Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
¿ wrote:tycho wrote:¿ wrote:tycho wrote:¿ wrote:tycho wrote:¿ wrote:tycho wrote:Questions are results of our intelligence needs, and so do answers specifically meet these intelligence needs that alas are amenable to change. For example, my proclamation of God as singularity has many assumptions behind it, many probably wrong. Right now my thinking is that mentioning God is likely to create more confusion than clarity in day to day conversation. 'Intelligence' appears to be a better term, and the more I think about it the more I'm awed. Questions like the origin of the universe become insignificant, or even the end. Or even 'purpose'. As I was trying to figure out if the 'big bang' was/is/will be an intelligent event, it occurred to me that probably the universe has no size or form, and neither does it have a beginning or end. But of course the world has a beginning and end! http://www.techtimes.com...no-beginning-no-end.htm Ambitious!  It will probably 'never add up'. Adding up is an intelligence function, but intelligence mostly involves excluding. That is, we 'create' dark matter in our activity. Probably when we do nothing we experience everything as it is; but then still 'it doesn't add up' because there's no adding. #RIPmath #RIPscience. Maybe not. Science has value because intelligence is and will remain. Let's RIP to unrealistic expectation and use of science ... Use science to prove that. I guess you're asking me to use physical science. Check on the Heisenberg principle or Schroedinger's cat. How do they prove that? By showing examples of how relations determine events, states and things and that things or states are 'seemingly aware' of the laws of these relations.
|