Origin of Earth

[dogtowner]

After reading a few artcles this is what I found.

The laws of chemistry rely on the laws of physics which in turn rely on the laws of mathematics and logic to exist.

If I see order in in the way a plant grows or in my morning coffee getting cool it is only because math and logic are orderly.

It is inconceivable that the development of a plant would be orderly without something imposing that order on it. Many see God but it could as well be that there are a few laws which cause all order.

Even if the results are orderly are those few laws random and unorderly?

It is not proven yet but deductively all our observations have lead us to answer that yes even the basic laws are orderly. We have laws that we use to describe the actions of the laws.

For example, the laws of nature of not orderly might work one way today but work a different way in ten thousand years. They might not be consistent from one side of the galaxy to the other. But we have observed that the laws of nature do follow order and they appear to be completely orderly in terms of how they operate both across time and space.

Are math and logic the result of an intelligence? If we are to be consistent then before answering the question we must define what criteria we will use to say if a thing is the result of intelligence or not then apply our rubric to the question of math and logic.

no matter how far you burrow down there will always be a point where you can't explain further. there's your intelligence. but simpler than that, where did that math ans logic come from ? how did anyone get pointed to even wonder why ?

the answer is really pretty simple.

 

[numinus]

After reading a few artcles this is what I found.

The laws of chemistry rely on the laws of physics which in turn rely on the laws of mathematics and logic to exist.

If I see order in in the way a plant grows or in my morning coffee getting cool it is only because math and logic are orderly.

It is inconceivable that the development of a plant would be orderly without something imposing that order on it. Many see God but it could as well be that there are a few laws which cause all order.

Even if the results are orderly are those few laws random and unorderly?

It is not proven yet but deductively all our observations have lead us to answer that yes even the basic laws are orderly. We have laws that we use to describe the actions of the laws.

For example, the laws of nature of not orderly might work one way today but work a different way in ten thousand years. They might not be consistent from one side of the galaxy to the other. But we have observed that the laws of nature do follow order and they appear to be completely orderly in terms of how they operate both across time and space.

Are math and logic the result of an intelligence? If we are to be consistent then before answering the question we must define what criteria we will use to say if a thing is the result of intelligence or not then apply our rubric to the question of math and logic.

I think you got it the first time.

First off, a scientific law cannot be thought of as random. The fact that it is stated as a law implies rational order. And before a scientific law may be stated thus, it must conform to certain fundamental standards -- background independence, the principle of minimal action, okham's razor, etc -- all of which imply an ordered logic.

Why exactly does nature behave according to the language of mathematics, if mathematics is something contrived by the human imagination?

So you see, the creator's self-revelation is not confined to ancient biblical texts. You see it every single time you contemplate the whole of creation. Of course, you need to employ some of that rational, god-given faculties first.

How's that for empirical proof?

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you got it the first time.

First off, a scientific law cannot be thought of as random. The fact that it is stated as a law implies rational order. And before a scientific law may be stated thus, it must conform to certain fundamental standards -- background independence, the principle of minimal action, okham's razor, etc -- all of which imply an ordered logic.

Why exactly does nature behave according to the language of mathematics, if mathematics is something contrived by the human imagination?

So you see, the creator's self-revelation is not confined to ancient biblical texts. You see it every single time you contemplate the whole of creation. Of course, you need to employ some of that rational, god-given faculties first.

How's that for empirical proof?

I think w all agree that there is order in the natural laws.

Did that order arise by chance (or non-intelligence) or was it designed?

As long as the laws we speak of number in the hundreds or thousands then the probability of it arising in an orderly way by chance is so slim as to make the need for a miracle almost certain, e.g. presto - God.

But if laws are orderly because of more fundamental laws and it all comes down to one most fundamental law, then why can't that law have arisen by chance (or non-intelligence)? The odds of living in a universe that is truthful versus living in a universe that is not are 50/50. No need for the creative force to be intelligent. Though an intelligent creator could still be the origin of truth.

 

[Dr.Who]

no matter how far you burrow down there will always be a point where you can't explain further. there's your intelligence. but simpler than that, where did that math ans logic come from ? how did anyone get pointed to even wonder why ?

the answer is really pretty simple.

I agree that as you burrow down (I love your term it really makes sense) you must have a creator. But if the laws become simple enough why couldn't that creator be non-intelligent?

I believe the creator is intelligent and personal and interacts with us. But that is my opinion.

 

[numinus]

I think w all agree that there is order in the natural laws.

Did that order arise by chance (or non-intelligence) or was it designed?

As long as the laws we speak of number in the hundreds or thousands then the probability of it arising in an orderly way by chance is so slim as to make the need for a miracle almost certain, e.g. presto - God.

But if laws are orderly because of more fundamental laws and it all comes down to one most fundamental law, then why can't that law have arisen by chance (or non-intelligence)? The odds of living in a universe that is truthful versus living in a universe that is not are 50/50. No need for the creative force to be intelligent. Though an intelligent creator could still be the origin of truth.

That's what I'm saying. How can order arise from 'chance' when 'chance' itself is defined by probability, hence implying some sort of order?

The only way a phenomena becomes a 50-50 chance is in the exercise of absolute free will and the reasons for that phenomena (wherever it may logically lead) can only reside within that will.

 

[numinus]

I agree that as you burrow down (I love your term it really makes sense) you must have a creator. But if the laws become simple enough why couldn't that creator be non-intelligent?

Simplicity itself is a function of rational thought.

Whether okham's razor, principle of least effort, minimal action -- simplicity is central to science. Scientific laws are described with the least parameters, occurs by the least effort and tend to minimize the quantity being described.

