Does The Universe Have a Purpose?

[ding]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ding]

I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, we've actually had it before. in that discussion, you often retreated from responding directly to me and instead queried my credentials.. as one would expect of a charlatan like you, Ding. You, of course, said false things that you made up to snap fit your religious paradigm, then recoiled from any real challenge to the things you made up. everyone knows that discussion is pointless with such a charlatan.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, we've actually had it before. in that discussion, you often retreated from responding directly to me and instead queried my credentials.. as one would expect of a charlatan like you, Ding. You, of course, said false things that you made up to snap fit your religious paradigm, then recoiled from any real challenge to the things you made up. everyone knows that discussion is pointless with such a charlatan.

Can you link to that? Because I dispute that.

Does that mean you are qualified to have this discussion? If so, let's hear what you got.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, we've actually had it before. in that discussion, you often retreated from responding directly to me and instead queried my credentials.. as one would expect of a charlatan like you, Ding. You, of course, said false things that you made up to snap fit your religious paradigm, then recoiled from any real challenge to the things you made up. everyone knows that discussion is pointless with such a charlatan.

Can you link to that? Because I dispute that.

Does that mean you are qualified to have this discussion? If so, let's hear what you got.

You have already heard much of it. Ding, your desperate attempts to focus on credentials (while, naturally, lying about your own on an anonymous message board) is a charlatan's tactic older than dirt. Go pester someone else with your magical nonsense.

 

[ding]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, we've actually had it before. in that discussion, you often retreated from responding directly to me and instead queried my credentials.. as one would expect of a charlatan like you, Ding. You, of course, said false things that you made up to snap fit your religious paradigm, then recoiled from any real challenge to the things you made up. everyone knows that discussion is pointless with such a charlatan.

Can you link to that? Because I dispute that.

Does that mean you are qualified to have this discussion? If so, let's hear what you got.

You have already heard much of it. Ding, your desperate attempts to focus on credentials (while, naturally, lying about your own on an anonymous message board) is a charlatan's tactic older than dirt. Go pester someone else with your magical nonsense.

So then you can't tell me one little thing about how the second law of entropy may seem like it is being violated because of the increasing complexity of life and natural order of life?

 

[ding]

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

Only to an untrained mind.

There are several ways of looking at entropy. Do you believe you are qualified to have this discussion? I'd be glad to have it, but not if you don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, we've actually had it before. in that discussion, you often retreated from responding directly to me and instead queried my credentials.. as one would expect of a charlatan like you, Ding. You, of course, said false things that you made up to snap fit your religious paradigm, then recoiled from any real challenge to the things you made up. everyone knows that discussion is pointless with such a charlatan.

Can you link to that? Because I dispute that.

Does that mean you are qualified to have this discussion? If so, let's hear what you got.

You have already heard much of it. Ding, your desperate attempts to focus on credentials (while, naturally, lying about your own on an anonymous message board) is a charlatan's tactic older than dirt. Go pester someone else with your magical nonsense.

Do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[G.T.]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BUT WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[OldLady]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

Everything you've said is the way I was thinking, too, but after 4,000 years or so of philosophers justifying the existence of a Creator, there's got to be some logical arguments for it. Doesn't there? I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

 

[G.T.]

 

[G.T.]

BUT WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS?!?!?!?!?!?!

No matter, Tyson puts it quite more succinctly.

Entropy is often used in Creationist arguments, and in spite of there being valid counter arguments, theyre glad to use them as PROOF of ..

anything.

Charlatan was the correct word.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.

Absolutely. It's a very odd thing to see, when someone who claims to be so strong in his faith then, out the other side of his neck, tries to argue that it is not faith at all, but rather evidence-based determination. It belies the truth, in that they know they render themselves impotent and anti-intellectual to just admit they accept belief based on, "Because i say so". So, instead, we get treated to this endless exercise of charlatanry and and equivocation. It's as if he is afraid to march under his own flag.

 

[G.T.]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

Everything you've said is the way I was thinking, too, but after 4,000 years or so of philosophers justifying the existence of a Creator, there's got to be some logical arguments for it. Doesn't there? I'm just giving ding a chance to explain why. Maybe the turkey dinner will explain it.

Philosophers have put holes in every syllogism thats attempted to prove a deity, rationally.

Pick any one of them...

the tag argument

the kalam cosmological argument...



They all have errors, and these errors are why God requires faith. Its not rationally n'or empirically proven to exist to any peer reviewed/testable satisfaction, which is why faith is in the mix at all.

So it would make more sense for Ding to just say "I believe in a Creator and God" and be done with all that trying to make it logical in some way.
I would definitely respect that. Crummy logic though, that I can argue without going to hell, I think.

Those are my sentiments, as well.

Saying that we dont know when it's literally empirical that we don't know is the rational and honest thing to do, and it always leaves open the door for improving our flawed understanding of things.

Faith is one thing, closing the door on being wrong is just a breeding grounds for ignorance.

 

[OldLady]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

They were if intelligence is the intention of the laws of nature.

That's putting the cart before the horse, though, ding.
The entire ecosystem of our planet is also mind bogglingly intricate. My Japanese maple is not intelligent, though, and probably never will be.

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

But there is no disputing that as the arrow of life increased the complexity of life increased. That is the nature of a highly complex adaptive system. The real question is why is that the nature of highly complex adaptive systems and the answer to that appears to me to be intelligence is trying to emerge. Did you know that even plants can have what is described as intelligence?

