Does God's intelligence rest on a physical platform?

PhillipS wrote:

Belinda wrote:

The fact that us clever little pattern makers see order is neither here nor there among the far places of the universe

Or is it? Why would the order we detect not be universal?

Because human lives are not reproducible in planets that are not of the goldilocks sort.We know of no other planets that are goldilocks planets. If there are any of those they are too far away to find or to find us.

Hello Belinda and Wooden Shoe.

I grant you that other goldilocks planets may not have come as far as us in producing the kind of order we see in the biological world. However, astrophysicists do find order in the heavenly bodies, though they be many light years away. Also, the spectra of distant stars (and possibly accompanying planets) indicate that they are made of the same kind of stuff as our solar system. Therefore it is a reasonable hypothesis that the order we see around us is, or is capable of being, reproduced on other planets in the universe.

Wooden Shoe.

I take your point about dark energy. This along with the energy and matter we see in the universe, would have all originated in the hypothetical big bang. So, as you say, there was a lot of energy locked up in that process. However, if time began with the big bang then nothing could have preceded it, not even dark energy, not even intelligence.

Cheers

PhillipS, my 'goldilocks planet' reply was inadequate, as you point out.

The order that astrophysicists see in the far places in the universe may be universal order, for all we know. I fancy that this idea belongs with the question about whether or not scientific knowledge, which is based upon induction and deduction from theories,is absolutely true.

Scientific knowledge is impressively cumulative but this is not a sufficient reason to claim that scientific knowledge is without any doubt absolutely true. Together with the common understanding that humans are pattern makers par excellence which fact alone arouses suspicion, the terminal weakness of empirical reasoning means that for philosophical purposes, though not for scientific purposes, there is no blueprint.
Those who believe in a blueprint are the Enlightenment faithful or the religious faithful..

Together with the common understanding that humans are pattern makers par excellence which fact alone arouses suspicion, the terminal weakness of empirical reasoning means that for philosophical purposes, though not for scientific purposes, there is no blueprint.

I'm not too sure whether by "blueprint" you mean order in the universe or whether you are inferring a designer.

If the former, then I think it all depends on whether you think humans are projecting order onto the universe or finding it in the universe. If projection, then we may well ask where this projection has come from. Is it there because it has been ingrained into our DNA through some survival value? In which case your point may be correct. Or is it there because we are part of the cosmic order?

Hi Joe.

Your reference to a institute of science needs farther checking.
It appears to me that there are two distinct entities, one at the Nottingham university, a very good one, and a different one in London which is the one you gave me a link for. This one says "of Science" in the title and the one at the university says "for science".

These sites list different directors which raised alarm bells in that suspicious old mind of mine.
I suspect that the link you gave me is for some kind of pseudo science website, as its director's qualifications can not be verified.
However I may be wrong, so please check it out yourselves and let me know what you discover.

Regards, John.

Hi John,
The editor of the quarterly magazine "Science in Society" is Mae-Wan Ho, scientist, and author of "The Rainbow and the Worm" and many published works on bio-science. The magazine is published by "The Institute of Science in Society" at 29 Tytherton Rd, London N19 4PZ. (www.i-sis.org.uk)

Regards, Joe

Hi Joe.

In checking a bit more it seems to me that it points to an agenda, which is something I get concerned about.
I do agree that perhaps not enough is known about what might happen with genetic engineering but this far there has been far more fear mongering then actual proof of anything dangerous having happened.
I think some of this fear is because of not understanding genetics and how genetic reproduction works.

Regards, John.

PhillipS , regarding the metaphor 'blueprint' it's not mine it's Dennet's or perhaps Dawkins's.

I mean that it is fairly trivial whether the designer if any is a set of eternal laws or whether it/she/he is God.
Nature is something else, not having the property of forethought design in any way or by any means.The dichotomy that matters for the purpose of this philosophical discussion is as above.
Teleology is such a sneak

Belinda.

We are agreed that the universe is not pre-determined, although in retrospect it is causative.

To use Dennet's word, I do not think there is just one bluprint for the universe, but multiple blueprints or potentialities. By some process of natural selection certain ones are followed. If there are potentialities, then surely there must be some laws determining them. Given the huge and cumulative success of science, to which you admit, I think we have to take those laws and whatever underlies them as given, teleology or not; at least until or unless a better explanation comes along.

After all, if it were not for the laws, or something like them, we would not be here to argue whether they did or did not exist!

Belinda.

We are agreed that the universe is not pre-determined, although in retrospect it is causative.

To use Dennet's word, I do not think there is just one bluprint for the universe, but multiple blueprints or potentialities. By some process of natural selection certain ones are followed. If there are potentialities, then surely there must be some laws determining them. Given the huge and cumulative success of science, to which you admit, I think we have to take those laws and whatever underlies them as given, teleology or not; at least until or unless a better explanation comes along.

After all, if it were not for the laws, or something like them, we would not be here to argue whether they did or did not exist!

But Dennet(or was it Dawkins?) called the intentional process and result a blueprint because a blueprint, or blueprints, incorporate a desired finality together with a prescribed process. Blueprint is contrasted with recipe. A recipe is not final because it does not exactly prescribe either the process or the end of the process. With a recipe each stage depends upon the result of the preceding stage, and the end products of the same recipe are not identical, but are partly the results of the cooks' creativity and the eaters' hunger.

