Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?

[luchitociencia]

Why do you put in things to disrupt his postulate or assumption? You have to give him his scenarios for making his postulate. POSTULATE 1. The laws of physics is the same in an inertial reference frame.

He defines a reference frame as what a person considers to be "at rest" or "constant" speed. No speeding up nor slowing down. No acceleration or deceleration. He briefly shows you a jet flying around Earth while the Earth is revolving around the sun and the sun revolving around the center of our galaxy. If you were in the jet flying at constant speed, then you would think it would be at rest. The Earth is moving and the sun is moving at the same time at a constant speed. He asks why does the speed have to be constant? Then he shows the two scenarios with the popcorn in his back yard and in the van. He blacks out the windows in the van so the passenger cannot tell he is moving. Both would think nothing is happening as long as the speed is constant. So even though you can't tell you are moving sitting in the backyard with popcorn. You could not tell you were moving at 30 mph assuming there are no bumps in the road. The speed in which you are moving is different, but the laws of physics stays the same in an inertial reference frame.

That's something to impress your friends with -- initial reference frame and you just created the first postulate of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

What do you think about that? Is the boy still dumb?

Yes, the boy from the video is dumb.

Again, put the bowl over the roof of the car and drive a constant speed at 65 miles per hour. The bowl is supposed to be "at rest" because the constant speed, but, are you sure the bowl still is over the roof? My bet that at such speed or over that bowl is "resting" (and perhaps broken) on one side of the route.

The dumb boy is accommodating his test to one situation when he and the bowl are "inside a car". Well, I do experiments, and when you do experiments you also add "variables". Even elementary schools teach you about these other alternatives (variables) to be part of your science project in science class.

All the examples given by you are garbage. Look, you INSIDE the airplane "at constant speed" in the air, the airplane with a machine which is controlling the inside pressure in order to give you comfort and you won't notice you are flying at high altitudes at high speeds. Try to do the same experiment but you staying OUTSIDE the airplane at that same altitude and same "constant speed".

Can't you see that the dumb boy from the video has pulled your legs?

Same applies with us protected by our atmosphere, and we "can't feel we are traveling at 29 km/s or 66,000 miles per hour". But without our atmosphere you will know that "the laws of physics you have invented" won't work at all. The whole thing with your "invented laws of physics" is crap to the square.

And not only with macrocosm but also with microcosm. The tests with muons at the CERN to validate relativity are so laughable.

The theory of relativity was invented in base of stupid imaginations.This is why the boy from the video and every relativist and relativity defender are also dumb.

 

[james bond]

Yes, the boy from the video is dumb.

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Let's see what we have in terms of takeaways from what he discussed and apply it in real life..

First, we learned about postulate. It's an assumption the person making his claim or argument wants us to accept. In the boy's video, we know from experience that what he states holds true at constant speeds. I mean we observe it.

The OP in this thread makes a postulate, too. He asks, "Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?", but he's trying to make a postulate that it is. However, no one is buying his assumption because we do not observe it. What kind of dumb fuck is the OP? is what I would ask. I was LMAO at this thread.

I'm not going argue about the bowl of popcorn on the roof of the car because then we are dealing with other forces such as the wind and stuff. I even said we assume there is no bumps in the road and anything that would disrupt the reference frame.

Anyway, I hope you understand what a postulate is one day.

The second takeaway is many people think the laws of physics are the same everywhere. However, that's not true. It's only within the inertial reference frame. The laws of physics holds everywhere, another postulate we can observe, but it isn't the same everywhere. Inertial means the property of matter at rest or at constant speed.

As for the rest, you have your own postulates that none of us here can observe. That makes your postulates just as dumb as the OP's.

 

[luchitociencia]

Your navigation software - your smart phone too - would not work without this "fraud".

There is not a single evidence that GPS works thanks to such a fake theory. And less our cell phones. You are just making the usual silly propaganda.

I don't think your propaganda will work in this discussion.

Looks like mother nature blieves in this "fraud" on her own. In this case Albert Einstein was a very great man because his belief in nature was bigger than a mustard seed - and all experiments, which ever were made - and this were a lot - never showed any result which was not part of the theory of relativity.

Einstein never performed a single empirical experiment. Even L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of him making fun of Einstein's "thought experiments". That is what Relativity is about: "Imagine a clock made with mirrors and light beam going from ...", or "imagine this and that..." Read his theories, they are nothing but pure imaginations.

I guess Albert Einstein on his own would be frustrated about the extremely long life of his theory.

