Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah To : Todd Henson From : Chuck Pierson Date : Tue Oct 24 2000 06:28 am -=> On 10-24-00 02:44, TODD HENSON wrote to CHUCK PIERSON <=- > > > 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. TH> I can agree with the stagnation comment, as far as humans go. But I see TH> little reason to anthropomorphize the universe and arbitrarily project TH> human personality aspects to the space-time continuum, no more than I TH> would do such to my car, although mild anthopomorphic figures of TH> speech are common. You made the topmost comment here, using a scenario in which the universe had some intelligence, and should know itself pretty well, thereby my responce wouldn't make a whole lot of sense unless it also used those same assumptions. I realize you didn't originate that line of thought in this thread, yet you yourself projected human aspects on the universe when you said it should know itself. > 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, TH> If the universe increases the knowledge of itself over time, and if it TH> has had an INFINITE amount of time to accomplish this task, TH> then the conclusion I made is pretty clear. That was the TH> specific scenario I mentioned. Again, time is relative. I'm 30 years old, probably one of the younger people in this forum. So in this case I'm young and still have a long way to go. But if you ask my children, I'm as old as dirt and have been around forever. Personally, I think I've learned a lot in my life, but I also know that I have a lot more to learn. Right there you've got three different viewpoints of the same length of time. TH> And if the universe is not temporally infinite, then that brings the TH> question of where it came from. Using the premise we've been going by here, that would be analogous to the question of where did God come 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? TH> This entire hypothetical scenario has such an anthopomorphic assumtion TH> as a given, which I object to. That means that the scenario itself is TH> stacked in favor of using such language, but again, I have stated that TH> I do not even believe the "living universe" is true, but I did go so TH> far as to state some objections in the same kind of language that the TH> original premise was formed in. It's quite obvious that you don't agree with the premise. Yet as you did state your objections using the same anthropomorphic assumptions, I'd at least have hoped that you would at least listen to another possible proposal still using the same assumptions instead of dismissing the entire premisse out of hand once you thought you had made your point. > 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. TH> How is consciousness and intelligence different in this case? The TH> assumed context was a universe which possessed intelligent TH> consciousness. Would you suggest that the kind of TH> consciousness that the universe possess is closer to an animal one? If by that you are suggesting more of an instinctual one rather than an intellectual one, it could be a possibility. I'm not claiming to know anything. The terms consciousness and intelligence do have a difference in my thinking, although trying to define them is a bit complicated for me, at least so far as explaining it to someone else. To use another imprecise analogy it's like the difference between action and reaction. .... That's right, try hard to be good at the game of life. ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.37 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The Underground (1:106/1234) .