I too think we have to take those laws of science for granted because that is how scientific progress works and how common sense works. However we are doing philosophy and we want to omit any teleological reasoning I suppose.
Even scientists omit teleological reasoning or should do.

After all, if it were not for the laws, or something like them, we would not be here to argue whether they did or did not exist.

Impressive is only the smallest and perhaps inadequate praise for the fact that with the advent of mankind nature (or God) can reflect upon itself for the briefest time, one split second in the history of the universe.

This question is absurd. If one is a believer of God then one must rely on what God said about himself and his creation and his authority. If one is a non believer of God then the question is moot.

What sort of God is Misty writing about? Oh wait, I can guess.

Belinda, What God are speaking of??

Hi PhillipS

PhillipS wrote:

I think it helps to divide the subject into two phases: the birth of the universe; and what happened after that.

We could argue that, at the birth, compressed matter, energy, space and time came into existence, along with the laws of physics. Underlying the laws of physics may have been a universal objective property, such as a drive towards symmetry, harmony or economy. We could argue that either an intelligence accomplished this or the big bang did it. I tend to favor the big bang as being the instigator, because I cannot imagine how a complex and holistic intelligence could have existed before the birth of the universe. If you postulate an intelligence then you have to go one step further back and explain where that intelligence might have come from.

The concept of the “birth” of the universe, highlights I feel, the universal notion that the universe has a point of beginning, (as all things do). However, exactly what the beginning of the universe entailed is where our perspectives differ. As for the scientific and physical nature and composition of the beginning of the universe I cannot say, but I imagine that there was a creation and combination of form and matter, order, time, design, the laws of physics (as you say) and geometrical design. When you say that there was a “universal objective property,” do you mean that there was a pseudo intelligence or a type of instinctive drive towards symmetry, harmony or economy? Personally, I think that any such characteristic would imply a goal centred intelligence? With regards to the owner of the intelligence as you know I'm a theist, therefore I believe that the owner of the first intelligence is God and that because he is the beginning, there is no intelligence before him.

PhillipS wrote:

The second phase would involve what happened after the big bang. Once matter, energy, time and space and the laws of physics were in place, then a whole host of potentialities for the universe would have opened up. Once dynamic structures, such as galaxies emerged out of the initial conditions, according to the laws, then the possibility of a physical platform for a super intelligence would have arisen. The big question is: did the universe choose its own best way forward among the potentialities for the universe, perhaps guided by the drive towards symmetry, harmony and economy, or did a super intelligence design the whole thing, or at least help it along the way? You point out that the Earth's position vis a vis the sun is exactly right for life to survive and thrive, indicating a designer. However, I could turn this on its head and say that the fact that such a configuration occurred in our galaxy and our solar system is the reason why life was able to evolve in an environment which could support it.

I agree that once the working universe as we know it was established then indeed possibilities and potentialities for further development would become possible, but surely that means you're arguing that the creation of our solar system was created by chance or coincidence, without any pre-determined pattern? That's just the thing though, our universe full of patterns; the earth's rotation around the sun, the cycle of the moon, our eyes need for light, our bodies need for heat - these examples have a pattern in my opinion, which is that our solar system is perfectly fit to sustain our lives. You yourself believe that the universe is driven towards symmetry, harmony and economy, which perfectly describes our solar system. Even though you say: “However, I could turn this on its head and say that the fact that such a configuration occurred in our galaxy and our solar system is the reason why life was able to evolve in an environment which could support it.” This doesn't remove the concept of design from the solar system or even the possibility of intelligent design, it just turns our our debate into a chicken and egg situation.

Overall, I just don't believe that the evidence before us points towards the universe being created by chance or coincidence. I think that the complexity, power requirements and heat needed to create the universe, would mean that God's intelligence does not rest on a physical platform.

But Dennet(or was it Dawkins?) called the intentional process and result a blueprint because a blueprint, or blueprints, incorporate a desired finality together with a prescribed process. Blueprint is contrasted with recipe. A recipe is not final because it does not exactly prescribe either the process or the end of the process. With a recipe each stage depends upon the result of the preceding stage, and the end products of the same recipe are not identical, but are partly the results of the cooks' creativity and the eaters' hunger.

Hello Belinda and Fanman.

My word was "potentialities", which I borrowed from Alfred North Whitehead. I think it is closer in meaning to "recipe" than to "blueprint". I do not believe that the outcome was known in advance, i.e. prescribed. But the possibility must have been there. Otherwise we would not have ended up the way we did.

The only concession to teleology I would make is that there may be some drive towards symmetry, harmony and economy. Call that God if you like. I do not see it as intentional, but as an objective property of the universe.

We are going to get caught up in semantics here, I fear.

Cheers

Hi Joe.

In checking a bit more it seems to me that it points to an agenda, which is something I get concerned about.
I do agree that perhaps not enough is known about what might happen with genetic engineering but this far there has been far more fear mongering then actual proof of anything dangerous having happened.
I think some of this fear is because of not understanding genetics and how genetic reproduction works.

Regards, John.

Hi John,
See: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/AnnouncingScien ... iety53.php

Joe