It wasn't him in reality, but all the scientists who later found out their legs were pulled by a loony and a fanatic (Einstein and Eddington) and rather than recognizing they were made fools, they decided to spread out the theory in order to cover up their shame. Check how often are the releases in the news propagating how this theory "has been validated one more time". They are desperate brainwashing people's minds continually in order cover up the fraud and maintain their own prestige.

The only problem are little particles with a very very very very little mass, which plays no role in quantum mechanics. But near a black hole...

" a black hole..."

Enough!

So much science fiction from you.

If you continue the way you are doing, with such an obstinate belief in your mind, then it won't be any doubt that the universe is not "that" intelligent after all.

It simply can't be an intelligent entity creating people holding in their minds such absurd ideas.

 

[luchitociencia]

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. Let's see what we have in terms of takeaways from what he discussed and apply it in real life..

First, we learned about postulate. It's an assumption the person making his claim or argument wants us to accept. In the boy's video, we know from experience that what he states holds true at constant speeds. I mean we observe it.

The OP in this thread makes a postulate, too. He asks, "Is the universe an intelligence creating machine?", but he's trying to make a postulate that it is. However, no one is buying his assumption because we do not observe it. What kind of dumb fuck is the OP? is what I would ask. I was LMAO at this thread.

I'm not going argue about the bowl of popcorn on the roof of the car because then we are dealing with other forces such as the wind and stuff. I even said we assume there is no bumps in the road and anything that would disrupt the reference frame.

Anyway, I hope you understand what a postulate is one day.

The second takeaway is many people think the laws of physics are the same everywhere. However, that's not true. It's only within the inertial reference frame. The laws of physics holds everywhere, another postulate we can observe, but it isn't the same everywhere. Inertial means the property of matter at rest or at constant speed.

As for the rest, you have your own postulates that none of us here can observe. That makes your postulates just as dumb as the OP's.

And this is the point.

How are you accepting a postulate in physics made in base of a "perception" obtained solely from a conditioned status?

Lets say, this idea comes from long ago, when a dude in a ship noticed that even when the ship was in motion, he felt like staying at rest. However, the genesis of this "postulate" of yours was to be proven false with lots of people who felt drowsiness traveling in the same ship at the same constant speed.

Relativity adopted that postulate without verifying first how valid was to be used in science. Einstein himself never knew what is time. This is to say, giving a definition of it which includes such a characteristic of be "flexible" and forced to dilate by causes as speed of objects or gravity of bodies.

His whole theory was based solely in inherited conventional ideas to which he added his own imaginations.

The inserting of that video from your part has been a good contribution to clarify that definitively that theory of relativity can;'t be used at all neither in physics and less in religion.

The postulate in progress presented in this topic is nothing new.

There are in existence theories saying that our planet is a living organism. And there is plenty room to think these ideas to be correct as well.

Why not then, to think that the universe itself might be filled with a kind of intelligence? Such couldn't be an obstacle at all for religion, when in the bible it is clear the assertion that "wisdom" was everywhere when the universe was created.

 

[zaangalewa]

Why should matter and energy exist at all in other universes? Ignoramus, ignorabimus. We do not know - we never will know.

And the question is in this case too: Why should space and time exist in other universes? A parallel universe could be a copy of our universe, where only the spin of an electron in the Andromeda galaxy is different - but could also be a universe without space, time, energy, matter - perhaps exists even a parallel universe without natural laws at all - or without mathematics - whatever this could be in this case. And it could exist parallel universes full of nameless structures too.

But it solves not our problem to find out why we exist or who we are. I heard when one of our natural constants would differ only in one number at the 16th (or was it the 40th?) position after the decimal point, then life in our own universe would be impossible. Even when we could take a look at other universes and could decide within a very short time, whether there is life or not, we could search the whole life of our universe for another universe with life and must not find one.

Because we can infer that matter and energy exists in other universes from our universe.

That's impossible, because nothing and no one is able to create or to destroy energy within our universe (matter is practically nothing else than a kind of frozen energy in this context)

It’s just like I can infer that a man comes by nearly every day and delivers mail to you. I can infer this because a man comes by nearly every day to deliver mail to me.

How is he able to deliver a mail, when his way is out of space, out of time, out of energy, out of matter and out of everything what we are able to know? If he is a telepath then he is perhaps able to ask someone who is a telepath too - but for the visualisation of the answer within our own universe he would need energy within this universe here. So someone could perhaps dream or think what's true in another universe - but no one would be able to know this.

Besides space and time only exists because of matter and energy.

