Sasun Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 On a second thought, why not? Here is one. FadiSpeak: the athe English: atheists One hint: in fadispeak, when you are lazy to type the whole word, you are allowed to type it half-way, or any part of the letters in the word in any sequence (e.g. why say "universes" if you can say "univses"? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 Who is the designer of the designer? The designer is the designer of the designer Seriously, think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 BTW Domino, that was not meant in any way to be offensive - i think your english is just fine. Vava, no offense taken. I have now a new theory, I just meditated about that yesterday. I propose that Natural selection is the way to go, for the whole Universe, the theory of everything that we are searching for years, may be found on that. Lets suppose that life has been created by accidents, and when some changes were favoured by natural selection it became the norm... Now, after the brain has evolved and consciencenous has appeared, the mind has been the product of the brain, controled the brain, the mind has the control over the thing that created it. The new connections that are formed in each fraction of seconds are made because of the mind. The same could go with each cultures... this organization we have in our society as a product could form a kind of consciencenous, which after being created would have controled over each individuals... I can bring hard evidences to suggest that... So, my theory permit a god, but if a god exist from that theory, that would mean that god appeared by accident. Imagine that many Universes are created by quantum bubbles, those that are favoured would be able to exist enough to form some sort of connection with others... and many multi-Universes connected with eachothers would be formed... a kind of natural-selection would be formed... At the end, a kind of mega-consciencenous would emerge, those Universes like neurons would give rise to a kind of mind, which will control the Universes itself... so any new Universes that may be produced would be influences by this mind... Mind is about thoughts... and this compleat what I proposed about thoughts and consciencenous being the only thing that really exisy, because the rest are just emptyness... In the past I posted a physicist, that I believe is dead now, he was the last, of the fathers of modern physics, he proposed that his intuition now, after all those years, is that, past and future, both are subject to change... he proposes many things I brought, in fact, the 11nt dimention introduction in the superstring theory, change the form of the Universe, and makes it look like a membrane... EXACTLLY like our brain. Everyone of our minds, has its way to order the connections in our brains, those are some sort of laws proper to each individuals... the laws of our Universes would be the laws of the mind, that its connections produce... Natural selection would be the creator of a god, if there is anything such, natural selection would be what has created the ultimate reality... there is connections forming a higher realities, those connections of connections, forming other connections, those connections of connections of connections etc.... forming others... Like I said, the only truth we have, the only foundamental reality truth we have, is foundamental mathematic... foundamental mathematic would be what the ultimate natural selection has arrived to... It is an interesting constation, that from the two polls conducted among scientists, the first one in 1913 the second in 1997, both have shown that among the scientists, those that belief on some sort of God, or an afterlife, it was the mathematicians that believed the most. In 1913, it was the biologists, neurologists, health etc... that believed the less... and in 1997, the astronomers and physicists... this tells alot, in 1913, the biologists with natural selection etc... believed that they had all what needed to understand everything... while physic was in a kind of evolution... in 1997, it was the astronomers and physicists that believed that they may have the answers of everything, because of the advances in those domains... Those polls say nothing... because the question is biased... the question: "Do you believe in God" is not the one to ask to a scientist, another question should be asked, something like: "Is there another reality, a higher order of things?" With such a question, a good part of the physicists would answer yes!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 The designer is the designer of the designer Seriously, think about it. Read my other reply, about natural selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 Read my other reply, about natural selection. I didn't read yet, but here is a question: who designed natural selection? Why is there natural selection? By the way, didn't I tell you last week that after one week you will invent a new theory? From now on, for each new theory there should be a punishment for you (that's right, not a reward, but punishment ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 Sasun, natural selection does not need to be designed. Think about that, things are made by accident, and when they can survive they will, why should this be created or designed? I would say, natural selection would creat a god, if there is one. The only problem I have with this theory, is why foundamental mathenatical truths that we have now, have been advantaged over other things... why determinations have existed when they were not necessarly advantaged... I will meditate about that tonight. As for new theories, they just compleat what I have, they are puzzles... I believe that in order to come with a theory of everything... we should include the observer, the observed, and all those interrelations and connections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 In order for the natural selection to exist, shouldn't there be nature (in the general sense of the word)? So who designed nature? Selection is an order, right? So who created that order? Why should some survive and some not? Let's not take it granted - how come there is a process of selection? Why don't all competitors survive? Another thing is the notion of survival. There is no question of what that means in biology - the fittest survives. In the whole universe, what does it mean to be fit, fitter, fittest? When it comes to multiple universes, what would it mean survival? Can a universe die? Do universes compete with each other? Over what? Or mathematical laws - what do you mean by most favoured? Favoured by whom? You see, it is all subjective. A general law should be objective. If a mathematical law doesn't survive that means it is not true. That means it never existed. Well Domino, you meditate and tell us more what you mean About God being created by accident - no Domino. When you say God, you should keep in mind, wheter or not you believe in it, that by definition God was neither created nor will have and end. God is a creator - by definition - not something that was created. So if something came about by accident it cannot be God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 The designer is the designer of the designer Seriously, think about it.Read my other reply, about natural selection. This is what I meant: if it is required that everything be designed, since design follows the designer, and since nothing preceded God, then there is only one logical conclusion that God designed himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 (edited) Sasun, natural selection does not need any designer... Imagine that from a bubble, there is a Universe which grow too fast against the antropic fine-tuning... or too slowly, after the inflationism, it would die out by contraction... those are Universes which would only die out... when I say die, I mean they can't have any interaction with others, because or they will be singularities and return to their zero origines to quikly, or would just expend too fast and turn its density approching zero too quikly... Those Universes does not need designers, they just pup like that... when some Universes interact with each others... lets say by forces such as gravity, electromagnetic fields... or as membranes(the most likely) one in each others etc... there is connections created... when the connection is maintained long enough it gives the possibility of further connection... this is the natural selection in question, it does not need a designer... the competition in question, is a competition of with which one it will interact depending on the smiliairities between some Universes... similarities in this cases, for a reason I ignore seams to be what we know as foundamental mathematic. As God creating himself... very unlikely, if it didn''t created by accident, before its creation there could not be the mind to design the designer it would be later... but in the cases of an accident, due to connections and interactions that would creat this consciencenous... it would be very possible. If there is a God, it is probably asking itself who created it. Edited August 20, 2003 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 (edited) Dear Domino, Who's the designer of the designer? I don't follow your logic here. I don't have to answer this question for I never said I admitted the materialistic premises of my reasoning! I was just exhibiting a contradiction inherent to materialistic thought (I'd rather say belief). But if you are interested in my answer to this one (although I doubt you are ) here it is: God is Himself the Beginning and the End. I don't have time to read all your hypotheses you would want us to admit as the truth and it would be a waste of time for the object of study falls out of the domain of reason/science. You may observe the way a system works, elaborate theories (which are only true until disproved by counter-evidence) to descibe its behaviour, you will never have an answer to the question "why?" "Because its particles interact in such a way" is not an answer. Nor is "because we have a quantum system in such a state". These are only superficial descriptions that answer the question "how?", not satisfactory explanations that would answer the question "why?". I wonder though how you "explain" individuality, our own feeling of being ourselves, belonging to a well-defined body... How do, I, "axel", have the feeling (which is actually more than a simple feeling ) of being "axel" and not "Domino" or "relativistic Naïri" ? This will at least give you a subject to ponder on and fill up a few forum pages with. The funny thing is you firmly believe (as most evolutionists btw) in a theory with obvious deficiencies that you always have to upgrade in order to explain evidence yet unaccounted for. This is contrary to any reasonable scientific approach. In fact, this may only be explained by your intimate belief in your infinite intelligence which you would like us to religiously believe in. Isn't this due to some kind of misplaced pride? Sasun, you are absolutely right to distinguish between conscience and consciousness. In french, we only have one word (conscience) for both concepts, hence the confusion PS: natural selection is very plausible but it is not a sufficient basis for evolution theory (which is just a theory). There isn't much scientific evidence to this date as to how given species may give rise to others (Mutations observed in nature only have a very limited scope). This is probably the most important assertion in the theory, yet the least confirmed to this date. Proclaiming evolution theory as the truth and asking people to admit it, is asking them to believe in a theory that needs to be upgraded every now and then (like buggy MS software ). How irrational and unscientific! Evolution theory shoud remain what it is, a theory among others, not become a religion and betray the true spirit of science. PPS for vava: ROFLMAO. But as a french speaker, I do appreciate Domino's "frenglish". I am sure my own posts are full of gallicisms. Edited August 20, 2003 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 (edited) Science is based on observation, rationality on the other hand, can be applied to things that are immaterial, metaphysical Have you read Kant's "Critique de la raison pure"? If so, it seems you did not fully grasp its implications. Clique sur le lien du dessus pour avoir un aperçu de certains de ses résultats. Cela t'évitera de perdre ton temps et de risquer ta santé mentale à te pencher sur des probèmes hors de notre portée. Amicalement Edited August 20, 2003 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 axel, first of all, I've read Kants "Critique de la raison pure" I even have an edition of that book. If you find out that I have not grasped it, show me please where... becausethe critics and limits I bring in my theory, with the notion of undeterministic is exactly in terms of Kantian limit of "La aison pure." Now, about the answer you bring to criticise what I have been writting, there is many mistakes in it which are foundamental... lets give some examples. First of all, you admit of not having read all my