Emergent Complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2013, 05:39 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 04:37 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking guy... Big Grin

You're not talking "eternal emergence," 'cause that's fucking dumb. You're talking "perpetual emergence." "God," however - as is commonly understood, anyway - is being, not becoming. There is no identity function for what you describe.

The problem I have with "perpetual" is it connotates a possible beginning. I don't believe reality had a beginning, but rather has always existed and has always been emergent.

I understand my conception of God is very different then most theist. Most theist believe God is an intellect that created reality. I find the notion of God outside reality to be ridiculous. God is reality. Reality is emergent so God is emergent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:37 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking guy... Big Grin

You're not talking "eternal emergence," 'cause that's fucking dumb. You're talking "perpetual emergence." "God," however - as is commonly understood, anyway - is being, not becoming. There is no identity function for what you describe.

The problem I have with "perpetual" is it connotates a possible beginning. I don't believe reality had a beginning, but rather has always existed and has always been emergent.

I understand my conception of God is very different then most theist. Most theist believe God is an intellect that created reality. I find the notion of God outside reality to be ridiculous. God is reality. Reality is emergent so God is emergent.

Yabut. You're supposed to have a readily definable god so we atheists can stick it with our atheist pokey-thingies. Big Grin

And why would you be stuck on "fine tuning?" That, too, connotes a beginning. Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 05:46 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 04:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is evidence but it is ambiguous. The apparent fine tuning of the cosmological constant for instance. That suggests an intellect, but it also suggests a multi-verse. Evolution is another example because evolutionary systems don't appear to come into existence via happenstance{although it is logically possible that it could). To replicate the phenomenon the evolutionary system must be designed.

Well, we've been over this. I disagree with your assertions because there is no evidence. The 'fine-tuning' argument is just silly.

I agree that the earth is fine tuned is silly, but not the universe. For someone to show that the universe isn't particularly tuned, they would either need to show a multi-verse or prove some physics that requires the universe to be exactly what it is.

The claim that the universe is solitary and has the properties it has because of happenstance is ridiculous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 05:48 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2013 06:00 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 05:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The problem I have with "perpetual" is it connotates a possible beginning. I don't believe reality had a beginning, but rather has always existed and has always been emergent.

I understand my conception of God is very different then most theist. Most theist believe God is an intellect that created reality. I find the notion of God outside reality to be ridiculous. God is reality. Reality is emergent so God is emergent.

Yabut. You're supposed to have a readily definable god so we atheists can stick it with our atheist pokey-thingies. Big Grin

And why would you be stuck on "fine tuning?" That, too, connotes a beginning. Consider

Fine tunned universe. Yes that has a beginning. But once again someone conflates universe with reality. The former is a subset of the latter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 05:51 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 05:46 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Yabut. You're supposed to have a readily definable god so we atheists can stick it with our atheist pokey-thingies. Big Grin

And why would you be stuck on "fine tuning?" That, too, connotes a beginning. Consider

Fine stunned universe. Yes that has a beginning. But once again someone conflates universe with reality. The former is a subset of the latter.

Alright. I can see what you're saying. I disagree. Big Grin

Universe is, by definition, uni. The Gwynnies in my head is a subset of the universe, but no part of your reality. Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 12-04-2013 06:05 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 01:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Okay...go on. Tell me what it is...

God is eternal emergence.

Still require time. Emergence is a process, not timeless being, (see the wrticle from Stanford YOU YOURSELF posted). No philosopher of theologian would agree. BlowJobis asserting NO ONE else in the entire world would agree with. Say he came here to "challenge us'. Looks like he's "challenged". Weeping
Oh, that's right, it's Spring. He only ansers the easy ones. He seems to think if he asserts something with no support, it just makes it so.
The moon is made of green cheese, BJ.
"Eternal (timeless) emergence" is an oxymoron.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 06:03 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:51 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Alright. I can see what you're saying. I disagree. Big Grin

Universe is, by definition, uni.

There was a time when it was thought that the universe is all of reality but that idea is being abandoned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 06:16 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-04-2013 01:52 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  God is eternal emergence.

Still require time. Emergence is a process, not timeless being, (see the wrticle from Stanford YOU YOURSELF posted). No philosopher of theologian would agree. BlowJobis asserting NO ONE else in the entire world would agree with. Say he came here to "challenge us'. Looks like he's "challenged". Weeping
Oh, that's right, it's Spring. He only ansers the easy ones. He seems to think if he asserts something with no support, it just makes it so.
The moon is made of green cheese, BJ.

If I recall correctly in the science subforum you claimed that we might someday have observational evidence of a multi verse. Presumably you were talking about finding artifacts left in the cosmic background radiation that could only be the result of a collision between our universe and another. If our universe exists in a multi-universe in which universes can move and collide, then time or some analogue also exists outside our universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 07:05 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The claim that the universe is solitary and has the properties it has because of happenstance is ridiculous.

How can you say it's ridiculous when the term universe connotes the totality of exsitence! You are making up a new definition for what everyone else understands the universe to be - "the broadest definition of universe is that it is simply everything"

As for the "properties" it has I say they simply "are", you ascribe a designer/emergent intelligence... when the music stops we are back to arguing God (whatever you may want to call it) vs no God.

It's kind of interesting to see all the mental and semantic gymnastics you are performing to obscure this point, very entertaining.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
12-04-2013, 07:24 PM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(12-04-2013 05:39 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I understand my conception of God is very different then most theist. Most theist believe God is an intellect that created reality. I find the notion of God outside reality to be ridiculous. God is reality. Reality is emergent so God is emergent.

I give you one honesty point for saying it right...."Your conception of god"
God is something you conceived of

And now that we have this base for how you conceive of a god, can you also conceive of another god that exists or came about in much the same way your god did.

Given that you think that one god can exist, is there not room for another ?

Perhaps we can conceive of a thousand more and describe them all, each one, in exquisite detail. When we do this, we must also admit to ourselves that WE are the creators of gods.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: