Bitcoin Forum

As a way to distract you all from boring day-to-day stuff and mostly for its entertainment value I present you "Amplituhedron - A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics":
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Once again scientists have figured that complex interactions of particles in physical reality can be described by a single elegant geometric shape, which together with Garrett Lisi's E8 theory starts looking like a trend.

This thread is a continuation and addition to the months old topic started here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137350.0
and to some degree the one below:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.0
along with the points made in both.

If you find the article too much for your brain, here is a condensed 2 minute version talking directly to your heart, which I find equally entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i3rMnvyXgQ

So don't worry! You won't miss the fun either way! ;)

And this hints at intelligent design how?

How can a music be a prof of intelligent designer? Everything in the world and universe has its own frequency, giving music as a prof of a God is just stupid.

So, earth is 6000 years old?

Will we need to worship this designer in some way (sing songs, sacrifice goats etc), or can we just ignore the fact and get on with our lives as normal?

Well, if we're living in a computer simulation (http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html), then obviously there is a designer/programmer of the "Matrix computer code (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4)".

What you may question is if we live within simulations within simulations within simulations, then it may only be the very first world that would have happened by evolution alone. All simulated worlds run largely on evolution but may have variable amounts of code.

The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?....

No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion leading to a false conclusion based on incorrect premises.  Errors all 3 steps of the way.

Don't take this too critically, it's not uncommon for people to see evidence of God in places like math, quantum physics, the structure of the Universe, etc...

I am addressing your assertion of a logical proof and that neither have you provided, can it be done, or should it be done.

No and no, and this is demonstrably a false assertion leading to a false conclusion based on incorrect premises.  Errors all 3 steps of the way.

Don't take this too critically, it's not uncommon for people to see evidence of God in places like math, quantum physics, the structure of the Universe, etc...

I am addressing your assertion of a logical proof and that neither have you provided, can it be done, or should it be done.

I also thought that Garrett Lisi was right after all after reading about the quantum mechanics geometrical symmetry.

Intelligent design is idiotic. God made the cosmological constants, then the universe build itself and life!

Simplicity is good. However, this reminds me of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem stuff again, which, translated into "common sense" says that you can't fully describe a (non-trivial) system from within itself. If we could, just imagine the possibilities! A fully-functional scale model of the universe with miniature scientists making even smaller fully-functional scale models of the universe!? That's basically what these positivist attempts at a "theory of everything" boil down to.

However, all it takes is a slight change of thinking to realise that we already have "fully functional scale models of the universe" inside our heads.

As a way to distract you all from boring day-to-day stuff and mostly for its entertainment value I present you "Amplituhedron - A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics":
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/

Once again scientists have figured that complex interactions of particles in physical reality can be described by a single elegant geometric shape, which together with Garrett Lisi's E8 theory starts looking like a trend.

This thread is a continuation and addition to the months old topic started here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137350.0
and to some degree the one below:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=141298.0
along with the points made in both.

If you find the article too much for your brain, here is a condensed 2 minute version talking directly to your heart, which I find equally entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i3rMnvyXgQ

So don't worry! You won't miss the fun either way! ;)

Well, if we're living in a computer simulation (http://simulation-argument.com/simulation.html), then obviously there is a designer/programmer of the "Matrix computer code (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LCVknKUJ4)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wdKlWXyUkc

I never mentioned God in this new thread, only intelligent design.

So you don't agree that:
1) results of the experiments form a pattern that has a mathematical structure.
2) mathematics is a result of intelligence (consciousness)

I don't know how you see the Universe, but it sure doesn't look like a chaotic mess to me :)
......

So, earth is 6000 years old?

.....

In my view, God is not separate from its Creation (and is definitely not a bearded elder on a cloud).....

Prove it.

My personal view is if this forum is as libertarian as it is supposed to be you should never feel the need to apologies to the people in advance, people who do not share your views. They will mock you anyway. So have fun and share away.

...
But that is nonsense.  It is not that the circle is the result of intelligence, but that it requires intelligence, consciousness, etc to discuss it as an abstraction.
...

Prove it.

If you draw a perfect circle, then measure its diameter, measure its circumference, divide circumference by diameter, you get PI, always. 

There's no intelligent design there, it just IS, it's fact, it's math, a circle is defined as an 2d object where the diameter is the same measured from any edge to another passing through the center, no intelligence, no magic, just math.

Just as 1+1 = 2, no intelligence, it just is.

If these facts are true, and there are other facts that ring true regardless of circumstance, then you have solid building blocks for a complex system without design.

The basic train of thought is this: If properties of space-time take their origin from a pure mathematical object, then one can assume that space-time is a result of some intelligence as all mathematics apparently is. Wouldn't you agree?

The article also mentions that space-time along with quantum mechanics are emergent from the geometry, so make what you want out of it.


When Edgar Cayce was asked in his usual trance-channeling state "What is the Universe?". His short and only answer was: "Music of the Spheres". :)



Ok apparently it was my (failed) attempt at trolling. I got bored and decided to see what happens if I post this. :) No need to sing songs or worship anyone, just relax and proceed as normal, I will be careful next time.


It does look more and more like simulation to me. Maybe there is a reason we all love playing computer games - we are in one! Thanks for the links I'll have a look!

Whoa, slow down people!

We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different.

So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way.

To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset.

Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor)", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven.

Don't be such a philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie)! ;)
I was talking about the 100s of feelings of smell. E.g.: "wow, this rose smell is beautifully rosy!"* Instead of "Alert! My atmospheric sensors are detecting aromatic carbon chains number 485! Exterminate them!" :D

*Notice how those descriptions of qualia are always tautological? A rose smells rosy. Red looks red. Blue looks blue. A high-pitched squeal sounds like a high-pitched squeal. Of course, whether my sensation of blue is the same as yours, is another matter. That's why the Wikipedia page on qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) is so huge, it seems that scientists don't know where to start with things we know absolutely but cannot prove. Blue always looks "blue" to everyone who can see blue? Or "sensory relativism", kinda like synaesthesia but mixed between different people?

I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer,  then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.

I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer,  then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.

Actually science starts with a hypothesis :)

The sciences routinely have to deal with various assumptions, postulates, axioms, and so on -- they all rely on that hazy realm to provide a starting point with things we know but can't falsify. And indeed, facts that can't be falsified do seem a bit more reliable than 'facts' that could eventually be shown to be wrong.

And by calling the above things a tautology, that wasn't a criticism, it was merely a statement of fact. It would be equally uninformative to say that the letter 'A' looks like an 'A' instead of a 'B', unless you're like me and are able to metaphysically see those letters, in addition to behaviourally storing the data in your biological data banks.

How about..
Science starts with 'self' (interchangeably referred to as intelligence or consciousness) -- there's got to be "somebody home", so to speak. People have it. Supercomputers don't.
Then they receive information -- sensory inputs, whatever.
Then the data are interpreted. This includes forming a hypothesis about what (really) happened.
And curiosity. The "aim" thing kinda ruins it for me because it seems like a formulaic crutch that students are taught in schools. The curiosity thing provides motivation and will to gather more data and continue the process.

What I like about this is that anyone can basically be a mobile laboratory. Actual laboratories merely extend people's capabilities with cool sensory gadgets. :D

people, people, its cyclic. to form a hypothesis one must first have some data, and to recognize something as data, one must first have a hypothesis.
In other words i can not ask the question "What is the floopliwuply made of?" when i don't know what a floopliwuply is or that it even exists.

I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer,  then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.

A hypothesis is an idea. It requires no data. It requires only a direction in which one might look for data.
My hypothesis is that the floopliwuply is a random string- not a word. I can collect data on meanings of words and random strings now.

OK, well I guess Euclid's Elements (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html) was just a load of rubbish then. Which would make Newtonian physics pretty baseless too.

Or maybe assuming is equivalent to knowing in a scientific context? Otherwise why bother making assumptions if we have doubts about their soundness? E.g.: assuming that Earth orbits the Sun, we do [ whatever measurements and stuff ]. According to Newtonian physics, the sun should also swivel a little bit due to the mass of the earth pulling on it (like an athlete doing a hammer throw), but we wouldn't know any of that without relying on Euclid's postulates.

I think it's worth mentioning that intelligent design is in no way a science. It is a religion. It starts with an answer,  then looks for ways to support the answer that must be true. In science you start with a question and go where the answer takes you. Even if it contradicts your beliefs.

It's not even that intelligent of a design!

If there's intelligence behind this, then it intentionally saw fit to have a solid 95 percent of us tortured in a variety of fun different ways. Hitler, nukes on Japan, centuries of people being tortured for different reasons. Poverty, hunger, and absolute crap!

Meanwhile the same intelligence decided that a very small percentage of it's pets are special, and worthy of having everything they ever may have wanted out of life.

If there's some kind of intelligent god that had control over everything, isn't it arguably a giant, malevolent dick?

Without reading it, are they still pushing the young earth creationist stuff?

Some people are: http://creationmuseum.org/  :D

....Unlike evolution, which has seen no contrary findings in over 150 years of research.

Huh?

There are a group of hypotheses and concepts related to evolution, which have seen ongoing and continual revisions.  The nature of a 'revision' is of course to invalid previous beliefs.  Let's not oversimplify any of this.  And note it is continuing, and there are many areas of genetics that are the subjects of controversy.

OMG, the creation museum is the funniest ever. A friend of mine went and loved it. He especially liked the diorama showing how cavemen used harnessed dinosaurs to pull giant plows. You know, back in the dinosaur times 5000 years ago.  ::)

I suppose revisions and tweaks to the theory are ongoing. But the idea that new species arise from older species through an evolutionary process has never been contraindicated. The revisions are in support of the theory. Darwin knew nothing of DNA, yet it's discovery helps to explain the chemical mechanisms by which evolution happens. So again, there has never been a finding that contradicts evolution. And there have been thousands of experiments confirming the process of evolution. It is the basis for all modern biology and is used daily in fields like medicine.  
I'm an evolutionary biologist, this is something I'm up on. If you are aware of a finding contradicting evolution, please publish, you will likely get the Nobel prize for it.

I suppose revisions and tweaks to the theory are ongoing. But the idea that new species arise from older species through an evolutionary process has never been contraindicated. ....If you are aware of a finding contradicting evolution, please publish, you will likely get the Nobel prize for it.

For the sake of argument, I will take an oppositional view.

There certainly is proof of Intelligent Design which contradicts the theory of all species having been derived from other species through the process of evolution as you have purported.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-05-21-genome21_ST_N.htm

****PWN****

:)

That's not so simple.

lol, well there was certainly some intelligent designing going on there. But let's think about what the really did. No one has ever created life from scratch. In this example a bacteria was modified to accept a "man-made" DNA sequence. This was made possible because we know what DNA is and how it functions in evolution. Indeed this experiment is another confirmation of evolution.
In the future perhaps there will be a truly synthetic life form. If that happens then intelligent design will be a real thing, but it wont change our history of having evolved. To a biologist, all living things are the same living thing.  I don't know why, but a DNA molecule started replicating in the past. It is still doing it and has branched into many species. Plants, animals, fungi, all are the same and one can even swap DNA between them. We are going to see some crazy things soon.

Whoa, slow down people!

We take "1+1=2" for granted, but it's easy to forget the learning process that every child (or civilisation) goes through, that they start off in a world without numbers. It takes intelligence to imagine that there exists a "1" of something, and if that 1 exists "again", we can create the idea of "2" to represent "1 and 1", and so on. If nature somehow worked differently, presumably the maths deduced from it would also be different.

So when you say "it just is" you skip the point that "1+1=2" is true because we made it that way.