hypotheses, because it would be a waste of time for the object of the study. You can not claim that what is writen fall in this or that cathegory before entirly reading it and understanding it, and most importantly understanding its implications... yes! Because what I bring could be understood, and you can't understand it fully before having read all of my hypotheses that all compleat eachothers. Now, about the "why" science does not need a why, humans do. This is why in one of my posts, I wrote that science observe, and spirituality is about the why of things... I am spiritual, but not religious, every scientific having faith of finding what they search for are spiritual, spiritual is about faith, about understand the why of things... things that are proper to humans. Another thing, there is no "reason" in every single thing... particules may just be like that without a why, why would there be any reasons behind that? Individuality: I medited about that in the past, individuality happens because of the resistance of each organism, the differentiation... if every humans were to work in syncronism, and all act the same way... individuality won't exist. That makes the you, they you, is because you take a place in space that is not the same as mine, you as the observer does nopt observe the same thing, and the observers that observes you are not all the same as those that observes me... individuality is just an illusion, the you, is not only you, but the observers that observe you, the things you observe etc... as for feelings of being axel, just awake from anestesia, and I shall see in the first seconds, if you will feel being axel. "The funny thing is you firmly believe (as most evolutionists btw) in a theory with obvious deficiencies that you always have to upgrade in order to explain evidence yet unaccounted for. This is contrary to any reasonable scientific approach. In fact, this may only be explained by your intimate belief in your infinite intelligence which you would like us to religiously believe in. Isn't this due to some kind of misplaced pride?" This is absolutly contrary to the way science works... until now, you have not presented any deficiency on my reasoning, and as upgrade, this is EXACTLLY how science work, it is under constant upgrades, modying complexifying. And another note, I never claimed that what I bring is the truth, never have I done that, I just asked to others to read an say what they think, if I was so arrogant to believe that I pocess the truth, I won't ask to comment. But when I ask comments, I expect that people show me the flaws, beside telling there is flaws. And if you are a christian believer and religious individual, I think you would be very badly placed to tell me that I am arrogant, when as a religious you think you are on the right pat, and criticise me based on a belief that is contrary to rational thinking. "There isn't much scientific evidence to this date as to how given species may give rise to others (Mutations observed in nature only have a very limited scope)." This is wrong, beside that, I have said, that natural selection is the only thing before that a kind of mind result from it, then the mind will have the control with natural selection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 And if you are a christian believer and religious individual, I think you would be very badly placed to tell me that I am arrogant, when as a religious you think you are on the right pat, and criticise me based on a belief that is contrary to rational thinking. There is no arrogance in faith. "There isn't much scientific evidence to this date as to how given species may give rise to others (Mutations observed in nature only have a very limited scope)." This is wrong, beside that, I have said, that natural selection is the only thing before that a kind of mind result from it, then the mind will have the control with natural selection. I wasn't talking about natural selection. This is just one part of the theory. As to your individuality/synchronization stuff, this simply proves to me you are out of your mind and this does not give me much incentive to read the rest. Another thing, there is no "reason" in every single thing... particules may just be like that without a why, why would there be any reasons behind that? So you accept the existence of matter as a postulate without investigating its origin. This is indeed quite a limitation to your theory. I don't want to be rude but if you fail to give me a reason for the existence of matter, I really don't understand the interest and purpose of your theory and how it invalidates the existence of God, a problem which, following Kant's reasoning, is intrinsically unreachable to science/reason. Or maybe this was not what you intended to say but I really do not have time to read everything, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 as for feelings of being axel, just awake from anestesia, and I shall see in the first seconds, if you will feel being axel Well I will most certainly not wake up feeling I am Domino. What a nightmare just thinking about it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 Domino, don't be so stubborn Think a little what I said. I asked you many quesions, you didn't answer. You are using a lot of concepts in your thinking - how come there are these concepts. Don't take them granted. I am asking, where did all those concepts come from? You will say they came by accident. Then I will ask where did the concept of "accident" come from? Are you sure there are accidents? And again, let me repeat. God cannot be created, do you understand? If you say God was created, it is wrong. You have something else in your mind, not God. In other words, lets think about a question: "what is that thing that was never created?". The answer is God. And when you say, oh God was created by accident, it makes no sense You may say I don't believe there is such a thing that was never created. That could be logical and understood somehow (but incorrect). But you cannot use the concept of God and change its meaning because you feel that you have a great theory and that theory will only accept a certain understanding of "God". So let's respect the definitions of things, if you are inventing a new definition, give it a different name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 Axel, me thinks you are pulling my leggs. You insinuate and reject supposed claims I never made. Furthermore, if faith is not a sign of arrogance, when you think you pocess the truth and believe your religion is the good one, then so as my belief and my faith to my conception, which