Or energy (and matter) exists because of space and time?

Again you are adding unnecessarily complex assumptions

No. It is without any prerequisits, what I said. Your ideas need much more complex relations. Your "prejudice" is you are able to imagine a world like ours in case of a parallel universe. But indeed you know nothing about parallel universes and their structures.

when we already have an example of a universe. Any other universe which existed would look very much like the one we are in.

And all aliens have a humanoid form too? We know here in our universe nothing about aliens. But perhaps we are able to find aliens - if they exist at all. But we never will know in our universe here anything about the reality in another universe. To know something about would only be able when information is able to exist without a carrier. In this case everything would be embedded in "the logos".

You were the one who brought up multiverses.

Did I? Why? ... As a far as I see now as an example for alternatives in context "natural laws" ...

Now you argue they cannot exist.

I spoke about things, which we are not able to know in this context. This means not parallel universes don't exist.

Yes, more than likely all intelligent beings would be similar to humanoids.

A dolphin is intelligent - and an octopus is very intelligent too.

And the intelligence of the dolphin and octopus further prove my point. The complexification of matter and life proves my point too.

Someone has to be blind, who thinks the most matter all around is alive and/or is intelligent. Life on earth is like a breathe of wind. And it was you, who said intelligence needs a humanoid form. I showed you only two forms of concrete biological organisms, where this is not the case.

Your arguments are super disingenuous.

disingenuous? = "unaufrichtig, hinterlistig"? Aha. If you are a German like I, then feel yourself slapped, because of your lack of manners. In all other cases I'm not sure what this means and what you like to say.

What we can know is based upon what we can observe. We can’t observe other universes

Exactly. We can not observe anything in this context. That's basically impossible. What we know in this case is a mathematical speculation. Mathematics on its own is not bound in physical reality.

but we know our universe did begin to exist and we can observe our universe. So we can make inferences of other universes through observations of ours.

What's nonsense. When you never saw a butterlfly, then you are not able to imagine a butterfly. When you only saw a stone in your life, then you never will be able to know anything about the rings of Saturn.

 

[OldLady]

Define intelligence please.

*****SMILE*****

The ability to process abstract thought.

The ability to use deductive reasoning.

The ability to make observations about one’s surroundings to discover order within one’s surroundings so as to be able to make predictions.

These are a few examples of higher order functions.

Do whales, dolphins, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, wolves, beavers, etc,... fit that criteria?

After all even horses laugh.

"I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much... because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting."
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land

*****SMILE*****

Not the level we have attained but they do prove the universe is an intelligence creating machine as they do have intelligence.

Or do they prove that the brain is a fancy machine?

 

[Innocynioc]

Instead of the universe making intelligence intelligence makes the universe. Consciousness creates reality.

 

[james bond]

How are you accepting a postulate in physics made in base of a "perception" obtained solely from a conditioned status?

You're not accepting Einstein's argument for his postulate which makes you look silly. You constantly add some other condition in order to argue against it. You just won't accept laws of mathematics and laws of physics used to formulate a postulate. What you should do is come up with another postulate to counter it if you do not believe that is what we observe. I already got the definition of what inertial means. All you are doing is changing the definition or conditions to suit you. That is stupid. We cannot proceed further in the discussion until you can come up with a postulate to counter what is observed.

From there, we move to POSTULATE 2, which states the speed of light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum regardless of the speed of the source of the light. This is not as easily grasped, i.e. observed and experienced, and Einstein would get wtf? What do you mean by that?

As for the rest, I don't think you have a postulate to counter Einstein's and the boy's explanation of POSTULATE 1, so it's irrelevant.

 

[luchitociencia]

You're not accepting Einstein's argument for his postulate which makes you look silly. You constantly add some other condition in order to argue against it. You just won't accept laws of mathematics and laws of physics used to formulate a postulate. What you should do is come up with another postulate to counter it if you do not believe that is what we observe. I already got the definition of what inertial means. All you are doing is changing the definition or conditions to suit you. That is stupid. We cannot proceed further in the discussion until you can come up with a postulate to counter what is observed.

From there, we move to POSTULATE 2, which states the speed of light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum regardless of the speed of the source of the light. This is not as easily grasped, i.e. observed and experienced, and Einstein would get wtf? What do you mean by that?

As for the rest, I don't think you have a postulate to counter Einstein's and the boy's explanation of POSTULATE 1, so it's irrelevant.

You still are behaving like a dog barking at the moon.

