Intelligent or unintelligent?

[greenbug]

Intelligent design, Who created who? The idea that perception defines reality would suggest that man created God. That we think life is complex, too complex for any natural process denounces existence. If life is a pyramid of steps taken, threw causality, to create more life (to suggest an intelligent design) then wouldn’t those steps be natural?

What if God was created threw a universe that relies on the perception of individuals? God him self would then be an intelligent design and of course every property that perception defines would be interlinked, so separating whether we created or God created us would be impossible to say. Yet perception defining reality maybe natural, why would we believe that the complexities of life are unnatural?

If God created us, then I question the first moments of God. Eternal is a hard concept to perceive. Although the distance of time is mind-boggling as well as the complexities of reality, that is to what reality is and whether or not we would be able to perceive moments in times history. The first moments ‘of’ our comprehension would define what we would be able to perceive as reality. That is only saying that in my life time I will only ever be able to understand so much and not all that is, yet I also assume that is true for all, including a God, as eternal is infinite. So the start of comprehension is linked to the progression of reality and so our perception is contained with in those boundaries. As this would be true for all including any God, Gods comprehension or understanding of what is what created or designed us. In that philosophy, we always existed, rather then being created.

To simplify that in math is to say, if time is eternal or infinite then possibility for any thing is also infinite and so nothing could ever be created, as it already existed, by the definition of an infinite possibility.

I guess what I’m thinking in all this is that intelligence is natural; it is simply a reflection of what already is. Either in an infinite loop or in a starting point that progressively becomes causality, design (how we define it) reflects our intelligence.

[austintorn@aol.com]

What if All was not of cause and effect (since that would go on forever), but was of an equation of symmetry (or of a principle, as Thor refers to it)?

See ProfPat's 'Idea' thread, for that topic has just begun and is ongoing there.

You're right that nothing could ever have been created—and that leaves Somebody out.

[SteveA]

I think a good question, Greenbug, would be to ask about specifically which version of a God we'd be talking about. If it's one that made people or life on Earth, then that could easily be something different that what might have created the universe or if we go further, if something created everything, what properties might we expect it to have (I don't think we'd be able to say much about that).

Also, if a God created us, then I'd assume that could also include our thoughts and then we could run into the question of what would such a God have wanted our thoughts to be on the subject etc.

I can imagine there could have been something that might have intentionally created the place and maybe for specific reasons, but at least when it comes to some inner core or whatever there could like a soul that is specifically me, I have a feeling nothing else created that (not that I guess I'd know in any event) ... as for the rest of it, I don't know how I got here, but I assume something must have caught my eye

Here's something to think about, even if we assume that something created the universe and populated it with various souls, how could that specifically select you or me ... it would seem that the uniqueness of oneself is determined by oneself and nothing else could specifically select that. So if a God figuratively rounded up 100 billion souls to populate the place, it would seem that whether or not some specific soul was in this collection would be determined by itself and its own properties and not specifically by that God.

I think there's something uniquely individual about each and every thing and nothing outside of that created this uniqueness, so if there is/was a God that created everything then it would appear to have created everything as unique and I'd assume that from there, the rest of it wouldn't need any more assistance.

[greenbug]

Individuality is supported by everything that surounds it. That spot or its place can not be occupied by any thing else, hence its individuality.

Half of anything is directly related to an inverse. As is the square of anything is directly related to an inverse. The inverse of two squares is individuality as the individual is now indirectly related to half of either of the squares.

Half of God may still be God but a perspective that is an individual perspective of any other half or part of God, as it is in whole defined by its own division. Like every number being unique from the next any one can be related by a whole, if not some equation that surmounts and defines it.

Yeah thats a bit off, just what's on my mind I guess.

[SteveA]

I agree entirely. It's asymmetries that are the framework of space ... and likely the symmetries arise from bad memory, poor eyesight and in general, not paying attention to the details.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What if All was not of cause and effect (since that would go on forever), but was of an equation of symmetry (or of a principle, as Thor refers to it)?

Austin, the only trouble with symmetry is the fact we scientifically know both left and right chirality exists in chemistry experiments, at even the most fine structured levels of measurement. If we know both left and right handed chiral quantum motions exist, we know asymmetries are necessary of being produced, due to the fact, quantum mechanics requires particle/waves to eventually collide__and if both right and left chirality meet, the motions are required to create asymmetry__or the knot tying as I mentioned on Pat's thread, months ago. Opposite chiral handedness is contradictory to symmetry__It's just a necessity of motion, whether measured today in chemistry, or logicall theorized as far into the future, or as far into the past as any mind or conputer can theoretically go. Asymmetry is just as much a requirement of the quantum zoo as is the symmetry, and if taken at a minimum base would be 2 right symmetric motions, two left symmetric motions, then when they wander of course, two opposite = asymmetry__at the most fundamental level thinkable...

