Order vs. Randomness

[Mr. Moncrieff]

I have a lot of time for the multiverse theory that there are infinite universes being infinitely created outside of our own. Eventually, by sheer scale of numerical odds, our finely tuned universe would have to be brought into existence.

Again, it's a theory... But it holds a lot of invested time for me.

[Rayaan]

Citation needed.

So, yeah, I still haven't found anything that refutes the quotes that I presented regarding Taoism and what is says about patterns in nature.

Citations needed? Hehe, don't think you're fooling me because I know you're not blind ...


But still, here they are (the citations, as you asked):

---

Trust in Nature as an Organic Pattern

The Chinese yin-yang conception of nature is an organic reproduction pattern of nature and the cosmos. Nature exists outside of and beyond human control. Taoists regard this human embedding in larger universal processes with wonder, awe, and deep appreciation.

In nature, there is an ordering - dizzying and exquisite in its variety - that exists endlessly. (Think of the infinitely proportioned, kaleidoscopic images of fractal geometry, and you'll begin to get a sense of the intricacy, beauty, and endless "scalability" of natural patterns in the Taoist view.)

This order, this series of resonances, is both indescribably vast and intricately interdependent. It is an order that includes other "makers' of order - like bees and humans. The associated notion from the poem "Desiderata" - that we are all children of the universe, on a par with the planets and the stars, and that the universe unfolds in the proper way whether or not we recognize it as doing so - comes close to providing a parallel with the Taoist reverence of nature and its patterns.

---

Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.

... whereas you hold the opposite view even though you're a Taoist yourself. Here is the citation for that, as you asked:

My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.

Either your opinion above is incorrect or the citations above are incorrect, because they are clearly contradictory views.

If you think that the cited quotes are incorrect, then simply show something to prove it.

[Angrboda]

If you think that the cited quotes are incorrect, then simply show something to prove it.

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Chapter one, verse one, line one of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.

You were tasked with providing two citations. You only provided one, from a book for idiots.

---

I challenge you to a formal debate with one necessary condition:

The question: Is there good reason to believe the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator?

The condition: You give up your staff privileges for the duration of the debate. You've already shown with Jacob smooth that you can't be trusted to behave ethically with regard to your administrator privileges when it comes to members' private information. You received the typical slap on the wrist for your lack of judgement. Spare the rod spoil the child. If this is going to be a fair fight, you must return to normal member status for the duration of it.

I await your reply.

[Rayaan]

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

Chapter one, verse one, line one of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu.

And that has nothing to do with the Taoist conception of the existence of underlying patterns in nature, nor does it refute the quotes that I posted.

You were tasked with providing two citations. You only provided one, from a book for idiots.

And that's a lie. I did provide two: One from the "The Complete Idiots Guide to Taoism" and another one from Wikipedia.

I challenge you to a formal debate with one necessary condition:

The question: Is there good reason to believe the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator?

The condition: You give up your staff privileges for the duration of the debate. You've already shown with Jacob smooth that you can't be trusted to behave ethically with regard to your administrator privileges when it comes to members' private information. You received the typical slap on the wrist for your lack of judgement. Spare the rod spoil the child. If this is going to be a fair fight, you must return to normal member status for the duration of it.

I await your reply.

Nice try, but no ... I'll have a formal debate whenever I want to and about whatever topic that I wish, but you can't push me into anything.

"Is there good reason to believe the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator?"

^ You mean, you're challenging me to debate that topic with another theist? LOL.

And I don't have to give up staff privileges just to have a formal debate.

[Angrboda]

You were tasked with providing two citations. You only provided one, from a book for idiots.

And that's a lie. I did provide two: One from the "The Complete Idiots Guide to Taoism" and another one from Wikipedia.

You were asked to provide a citation showing what I said. Neither of those are citations of anything I said.

... you said that you consider elegance to be a property existing in a rather "disorganized pattern." ...

You provided no such citation.

---

I challenge you to a formal debate with one necessary condition:

The question: Is there good reason to believe the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator?

The condition: You give up your staff privileges for the duration of the debate. You've already shown with Jacob smooth that you can't be trusted to behave ethically with regard to your administrator privileges when it comes to members' private information. You received the typical slap on the wrist for your lack of judgement. Spare the rod spoil the child. If this is going to be a fair fight, you must return to normal member status for the duration of it.

I await your reply.

Nice try, but no ... I'll have a formal debate whenever I want to and about whatever topic that I wish, but you can't push me into anything.

Who's pushing anybody? You faulted me for not debating you in depth. When I agree to debate you in-depth, you decline. That ends this debate.

If you're not willing to debate me in return, don't make insinuations that I'm somehow dishonest and untrue for declining to debate.

[Rayaan]

You were asked to provide a citation showing what I said. Neither of those are citations of anything I said.

I already a provided a citation of what you said (and even used a colored font) in post # 92.

Here it is once again:

My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.

And then I provided two quotes (one from a book and one from Wikipedia) which show that Taoism teaches the opposite of what you said. Here are the links:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BRdmQzA...&q&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Descrip...he_concept

From Wikipedia:
"Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered."

Who's pushing anybody? You faulted me for not debating you in depth. When I agree to debate you in-depth, you decline. That ends this debate.

Go ahead and quote the exact sentence where I faulted you for "not debating" with me.


(I'm amused by how foolishly you're burying yourself deeper as you reply).

[Angrboda]

My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.

... you said that you consider elegance to be a property existing in a rather "disorganized pattern." ...

Leaving out key words that changes the meaning of what someone wrote is quoting out of context.

And now I'm done with you. You're too stupid for words.

Goodbye.

[Rayaan]

I don't actually see a meaningful difference between "disorganized pattern throughout mathematical space" and "disorganized pattern throughout space."

The idea of "disorganized pattern" itself is already a mathematical concept, so whether or not you add the word "mathematical" after it doesn't' make a difference; it just makes it superfluous.


Oh well, goodbye then, although you're welcome to come back to this whenever you change your mind again.

[fr0d0]

Rayaan old buddy... Could you make a bash me thread so we can take our frustrations on you please? I for one would rate you as my top crash test dummy!

Pwetty please?

[Rayaan]

Nope, sorry, your frustrations are not so important to me. And it's not my cup of tea to make bash me threads ... except when *I* intend to do the bashing.

Leaving out key words that changes the meaning of what someone wrote is quoting out of context.

BTW, rasetsu, you know that I quoted the entire sentence - from the beginning to the period - so members can still read the quote in context regardless of whatever emphasis I added.

This same quote

My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.

was cited here, here, here, and here ... each time in full ... and then finally you came up with the excuse that I quoted you out of context (which is untrue).

Plus, what is more plainly obvious to me is your lie that I faulted you for "not debating with me," as you wrote here:

Who's pushing anybody? You faulted me for not debating you in depth. When I agree to debate you in-depth, you decline. That ends this debate.

And then you just scampered away after I asked you to quote the sentence where I did that.

You thought you'd be able to get away with putting words in my mouth, but unfortunately it didn't work for you.