To me it seems that what we normally think of as maths, is deduced (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) from whatever nature provides us with. Things are divisible? OK, so we have numbers. Things can be arranged in space? OK, so we have dimensions. Trouble is, that would make maths a subset of nature, and therefore it cannot fully describe everything about its superset.

Hence the whole god / intelligent design / whatever she-bang. It could be said that our "inner being" that witnesses 1000s of different smells and sensations that simply can't be explained in terms of "microscopic Lego particles configured into Von Neumann machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor)", is the living embodiment of mathematical axioms: the things that are set to 'true' but can't be proven.

So if there is no consciousness or intelligence in the universe anywhere, circles don't exist?  or the properties of them are different?

That's very similar to the "if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?"   Circles exist regardless of our intelligence or if there is an observer, its just a label and description that we have given them to quantify them to some degree.

The proof of a circle still exists regardless, thus, no intelligence was needed to design it.

....

Yap, that falls into solipsism, and that is the only thing I reject on faith. :)

Causality is only meaningful within the universe.

Causality is only meaningful within the universe.

This is the correct answer although IIRC it is a fairly recent discovery.  I first heard in in a discussion by Stephen Hawking.

Similarly regarding infinite distance:  No, the universe curves in on itself and is finite.  Distance has no meaning "outside the Universe".

And time is finiite.  So what was there before the last "big bang?"

Undefined.

Although in now thinking about it I can't see why one couldn't develop mathematics to discuss things prior to our outside the Universe, somewhat similar to imaginary numbers.

Look, I already knew how you were going to respond.  In so doing you admit that I have refuted your prior argument.  That was easy because it was "classical Darwinism".  Then you proceed to admit the future holds "crazy things".  So we are in agreement.

However, you can't duck and dodge the matter, even though you've tried.  Neither is it proper to 'shift the goalposts' regarding the assertions of the religous ID crowd in order to substantiate the scientific approach and accomplishments.

:)

Look, the problem is not in a scientific approach to Intelligent Design - it's with a religious approach.  We have had and will have Intelligent Design, period. We've had a little of it and we're going to have boatloads of it.

When I say this, it means I don't need to refute your other statements, because we agree on the fundamentals.  Let me know if you think that sums it up nicely.

I'm not sure I totally understand. You are drawing a distinction between those who are interested in ID for religious vs. scientific reasons? Because science is open to any question. "Could all this be created by an intelligence?" is a fair question, but I am not aware of any result indicating it.  And I am not disputing that genetic engineering is a kind of "intelligent designing" in nature. Now that evolution it is understood at a chemical level it can be tinkered with. That is all based on Darwin's work. The main thing that has changed since his original theory is that more mechanisms for evolution have been found. Darwin noticed "natural selection". Which is still recognized as the primary driver in nature. Does all that mean we agree?

LoL! Where did that come from?

Solipsism is basically a sort-of "I know I exist, and everything else builds from this first principle" thing. How can you not have faith your own existence? I guess it's feasible that someone could "experience death" /total loss of ego while on LSD, and from then on refer to themselves in the 3rd person and remain eerily convinced that the only thing keeping them "alive" is the causality of all the particle physics acting upon their body. But that would be weird, IMO. Notice how a "loss of ego" is equivalent to saying a "loss of knowledge of Self", which also implies that prior to the loss there was "faith in self".

Besides, I'm picking up a vibe of defensiveness towards some kind of socialist "objective reality" doctrine. :P When faced with 2 seemingly obvious but polar opposite theories about reality:
a) Self = god = conscious experience; the self is unlimited in size; the visible 'reality' that we see through our eyes is illusory and smaller than we really are; other 'people' may be different parts of the same Self.
b) Self = basically nothing; we are tiny specks in a huge objective reality, and all those other people are fundamentally separate entities yet at least equal to or probably greater than us.

for reasons of political and religious expedience, a is frowned upon and b is the correct view.

Causality is not even meaningful within the universe.