There are many ways to derive mathematical functions capable of explaining the world but it is the ones that abide by the above principles that is always true.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's what I'm saying. How can order arise from 'chance' when 'chance' itself is defined by probability, hence implying some sort of order?

The only way a phenomena becomes a 50-50 chance is in the exercise of absolute free will and the reasons for that phenomena (wherever it may logically lead) can only reside within that will.

What you say about chance seems logical. Chance cannot exist without order.

Suppose instead of saying the the "fundamental law of the universe", upon which all more complicated laws are built, is built on chance we just say that it IS one way or another. One way and we will have an orderly universe but another way and we will not. Can we know if we live in the orderly universe or not? I think we can. Can we know that the order is created by an intelligence?

The universe either is or is not orderly. That order is either from an intelligence or not.

There are four permutations from that:

1) Saying that the universe is not orderly and is derived from an intelligence is not our universe.


2) Saying that the universe is not orderly and is not derived from an intelligence is not our universe.


3) Saying that the universe is orderly and is derived from an intelligence is possible.


4) Saying that the universe is orderly and is not derived from an intelligence is logical only if one only ever says that it is. One must never attribute a reason or a cause to why it is. But it is either caused or not. And if there is no reason or cause then it is not orderly. This is a paradox.

Did you just deduce the answer to the question with your obsevation that chance must be based on order? I think you might have.

 

[numinus]

What you say about chance seems logical. Chance cannot exist without order.

Suppose instead of saying the the "fundamental law of the universe", upon which all more complicated laws are built, is built on chance we just say that it IS one way or another. One way and we will have an orderly universe but another way and we will not. Can we know if we live in the orderly universe or not? I think we can. Can we know that the order is created by an intelligence?

The universe either is or is not orderly. That order is either from an intelligence or not.

There are four permutations from that:

1) Saying that the universe is not orderly and is derived from an intelligence is not our universe.


2) Saying that the universe is not orderly and is not derived from an intelligence is not our universe.


3) Saying that the universe is orderly and is derived from an intelligence is possible.


4) Saying that the universe is orderly and is not derived from an intelligence is logical only if one only ever says that it is. One must never attribute a reason or a cause to why it is. But it is either caused or not. And if there is no reason or cause then it is not orderly. This is a paradox.

Did you just deduce the answer to the question with your obsevation that chance must be based on order? I think you might have.

Actually, chance is governed by some sort of order. From the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

"The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of an event related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it. (The Born rule, after Max Born)"

I have always held the opinion of duality in the essence of the world. It is both deterministic and non-deterministic at the same time. This isn't a paradox -- only a definition of the bounds between what is physical and metaphysical. The probabilistic behavior of quanta approximates the classical laws of motion.

But then again, one doesn't need quantum mechanics to arrive at this opinion. One only has to contemplate newton's inertia -- that a body at rest or in uniform motion (inertia) would remain at rest or in uniform motion UNLESS an outside force acts upon it.

An outside force that acts or not act upon a body is a statement of FREE WILL -- which contains within itself, the meaning of the object's state of motion.

 

[dogtowner]

I agree that as you burrow down (I love your term it really makes sense) you must have a creator. But if the laws become simple enough why couldn't that creator be non-intelligent?

I believe the creator is intelligent and personal and interacts with us. But that is my opinion.

non-intellegent huh ?

I guess if you look at the duck billed platypus you might have to wonder but the way all the gears mesh and the fluids flow so perfectly, I'm pretty sure its not all by chance.

 

[PLC1]

Why exactly does nature behave according to the language of mathematics, if mathematics is something contrived by the human imagination?

Are mathematics contrived by human imagination, or simply a way of understanding the universe?

So you see, the creator's self-revelation is not confined to ancient biblical texts. You see it every single time you contemplate the whole of creation. Of course, you need to employ some of that rational, god-given faculties first.

How's that for empirical proof?

It is indeed empirical evidence.

 

[numinus]

Are mathematics contrived by human imagination, or simply a way of understanding the universe?

What do you think?

Pi was discovered by the ancient greeks. Did they imagine that this universal constant would somehow pop up in einstein's field equation in his attempt to explain the fundamental principles governing the universe?

As far as human knowledge is concerned, are we concocting ideas from our imagination or are we merely discerning what is there all along?

Your answers to the above would radically shape what you would consider as 'real'.

It is indeed empirical evidence.

An empirical phenomenon is not necessarily sensory, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dr.Who]

An empirical phenomenon is not necessarily sensory, wouldn't you agree?

To be empirical it must be seen with the senses. If it is deduced from sound logic it would just be called true provided that the basic axioms were also true.

 

[PLC1]

What do you think?

Pi was discovered by the ancient greeks. Did they imagine that this universal constant would somehow pop up in einstein's field equation in his attempt to explain the fundamental principles governing the universe?

As far as human knowledge is concerned, are we concocting ideas from our imagination or are we merely discerning what is there all along?

Your answers to the above would radically shape what you would consider as 'real'.

I think it's the latter, and that your example of pi being discovered is evidence. Mathematics is really a part of nature.

But I asked you first.

An empirical phenomenon is not necessarily sensory, wouldn't you agree?

Yes.

 

[numinus]

To be empirical it must be seen with the senses. If it is deduced from sound logic it would just be called true provided that the basic axioms were also true.

Not necessarily.

Your emotion is an empirical phenomenon independent of your senses, is it not?

Seeing, say, a beautiful naked woman would elicit a different emotion from you than from another individual -- even if you are looking at the same beautiful naked woman.

 

[numinus]

I think it's the latter, and that your example of pi being discovered is evidence. Mathematics is really a part of nature.

But I asked you first.

I go a step further. Ideas give objects their reality.