Natural Order and Science

[paulpablo]

You don't understand the concept of the term law in this context, this is the third time I've told you.  You seem to be ignoring me because you're still making incorrect statements about scientific laws.

I never ignored you paulpablo. I would be happy if you educate me about law in the context that you favour.

You just have to google search what scientific laws are as opposed to laws that aren't scientific.

I think you were ignoring the part where I said scientific laws are observations and predictions, it isn't the laws themselves that control anything, I told you this yet you still went on to say scientific laws control and govern things

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why not you give a try to answer my questions instead of blaming and accusing in empty space?

If you want to talk prove that space fairy called god exist. Note that your nonsense about uncreated god isn't proof and your special pleading is just pathetic.

[robvalue]

An infinite regress is a never ending chain, with no fixed beginning.

This could be an infinite series of nested realities, each one having a parent, and being in some way a manifestation of an aspect of the parent.

I'm not proposing this is the case, I just note that it is logically consistent. We don't know how realities other than this one operate (if there are any), or how their structure might work. Trying to model them on how this reality works is a baseless extrapolation and/or fallacy of composition. Our naive concepts of time and causality, again relating only to observing our own reality, do not equip us to make statements about goings on "outside" of it.

This would of course give rise to an "infinite number of realities". This intuitively seems impossible, but that is not an argument against reality.

This will probably always be unfalsifiable, making it as useless as any other unfalsifiable proposition.

Think of a fractal, that you can zoom in and out of as many times as you like. That's about the best way I could visualise it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

What does that even mean??

That means you do not know philosophy.

Your response tells me that you cannot explain the assumptions that you have made.

I'm a professional scientist with the view that 95% of philosophy is pointless and irrelevant mental masturbation. Anyone that truly knows what they are talking about should be able to explain to lay people.

What this tells me is that you do not.

[robvalue]

Haha. I fully admit my "infinite nested realities" idea is mental masturbation.

I agree that philosophy is interesting, but it often has no practical applications at all if you're not careful. It's why falsifiability is so important. It supports science, but it is not science.

You can't talk things into existence

[bennyboy]

There are other possibilities than God vs. plain-jane physicalism

For example, an elemental particle might be a universe-- THE universe-- Big Banging and contracting a gazillion times a second. That would mean that all reality is a practically infinite view of a single philosophical principle interacting with itself in myrida ways.

Or there could be a duality: mankind creates a universe-creating machine, and the universe unfolds (inevitably) to that moment over and over again forever.

Or each black hole, at its inception, might represent a new Big Bang in a kind of anti-universe, and each black hole in that might be linked to our own Big Bang in a kind of Escher-like co-creation.

I mention these because fuck it, if we're going to start making up bullshit to answer philosophical questions, let's at least have some fun. That's better than a fucking fairytale God who disapprovingly watches teen boys jerk in the shower and commands His followers to cut off the heads of anyone smarter, richer or more educated than they are-- which is almost everybody.

[Angrboda]

3. Models with predictive capabilities useful than models without predictive capabilities.

I see most of you are favouring models without predictive capabilities by supporting the ideas that processes can be self-subsistent and that things can pop out from nowhere. The interesting point here is that none of the proponents of these absurd ideas have any evidence to support their absurdity. These two ideas if become the reality then they have potential to transform universe into most unpredictable place that means total anarchy.

This is bullshit. The laws of nature as such are descriptive of the way things behave universally. That is not chaos but a maximum of order and predictability. You're just spewing word salad here.

Initially I have raised few question the essence of which was:

What is the source of that intelligent code that is controlling all the events in the universe in intelligent way?

Alas! No one has come up with a decent philosophical or scientific response.

That's because you stuck your fingers in your ears and went, "la la la, I can't hear you." But more on this later.

5. If universe does not depend on God then whatever it depends upon is God

The word God here is just a placeholder for a necessary first cause. That first cause could be a god, or another universe, or something we are completely unaware of. In no sense does it imply the traditional God of the JudeoChristian traditions. It need not be conscious or a being of any kind. You could just as easily have written, "If universe does not depend on X then whatever it depends upon is X." It means the same thing either way. X is unspecified.

Whether genetic instructions produce specific proteins or gravitation controls cosmic balance, every event is controlled by some system of coding which cause all events to happen on specific and predictable pattern and thus making the universe predictable and intelligible for human intellect.

This is just a bare assertion without support. It and the rest of this spiel can be dismissed with just cause. There is no evidence that gravity represents a "coding system" and the only thing that suggests it does is your bare assertion. Surely you can do better than suggesting that everything is a result of systems of coding "because I said so." That's worthless and is no justification for accepting your statement as true.

However, invention of any coding system always requires an intelligent origin and matter as such is unable to generate any code. Humans on the other side are the only agent who have the capacity to produce code however code of nature is not written by humans.

As matter cannot generate code on its own and human is not the author therefore there should be some author, a thinking being, who voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity in writing code for the conduct of every single object in the universe.

An intelligent activity always requires an intelligent source. Whoever or whatever is controlling all the activities through systematic coding system in the universe is God.

Since you've not demonstrated that there is or are such coding systems other than a bare assertion that there are, your conclusion here is nothing more than the product of bare assertion and is easily dismissed. You assert there is a God. I assert that there is no God. The assertions cancel each other out.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Or each black hole, at its inception, might represent a new Big Bang in a kind of anti-universe, and each black hole in that might be linked to our own Big Bang in a kind of Escher-like co-creation.

Actually some astrophysicists have seriously proposed the idea that each black hole can create a new universe. It would answer a few questions, like how expansion of the universe is accelerating, where the information goes when matter falls in and how you can have blackholes of different sizes and why our universe started with nothing but energy. I don't think any have proposed that it is somehow linked to our own Big Bang though.

I'm not a physicist so I don't know how plausible this idea is. But then physicists are always coming up with off the wall ideas.

[ignoramus]

Why can't black holes be worm holes?

[robvalue]