I don't know the "reason" for that. To me, it just seems that things grow and evolve because they do. If they grow and evolve in a way that allows them to survive, they do it some more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

They were if intelligence is the intention of the laws of nature.

That's putting the cart before the horse, though, ding.
The entire ecosystem of our planet is also mind bogglingly intricate. My Japanese maple is not intelligent, though, and probably never will be.

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

But there is no disputing that as the arrow of life increased the complexity of life increased. That is the nature of a highly complex adaptive system. The real question is why is that the nature of highly complex adaptive systems and the answer to that appears to me to be intelligence is trying to emerge. Did you know that even plants can have what is described as intelligence?

I don't know the "reason" for that. To me, it just seems that things grow and evolve because they do. If they grow and evolve in a way that allows them to survive, they do it some more.

Correct, of course. Else, they die out. Mammals who have gone to ground as a species have non functioning eyes, so that energy can be used for something else. That is not evolution wirh complexity in mind. That is the very non random pressure of selection operating on a physical system. It is fundamentally not different than the selection for the shape of water molecules, or for the birth of stars. Or,for the death of stars.

 

[OldLady]

You've totally lost me. First, I don't "know" anything from #11 on. Observing and figuring out how the universe works doesn't mean anything except that we have observed and figured out some of its "laws," or how it works. How you leap from that to saying that what IS had a reason, and that reason is to create intelligence and that "mind" created the physical universe is where I fell off the step.
Maybe I'm not smart enough to jump in here, but even explaining how you got from #10 to #11 would be helpful.

It was discussed earlier. But I am happy enough to explain relevance for any of it.

We know from our study of nature that we live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect and every effect had a cause. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Therefore, since we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect this means that everything happens for a reason. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. therefore since everything happens for a reason, everything has a purpose.

Nah. Cause and effect I get. Tying in purpose still doesn't make sense.
Maybe you need to give me some more concrete examples.

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

Unfortunately, yes. Thank God you're going bring it down to earth.

What was the reason you made it?

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

 

[G.T.]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

They were if intelligence is the intention of the laws of nature.

That's putting the cart before the horse, though, ding.
The entire ecosystem of our planet is also mind bogglingly intricate. My Japanese maple is not intelligent, though, and probably never will be.

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

But there is no disputing that as the arrow of life increased the complexity of life increased. That is the nature of a highly complex adaptive system. The real question is why is that the nature of highly complex adaptive systems and the answer to that appears to me to be intelligence is trying to emerge. Did you know that even plants can have what is described as intelligence?

I don't know the "reason" for that. To me, it just seems that things grow and evolve because they do. If they grow and evolve in a way that allows them to survive, they do it some more.

Not only that, but natural selection is not even linear in each genetic mutation.

There are such things at "negative" mutations, meaning, less conducive to survival. Over time, lawwwts of time, non beneficial mutations are reproduced out. Also, more are forming. That's because something is not reproducing all that much if it's dying. The process is random and the results have been duplicated.

Want to know something even crazier?

Our "intelligence" can have negative effects on our mutations, because we "usurped" the process and now folks are reproducing en masse whether they have ideal traits for survival or not, because we are now protected from natural processes (being hunted) by other means. (tools)

 

[G.T.]

It was discussed earlier. But I am happy enough to explain relevance for any of it.

We know from our study of nature that we live in a deterministic universe where every cause has an effect and every effect had a cause. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. Therefore, since we live in a logical universe where every cause has an effect this means that everything happens for a reason. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. therefore since everything happens for a reason, everything has a purpose.

Nah. Cause and effect I get. Tying in purpose still doesn't make sense.
Maybe you need to give me some more concrete examples.

Have you ever made a turkey dinner?

Unfortunately, yes. Thank God you're going bring it down to earth.

What was the reason you made it?

My mother was in Aruba. There were a few important people who required turkey. The one with ovaries gets the job.

My Honeymoon was in Aruba.

<3 I wanna go back.


Its small, though....so Im not sure Id be able to live there. Plus outdoor basketball in Aruba is totally out of the question in any serious sense, because of the wind. Dammit!

 

[ding]

Intentionality is where the fallacy is occurring.

All effects have causes, that we've observed.

All effects were not INTENTIONALLY caused(or, a "goal").. and that is where the leap is being made.

They were if intelligence is the intention of the laws of nature.

That's putting the cart before the horse, though, ding.
The entire ecosystem of our planet is also mind bogglingly intricate. My Japanese maple is not intelligent, though, and probably never will be.

Yes, it is complexity upon complexity. It is complex adaptive systems within complex adaptive systems which seem to defy the law of entropy.

But there is no disputing that as the arrow of life increased the complexity of life increased. That is the nature of a highly complex adaptive system. The real question is why is that the nature of highly complex adaptive systems and the answer to that appears to me to be intelligence is trying to emerge. Did you know that even plants can have what is described as intelligence?

I don't know the "reason" for that. To me, it just seems that things grow and evolve because they do. If they grow and evolve in a way that allows them to survive, they do it some more.

So then you believe intelligence is just an accident and there is no real purpose to the universe or existence?

Are things like music, mathematics, poetry and science just curious artifacts? Things that some people are born with natural talents for?