Why don't you simply put a bowl with popcorn inside of it and on the roof of your car and drive at steady 65 mph as I have asked you to do?

Why not simply open the door of an airplane traveling at constant speed at high altitude and check if you feel like being at rest drinking a Margarita in your backyard?

Come on. Prove it to yourself how dumb are the postulates you are based on. Such postulates are only a Relativity thing. Those postulates are not accepted at all in science based on empirical tests using VARIABLES on the same experiment.

I am using the same postulate of yours to prove it wrong. Just by doing a VARIABLE doing the same experiment is not -as you have implied- the application of a different postulate.

Your postulate #2 is another fantasy.

Just carry your 9mm in your car and drive fast and shoot at the air, the same as well, the bullet will travel at its own speed regardless of your motion. Not because you travel fast the bullet will change its own speed coming out from the gun. What it rules the speed of the bullet is the mechanism acting in the gun and the explosive inside the bullet before the shot.

The speed of the bullet will change according to the environment SAME AS WELL the speed of light changes according to the environment, like vacuum, air, water, etc.

Your postulates are dumb and really really suck.

Lets see, have you sent a light from planet Jupiter and received on earth and did the measurement? Did you? How you did it? Or...

No?

Then, how in the world you affirm and appears from you to confirm your postulate #2?

Because you did it from the space station to earth or sending a beam light to a mirror on the Moon are just "SHORT DISTANCES" when we talk about how fast is light.

Those short distances are not even the 0.000000000000000000001% of a distance needed to prove your point.

Come on, your position is the famous "butterfly effect", your theory's postulates are just a butterfly moving up and down the wigs, and according to you, such is enough to originate increasing winds to cause a huge storm on the other side of the planet.

I told you before, the more you add more stuff from your theory, the more ridiculous will be your position.

The theory of relativity is not science, and is less useful for applying it on the biblical religion.

But, discussing this theory in this forum is the right place to do it, because the ones who believe in this theory they do it by faith, by faith alone. Relativity is not supported by any empirical evidence.

 

[ding]

Define intelligence please.

*****SMILE*****

The ability to process abstract thought.

The ability to use deductive reasoning.

The ability to make observations about one’s surroundings to discover order within one’s surroundings so as to be able to make predictions.

These are a few examples of higher order functions.

Do whales, dolphins, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, wolves, beavers, etc,... fit that criteria?

After all even horses laugh.

"I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much... because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting."
― Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger In A Strange Land

*****SMILE*****

Not the level we have attained but they do prove the universe is an intelligence creating machine as they do have intelligence.

Or do they prove that the brain is a fancy machine?

Every part of our anatomy is a fancy machine so to speak. Talk about advanced nanotechnology.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your navigation software - your smart phone too - would not work without this "fraud".

There is not a single evidence that GPS works thanks to such a fake theory.

This "fake-theory" is more than 100 years old meanwhile and no one was able to find any fake. The opposite of a role modell in context "communication" is by the way your fake president Mr. Donald Trump.

And less our cell phones. You are just making the usual silly propaganda.

I'm not able to translate "And less our cell phones" in my own language in this context now. In general has everyone to do with effects of the theory of relativity, who needs an extremely exact time stamp. - Specially in case of big distances and changes in gravitation fields as for example in communication signals in indepedent packages via satellites.

I don't think your propaganda will work in this discussion.

Okay. "Einstein for president!. Hooorray. Kill his enimies. Down with all republicorats." ... You are right. Works not. Einstein is dead. Always the wrong are dead. On the other side: Hitler is dead too.

Looks like mother nature blieves in this "fraud" on her own. In this case Albert Einstein was a very great man because his belief in nature was bigger than a mustard seed - and all experiments, which ever were made - and this were a lot - never showed any result which was not part of the theory of relativity.

Einstein never performed a single empirical experiment.

Theoretical phycisists don't do experiments. And you have a serios problem when you don't know how many experiments tried to falsify the theory of relativity "successless" (= verified the plausibility of this theory).

Even L. Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock laughed of him making fun of Einstein's "thought experiments". That is what Relativity is about: "Imagine a clock made with mirrors and light beam going from ...", or "imagine this and that..." Read his theories, they are nothing but pure imaginations.

I guess Albert Einstein on his own would be frustrated about the extremely long life of his theory.

It wasn't him in reality, but all the scientists who later found out their legs were pulled by a loony and a fanatic (Einstein and Eddington) and rather than recognizing they were made fools, they decided to spread out the theory in order to cover up their shame. Check how often are the releases in the news propagating how this theory "has been validated one more time". They are desperate brainwashing people's minds continually in order cover up the fraud and maintain their own prestige.

