pasting from wikipedia?
You're completely unable to answer simple questions I have put to you about your own claims. But at the same time, apparently you think you're in a position to teach me lots of science. And you generally ignore me whenever I tell you why you're wrong or try to teach you some science. It's quite bizarre behaviour, from a man who claims to be interested in this stuff.
What is your aim in posting all this nonsense here, Write4U? Is it just attention-seeking? Are you lonely? Does it matter to you whether anything you claim is true, or is it enough that it provokes responses?
And your counter-argument is? I promise I won't call it drivel.
Does time exist independent of space? If yes, can you prove it?
First: Drivel does not require a counter-argument. Drivel isn't an argument.
Second: There has been no discussion of "does time exist independent of space?" I have made no claims to that effect. Perhaps you have, somewhere in the drivel; I don't recall. There is no need for me to defend a claim I have not made.
Third: Let us review what I called "pure drivel". I will walk you through
why it is drivel. You wrote:
Time does not exist until it is necessary for a chronology and is "invoked" by the creation of that chronology of the durable existence of a patterned physical object.
The first part of this claims that time somehow springs into existence once it becomes "necessary". You don't explain
why or
when time would become "necessary" for anything. You don't explain
how time would then come into existence, following this "necessity" becoming apparent.
Moving on, you claim that time doesn't exist until it is necessary "for a chronology". What's a chronology, I wonder? Reaching for the dictionary, I find this:
chronology (n.)
- An arrangement of events in time.
- A record of events in the order of their occurrence.
- The determination of the actual temporal sequence of past events.
Your claim, recall, is that time comes into existence when it is necessary for a chronology. In other words, you're saying that time comes into existence when it is necessary to arrange events in time. Or, to put it more simply: time comes into existence when time is necessary. Pure drivel. This is an empty claim; it says precisely nothing.
Alternatively, maybe you're saying that time comes into existence when a record of events is necessary. But, again, you don't say what makes a record of events necessary, who needs that record, the mechanism by which the need for the record causes time to exist, or anything else. So, again, I have to conclude that what you wrote is pure drivel.
Moving on, you claim that time is "invoked", which implies an "invoker". You also mention "creation", which implies a creator. You don't explain who or what this creator/invoker is, or how or why it invokes time.
Moving on, you claim that time is invoked "by the creation of that chronology", which flatly contradicts the first half of your claim, where you say that time appears when it is needed for a chronology. That is, in the first half of your drivel, you claim that the time comes first, then the chronology, but in the second half you claim the chronology comes first, then the time. It's a 31 word sentence and you still managed to contradict yourself. Pure drivel.
Lastly, you tell us what this record (chronology) is of. It's a chronology of "the durable existence of a patterned physical object", apparently.
It's a mystery what a "patterned physical object" is supposed to be, or
which patterned physical object needs the chronology and therefore necessitates the "invocation" of time. You don't attempt to explain any of that because you're just making this shit up as you go along - no brain required.
Another mystery: what is "durable existence"? What would "non-durable existence" look like?
Put together, it is clear that this drivel is just the usual Write4U meaningless word salad. It's pure pseudoscience - something that is concocted to sound vaguely like it might be scientific, while actually being functionally nonsensical and/or meaningless and/or just
wrong.
And now it seems like you think this drivel is somehow related to an idea you have about how time cannot exist independent of space, even though this is a new idea that you've just had. And you want me to try to prove your latest random thought wrong, because if I can't or won't do that I suppose you imagine it will make
me look bad?
Let us end with this: this overly-detailed analysis of one 31 word sentence is not something I normally waste my time on. I know that you will ignore everything I have written about this, as is your habit. The message that you should try to make some sense instead of writing drivel is not one that you care about, apparently. But you should be aware that each time I comment that something you wrote is "word salad", the same kind of list of the many reasons why it is drivel always applies. Moreover, I have noticed that you are
never able to defend the words I label as "word salad" because, I think, at some level you
know it's drivel you just made up. But maybe you're hoping that at least some other people won't notice and will think you're a scientific genius with great insight into how the universe works, because you're able to string scientific-sounding words together in random orders.
It's all a big fat load of dynamic causal durable invoked permittive conditional microtubular bullshit, if you ask me.