unlike you can't claim is the absolute truth. As for individuality, beside trying to excuse your previous judgement without having read all the hypotheses and even admitting it... you should search and see if I havn't discussed about that. Which I did just there. http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6588 This conception of individuality I have found among many philosophers and at least one physician that I refered... if I am out of my mind, then I sound to not be the only in this case. Now, the last point you made, or your intention was to upset me, or you just try to add nothingless on the already added nothingless you already brought to answer me. I deny the existance of matter, as "something" real, and I think you just missed that up in the hypotheses which you have not read. You see how your claim sound ridiculous, when what you claim I did, I never actually did. And furthermore, I never invalidated the existance of any God, I place that as a probability, so again your claim fall short. At least when Sasun disagree with me, he read and try to understand what I bring and then write his critic, which you sure don't do here. ------------------- Sasun, I fail to understand, why the concept of accident need an orgine, when the concept of god does not... I mean, something comming from nothingless can exist, and it can actually be demonstrated from mathematic, why mathematic exist? This I answered, and it is for me the biggest mistery of all, it seems that this natural selection which I talked about favouyred the possibility of deterministic "things" which the reason why they were favoured is behind my understanding. Natural selection, in this cases, does not need any explanations, Universes just pupop, from nothingless... every Universes have their laws from those accidents, and when those laws permit them to connect with others, that just happen... I don't see why this need any creator. Like I said, there could be a god in that proposition, but there would be many gods... our brain from the neuron connections build our mind, our mind is the God of each of those neurons, and our thoughts control them... humanity from its organization and relations between everyone creat a higher reality, a kind of collective mind, which would be our God, alien civilisations would have their collectivity which would be theirs, all all the relation between those in this Universe, would be this Universe Universal mind... and than group of Universes, group of groups of Universes etc.... than at the end... all of them etc... it is like a hologram, the smallest has a copy of the biggest in it and follow the same patern, just like in some extend a kind of fractalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 I deny the existance of matter, as "something" real all right, this makes "sense". "out of your mind" was intended as a play on words in this particular context I thought you would understand without a smiley And furthermore, I never invalidated the existance of any God, I place that as a probability, so again your claim fall short All right then. . But I fail to see the interest of your theory. Maybe is it because I am searching for something else, the meaning of existence, the only real question that is worth asking and finding an answer to. Speaking of particles and quantum systems doesn't help us a bit towards this end. Have you seen Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris movie? You make me think of the physicist Sartorius. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 ... Speaking of particles and quantum systems doesn't help us a bit towards this end. Exactly. Come on Domino ... get back to classical Newtonian world. It makes much more sense at our scales of being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 21, 2003 Report Share Posted August 21, 2003 Sasun, I fail to understand, why the concept of accident need an orgine, when the concept of god does not... The concept of accident needs an origine, you are supposed to explain why accidents happen, and how. You don't explain. You only say that accidents happen. I don't agree that "why" is not the business of science. It's just that very often science fails to find an answer to "why". Only God knows whether the concept of God needs origin. God is the origin of all, so I would say it needs no origin. Its a mystery, like mathematics Like I said, there could be a god in that proposition, but there would be many gods... our brain from the neuron connections build our mind, our mind is the God of each of those neurons, and our thoughts control them... humanity from its organization and relations between everyone creat a higher reality, a kind of collective mind, which would be our God, alien civilisations would have their collectivity which would be theirs, all all the relation between those in this Universe, would be this Universe Universal mind... and than group of Universes, group of groups of Universes etc.... than at the end... all of them etc... it is like a hologram, the smallest has a copy of the biggest in it and follow the same patern, just like in some extend a kind of fractalism. Just what exactly do you understand by saying God? I don't know that, but I am pretty sure whatever you mean is quite different from the commonly known concept of God (I realize that there are differences also). About religious people being arrogant, that is not true. It depends on the individual. If I choose a certain religion it doesn't necessarily mean it is the best and the only right path. It only means that it is the best form me, like my individuallity. It may not be the best but it is mine, I feel comfortable with it. Of course a lot of people will claim that their religion, their church, their village, etc. is the best. So what? Domino, nevermind all the criticism Who cares about critics? Critics are supposed to be helpful to the criticized, but those who are being criticized don't listen the critics anyway. So critics only talk in vain without themselves creating anything of value. You go find your own truth my friend as you find fit P.S. Having said this, I will keep criticizing you for fun and for my own sake to disperse workplace boredom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Sasun, explain me why a concept of accident need an origine, while the existance of a god does not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 Sasun, explain me why a concept of accident need an origine, while the existance of a god does not? First explain me what you understand by God (or god) then I will explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.