Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah To : Todd Henson From : Chuck Pierson Date : Wed Oct 25 2000 05:02 am -=> On 10-25-00 01:49, TODD HENSON wrote to CHUCK PIERSON <=- > > TH> If the universe was smart enough to form for > > TH> 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> Oh well. I read this message three or four times before I began this reply, and keep getting a mental image of discussions I've had with my 11 year old daughter. > > 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 > > TH> 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> Human perceptions of what they think is a long life are irrelevant, and TH> are in a completely different category altogether than what I was TH> referring to. How is it different? You're projecting the way humans perceive time in you assumption that the universe has had an INFINITE amount of time to increase it's self-knowledge. > 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. TH> Hmmmm....Yes, it WOULD at least be related, wouldn't it? What just happened? You actually agree with a comment I've made based on these theorectical discussions. > > 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> I'm all ears. Then why was my earlier comment summarily dismissed? > > TH> What would lead a person to think that space-time > > TH> 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. TH> If the universe did not possess intelligence, then how did it create TH> life in the first place? If it does not possess intelligence, then it TH> would not have the capacity to learn about itself in the sense TH> that John Wilson was suggesting in the first place. Perhaps it's an instinctual thing. TH> And as you can see, this line of thought is getting somewhat silly, TH> fast. I'd say it'se related to the original premise. And I see your instincts are working well. > 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. TH> Alrighty. Is that another dismissal or a semi-acceptance of my description? .... 'Not nice Hobbits, not sensible!' ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.37 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The Underground (1:106/1234) .