The only way I can see symmetry equations ruling the theory, is to include the asymmetries, even though at base, the symmetry would be 4 to 2 in favor of asymmetry being the predominant actor, thus my thinking that resulted in the 666 equation, to be in the final equation__That of course is the 2R, 2L, 2O, then also requiring the non-divisible triad of matter/energy/motion, the absolute requirement of reality of any kind, maintainence__Thus building the 666 Necessity...

The Fundamental Triad Necessitates the 4 + 2, three ways = 666 as the bottom and final motion number, though it's actually 18 motion vectors(6*3) to make even the most infinitesimal whole, based on how C.S. Peirce also figured it some 100 years ago, in his quantumesque cosmology... The Triad can't be broke__Nature falls to pieces if taken taken any lower... It's also related to 2/3 and 1/3 which is two irrational numbers(and that's 2 and 1 divided by 3, separately)... Of course this is just a mathematical curiosity, but it leaves room for the infinitesimals just as does pi__so, no symmetry in math either, but then again that's mans' construction...

I don't believe there's any possibility of getting physcially below this number of motion vectors, supporting the least fundamental structure...

I just think it's funny the 666 is mentioned in Revelations as the 'Mark of The Beast' and atheists are coming up with such a number related to a final theory...

Hope I didn't intrude too much on your thread, GB...

[austintorn@aol.com]

And don't quarks have charges in thirds or something like that?

I'll go for symmetry of opposites, there always having to be an opposite. What's that called?

[greenbug]

Not at all Lloyd. I agree, my thoughts have come to nearly the same resolve. Your 666 number is interesting, I have not read it. Link me . Years ago I found that Gods number is incomplete, as good is 3 and evil is 6 they are both not complete unless the number is 9. My thoughts fell upon 81, 9 squared as being the number that unites both dimensions and chemistry (27*3). But that would be 81 motion vectors max before a brake down in motion vrs other dimensional perspectives. I'm not so sure any more but its interesting that you came to an inverse number being 18.

I do think there are asymmetries due to a brake down in symmetries vrs symmetries. Like I said individuality is only part of the whole and so it misconstrues the whole. As it is not the whole so it can't be the whole. 2/3 is a brake down perspective of 1/3 and they both define 3/3 to a finite point. Yet looking out word 2/3 and 1/3 are infinite in perspective to any other. The real structure comes from it being 3rd's.

I think what it really is, is asymmetries arise from a symmetry being placed in perspective to any other symmetry, even the same (the half of half you were talking about Lloyd). Like you said 2/3 and 1/3 are the minimum perspectives to define all of reality.

This really isn't deviating from this original point. As I would relate it this might be along the lines of God creating reality and us defining it, which is funny because thats what we are really doing, trying to define reality in TOE.

[labelwench]

Numbers and their significance throughout our history......

Thought, word, and deed, complete the sum of human capability.

Three degrees of comparison complete our knowledge of qualities.

The simplest proposition requires three things to complete it; viz., the subject, the predicate, and the copula.

Three propositions are necessary to complete the simplest form of argument--the major premiss, the minor, and the conclusion.

A fair bit of reading at this link, for both entertainment and educational perusal, as it may interest one.

Begging your indulgence, Greenbug.....

http://www.greatdreams.com/three/three.htm

Kind regards,

LW

[greenbug]

You know I avoid letting my self get too caught up in number theories. Its part of that whole specialization deviates from generalization thing. I think focusing on it too much clouds the mind.

I do like how some one made the reference that 666 was the number of man, 333 would be the number of God and 999 is Gods wrath. That would make man God's wrath and hence 666 the number of evil as 999 would pure with out man. So God is only mad at man, I guess with out man God would never be mad. A funny play with numbers concepts and ideas.

Its similar to our own madness as we find we can not control every aspect, God would be mad that he can not control every aspect of what he has created, as it is him or a part of him he dislikes. Would that make God partly in denial or that God knows himself yet choses to be ignorant, which is the same thing but its becomes the brake down for individuality. anyhow.. Thank you LW