17
   

What has caused some mathematicians to reassess their views on intelligent design ?

 
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:30 am
@anthony1312002,
Smile
Have you not worked out that both 'the laws of physics' and the concept of 'being' are both human constructions serving human needs and aspirations ?
As for the 'where' do currently agreed things 'come from', you don't seem to be aware that the physics of 'nothing' has moved on somewhat from the metaphysical idea of 'absence of something' . What used to be considered 'empty space' is now viewed as a seething interplay of forces and energies giving rise to instantaneous short lived particulate forms which have the statistical probability of giving rise to our form of universe as one of many.

Sadly, what constitutes 'a scientific probability' based on empirical observation is confused by believers with 'a metaphysical possibility' based on wish fulfilment.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:34 am
@layman,
Quote:
But, really, what would cosmology have to do with this question? We figure probabilities alla time, without first tryna to figure out how many universes there are, eh?

If the universe is infinite, all we have to do is imagine DNA randomly coming into existence once, and probability just tumbled out of our hands because of the presence of an undefined term.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:42 am
@anthony1312002,
I hope you realize that I do not go anywhere near that far, Anthony.

There is the POSSIBILITY of a creator...or a god.

There also is the POSSIBILITY of no creator...or of not gods.

There is no way to arrive at "there is a god or creator" or "there are no gods or creators" using logic, reason, or science.

NO WAY AT ALL.

In fact, there is no way to arrive at "it is more LIKELY that there is a god than that there are none" or "it is more LIKELY that there are no gods than that there are"...using logic, reason, or science.

People on both sides of the issue ought to realize and acknowledge all that...and then acknowledge that any assertions or beliefs that go to those statements ARE NOTHING MORE THAN BLIND GUESSES.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:44 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Smile
Have you not worked out that both 'the laws of physics' and the concept of 'being' are both human constructions serving human needs and aspirations ?
As for the 'where' do currently agreed things 'come from', you don't seem to be aware that the physics of 'nothing' has moved on somewhat from the metaphysical idea of 'absence of something' . What used to be considered 'empty space' is now viewed as a seething interplay of forces and energies giving rise to instantaneous short lived particulate forms which have the statistical probability of giving rise to our form of universe as one of many.

Sadly, what constitutes 'a scientific probability' based on empirical observation is confused by believers with 'a metaphysical possibility' based on wish fulfilment.


Absolute blather as an assertion of fact.

If you are asserting that as a guess about the REALITY...then I thank you for the guess.

But it sounds to me as though you continuing to pontificate from on high about how important humans and their concepts are to REALITY.

Very sad for some as intelligent as you apparently consider yourself to be.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:46 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

...Sadly, what constitutes 'a scientific probability' based on empirical observation is confused by believers with 'a metaphysical possibility' based on wish fulfilment.


Nicely and concisely put. Would read again.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 11:52 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

fresco wrote:

...Sadly, what constitutes 'a scientific probability' based on empirical observation is confused by believers with 'a metaphysical possibility' based on wish fulfilment.


Nicely and concisely put. Would read again.


Oh, the irony!
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 02:18 pm
@anthony1312002,
Tony I still can't see the slightest connection between math and creation...

...although I'd agree that intuition suggests the constants seem to have been carefully adjusted to permit evolution of the humanoid
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 02:37 pm
@dalehileman,
people in computer sciences and linear algebra apps are all easily impressed by DNA's quadradecimal coding. To them it was some revelatory point about how the world and all living things must have been designed.
Its a modern application of the old addage that

"If the only tool youve got is a hammer, you see all the world as a NAIL"

ANyway, Physics sits in the center of technology and math sits in the next outer ring. Math is but a tool to physics and other sciences as a way to explain all the discoveries we made by using a shorthand of equivalents.
When Newton gave us calculus, it was merely a method to display these equivalents in the changes of time, motion, and space. All is explained in a limited number of equivalent values like L, LL, or LLL (Length, area, and Volume).

I used to love to give my students the requirements to compute all geophysical concepts in "furlongs per fortnight"
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
Thank yhou, Man

Still I sense not enough attention to the mutual dependence of phenomena which might reveal that the slightest change in any one would lead to the impossibility of others, especially the humanoid. Of course math is involved but I don't see it as a critical issue
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:11 pm
@dalehileman,
since math can only interpret "What has happened " in nature, It really hs no role other than to help us quantitate things.

dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:19 pm
@farmerman,
Man that was my impression also. But whaddya think about the probability of interdependence

...or the suggestion that after all She's not supernatural, but a perfectly essential phenom that has existed forever because somehow the idea of the alternative, nothingness, will prove paradoxical or contradictory
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:24 pm
@dalehileman,
well, in that e part ways. "nothingness" seems to need to be redefined in light of physics of inflation and its evidence
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:33 pm
Can we say for certain that the cosmos (in its entirety) contains an incredible amount of energy? Whether finite or . . .

Does it seem reasonable that it has always existed in one form or another?
Expand.
Contract.
KA BLAM!!
Expand.
Contract.
Etc.
?

And. If that is so, is it fair to ask . . .
Is it conscious?
Is it intelligent?

Just asking . . .
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:39 pm
@neologist,
It's all NATURE.
Tuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 06:47 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
And. If that is so, is it fair to ask . . .
Is it conscious?
Is it intelligent?

You're free to ask and explore that question. Never let anybody tell you different.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 07:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's all NATURE.

And, Father Time.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 07:30 pm
@Foofie,
FYI, nature includes time.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 08:11 pm
@neologist,
thats one of the membrane hypotheses
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 10:46 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

thats one of the membrane hypotheses


Which are just as ridiculous as the proposition that time doesn't exist, eh, Farmer?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2015 10:49 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
Does it seem reasonable that it has always existed in one form or another?


Kinda curious that these "skeptical" atheists who insist the EVERYTHING must have a cause seem to throw out all their skepticism when claiming that matter had no cause, eh?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 02:08:29