The only problem are little particles with a very very very very little mass, which plays no role in quantum mechanics. But near a black hole...

" a black hole..."

Enough!

So much science fiction from you.

If you continue the way you are doing, with such an obstinate belief in your mind, then it won't be any doubt that the universe is not "that" intelligent after all.

It simply can't be an intelligent entity creating people holding in their minds such absurd ideas.

What you say is crazy - and you are on the other side not shy to say this nonsense. Looks like you are convinced from this nonsense - what I am not able to understand. It looks to me you are in a war for senseless stress and aggressions and you decided to produce enemies for to deflect you from your own real problems. Do you think mankind should close all schools, all universities and stop all forms of scientific research?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Instead of the universe making intelligence intelligence makes the universe. Consciousness creates reality.

... and reality creates divinity.

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

You're not accepting Einstein's argument for his postulate which makes you look silly. You constantly add some other condition in order to argue against it. You just won't accept laws of mathematics and laws of physics used to formulate a postulate. What you should do is come up with another postulate to counter it if you do not believe that is what we observe. I already got the definition of what inertial means. All you are doing is changing the definition or conditions to suit you. That is stupid. We cannot proceed further in the discussion until you can come up with a postulate to counter what is observed.

From there, we move to POSTULATE 2, which states the speed of light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum regardless of the speed of the source of the light. This is not as easily grasped, i.e. observed and experienced, and Einstein would get wtf? What do you mean by that?

As for the rest, I don't think you have a postulate to counter Einstein's and the boy's explanation of POSTULATE 1, so it's irrelevant.

You still are behaving like a dog barking at the moon.

Why don't you simply put a bowl with popcorn inside of it and on the roof of your car and drive at steady 65 mph as I have asked you to do?

Why not simply open the door of an airplane traveling at constant speed at high altitude and check if you feel like being at rest drinking a Margarita in your backyard?

Come on. Prove it to yourself how dumb are the postulates you are based on. Such postulates are only a Relativity thing. Those postulates are not accepted at all in science based on empirical tests using VARIABLES on the same experiment.

I am using the same postulate of yours to prove it wrong. Just by doing a VARIABLE doing the same experiment is not -as you have implied- the application of a different postulate.

Your postulate #2 is another fantasy.

Just carry your 9mm in your car and drive fast and shoot at the air, the same as well, the bullet will travel at its own speed regardless of your motion. Not because you travel fast the bullet will change its own speed coming out from the gun. What it rules the speed of the bullet is the mechanism acting in the gun and the explosive inside the bullet before the shot.

The speed of the bullet will change according to the environment SAME AS WELL the speed of light changes according to the environment, like vacuum, air, water, etc.

Your postulates are dumb and really really suck.

Lets see, have you sent a light from planet Jupiter and received on earth and did the measurement? Did you? How you did it? Or...

No?

Then, how in the world you affirm and appears from you to confirm your postulate #2?

Because you did it from the space station to earth or sending a beam light to a mirror on the Moon are just "SHORT DISTANCES" when we talk about how fast is light.

Those short distances are not even the 0.000000000000000000001% of a distance needed to prove your point.

Come on, your position is the famous "butterfly effect", your theory's postulates are just a butterfly moving up and down the wigs, and according to you, such is enough to originate increasing winds to cause a huge storm on the other side of the planet.

I told you before, the more you add more stuff from your theory, the more ridiculous will be your position.

The theory of relativity is not science, and is less useful for applying it on the biblical religion.

But, discussing this theory in this forum is the right place to do it, because the ones who believe in this theory they do it by faith, by faith alone. Relativity is not supported by any empirical evidence.

LMAO.

 

[ding]

Intelligence was preordained to arise. It is built into existence.

 

[Taz]

Intelligence was preordained to arise. It is built into existence.

Then why don't you have any?

 

[Mindful]

Intelligence was preordained to arise. It is built into existence.

Then why don't you have any?

 

[ding]

Intelligence was preordained to arise. It is built into existence.

Then why don't you have any?

Dunning effect.

 

[ding]

Intelligence is built into the fabric of existence because it is the point of existence.

 

[Taz]

Intelligence is built into the fabric of existence because it is the point of existence.

Then why isn't everyone intelligent?

 

[Mindful]

Intelligence is built into the fabric of existence because it is the point of existence.

Then why isn't everyone intelligent?

Awaiting his erudite reply.