Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah To : Todd Henson From : Chuck Pierson Date : Thu Oct 26 2000 05:43 am -=> On 10-26-00 02:11, 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 > > TH> as humans go. But I see > > TH> little reason to anthropomorphize the universe > > TH> and arbitrarily project > > TH> human personality aspects to the space-time > > TH> 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> Change your attitude and perhaps I might feel the motivation to offer TH> something better. Silly statements like that aren't necessary. You're reply of "Oh well." to my previous response is a definate brush off remark. What sort of attitude do I seem to be showing? I've attempted to make bonifide comments to things you've said. > > > 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 > > TH> 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> You're committing the error of mixing two different categories here. I TH> was speaking of the length of time, and you injected human QUALITY TH> opinions regarding a given stretch of time. If I say TH> that a particular length of time is one year, then citing that one TH> person thinks that is "short" and that another person thinks it's TH> "long" is not relevant. But dealing with such matters as self-learning and reflection involve such opinions, as it takes each individual a different amount of time to reach self-understanding. Something which might take you a short time to realize might take me a while longer, and vice versa. > > > 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 > > TH> anthopomorphic assumtion > > TH> as a given, which I object to. That means that > > TH> the scenario itself is > > TH> stacked in favor of using such language, but > > TH> 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 > > TH> 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> For reasons that just explained in this very reply. And, they weren't TH> mere "summary" dismissals. So they weren't summary dismissals. Just dismissed because of a supposed as yet unexplained attitude of mine with a minimal reason given. > > > 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> Where did it get such instincts? I don't know. > 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. TH> As are yours, unfortunately. Man, you really can't take criticism of TH> ideas without getting hostile, can you? How have I gotten hostile? In fact, I think I've shown pretty good restraint. I've replied to your sarcasm in kind, and left things at that. I have no reason to get hostile, since I've said before I'm dealing in hypothetical situations. .... Waiting to overcome all objections, results in nothing. ___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.37 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: The Underground (1:106/1234) .