Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah
To   : CHUCK PIERSON
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Mon Oct 23 2000 07:44 pm

> SGID: 1:106/1234.0 39f48eea
> -=> On 10-23-00 04:38, TODD HENSON wrote to JOHN WILSON <=-
> 
>  >  My opinion (veering onto belief) is that
>  >
>  >  1. The universe is alive.
>  >
>  >  2. It's Purpose is to understand itself.
>  >
>  >  3. All knowledge (of anything) is a part of that process.
>  >
>  >  4. Which is justification enough for man's existance.
> 
> 
>  TH> If the universe was smart enough to form for itself the beautiful set
>  TH> of laws and principles that we call "physics", then it would seem to
>  TH> know itself pretty well already.
> 
> But the argument could be made that much as we humans are continuously
> trying to better understand ourselves, the universe is doing the same.  To
> not try and learn more than you do seems to me to lead to stagnation. 


I can agree with the stagnation comment, as far as humans go. But I see
little reason to 
anthropomorphize the universe and arbitrarily project human personality
aspects to the 
space-time continuum, no more than I would do such to my car, although mild
anthopomorphic 
figures of speech are common.


>  TH> And how long has the universe been around? Forever? If so, then it
>  TH> would already have had enough time to get to know itself. If it hasn't
>  TH> been around forever, then where did it come from, and who made it? A
>  TH> momma universe?
> 
> Time is very much a relative thing. Much as some forms of animal life
> register their life in days compared to our years, something as vast as the
> universe a few billion years could seem like merely weeks or months would to
> us.  You're assumption that the universe could know it self well in the time
> it has existed based on another assumption that the workings of the
> intelligence of the universe works in the same manner as human intelligence,


If the universe increases the knowledge of itself over time, and if it has
had an INFINITE amount 
of time to accomplish this task, then the conclusion I made is pretty
clear. That was the 
specific scenario I mentioned.

And if the universe is not temporally infinite, then that brings the
question of where it came from.


> which is doing precisely the same thing as what I did with my 'making
> things' analogy between man and God, which you would not accept.  How then
> are you so ready to make the same comparison between Man and Universe and
> expect it to be as accepted?


This entire hypothetical scenario has such an anthopomorphic assumtion as a
given, which I 
object to. That means that the scenario itself is stacked in favor of using
such language, but 
again, I have stated that I do not even believe the "living universe" is
true, but I did go so far as 
to state some objections in the same kind of language that the original
premise was formed in.


>  TH> What would lead a person to think that space-time has intelligence in
>  TH> the first place?
> 
> The way I see it, everything that has life has some level of intelligence,
> so if you accept the Universe as living, it has intelligence.  Consciousness
> is something different.


How is consciousness and intelligence different in this case? The assumed
context was a 
universe which possessed intelligent consciousness. Would you suggest that
the kind of 
consciousness that the universe possess is closer to an animal one?


>  TH> But, I know that to actually examine an idea is something that you
>  TH> consider evil...
> 
> 
> How's that for a bit of examination?  Although truthfully, most of that came
> off the top of my head.


I could tell :-)  Fascinating nonetheless. :-)
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.