Emergent Complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2013, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2013 07:33 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(09-04-2013 06:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Heywood,

Just to amplify on my previous post -

The fundamental question is the question of how we deal with infinite regress. "What is the cause of the universe as we know it?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I think the conventional answers are:
1. There was some conscious or otherwise first cause that has special properties that enable it to cause everything else. For example, assuming some infinite time (or other free dimension) at some point in time a thing that always existed caused other things to come into existence. For example the boiling sea of universes caused this universe to exist, or a God that always existed caused this universe to exist
or
2. There was some fundamental beginning for which it doesn't make logical sense to look back further than. For example the universe itself has a beginning in time, a point at which time was created or time can be thought of as ending if we were to travel backwards in time. Beyond then there was no cause, so whatever state existed at that time requires no cause.
or
3. Infinite regress - that is to say that we have a cause, and that cause had a cause, and it to had a cause etc etc infinitely in some time-like dimension.

No matter whether you take the universe we know with the big bang as the beginning or some other set of physics that is deeper and older than the big bang with its own distinct beginning it seems we need one of those things to happen.

I believe you said that you thought God looked like emergent complexity, which explicitly places him in the realm of the caused rather than in the realm of the first cause. His existence might be a necessary consequence of that first cause just as strange little artefacts are a necessary consequence of the rules that govern Conway's game of life... but under this model he would be created as a consequence of those rules.

But if we are to postulate that God is the consequence of those rules, to paraphrase Sagan, then why not skip a step and assume that we and our universe are the consequence of those rules without the need for a God in the mix?

But now you seem to be switching strides to suggest that God does not really resemble emergent complexity, and instead that God and the rules are essentially one and the same. A first cause that is not emergent but eternal and ever present. This begs the question of why given our experience of simple rules being behind all of the emergent complexity in our universe would we postulate that a complex entity such as a God was the first cause? Why not assume that simple rules were the first cause there, as they have been in every other emergently complex system we have experience with?

I asked the question,"what would eternal emergent complexity look like?", and I answered by saying it would look like God. Its akin to asking what the eternal iteration X=X+1 would look like? Well X would be infinite no matter when you looked at it. You could never find X to be a small finite number.

We humans are intelligent and we are the consequent of a process that has gone on for 13.7 billion years. We are now creating intelligence ourselves and feeding back into the process. However since the emergent process that we are the result of had a beginning our intellect will alwys be finite. What would intelligence look like that was a consequence of eternal emergent complexity? It would be infinite.

Reality is everything that exist and I don't have a problem with God's existence being a consequent of the existence of reality, nor do I have a problem with the idea that reality itself is intelligent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 07:33 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(10-04-2013 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-04-2013 06:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Heywood,

Just to amplify on my previous post -

The fundamental question is the question of how we deal with infinite regress. "What is the cause of the universe as we know it?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I think the conventional answers are:
1. There was some conscious or otherwise first cause that has special properties that enable it to cause everything else. For example, assuming some infinite time (or other free dimension) at some point in time a thing that always existed caused other things to come into existence. For example the boiling sea of universes caused this universe to exist, or a God that always existed caused this universe to exist
or
2. There was some fundamental beginning for which it doesn't make logical sense to look back further than. For example the universe itself has a beginning in time, a point at which time was created or time can be thought of as ending if we were to travel backwards in time. Beyond then there was no cause, so whatever state existed at that time requires no cause.
or
3. Infinite regress - that is to say that we have a cause, and that cause had a cause, and it to had a cause etc etc infinitely in some time-like dimension.

No matter whether you take the universe we know with the big bang as the beginning or some other set of physics that is deeper and older than the big bang with its own distinct beginning it seems we need one of those things to happen.

I believe you said that you thought God looked like emergent complexity, which explicitly places him in the realm of the caused rather than in the realm of the first cause. His existence might be a necessary consequence of that first cause just as strange little artefacts are a necessary consequence of the rules that govern Conway's game of life... but under this model he would be created as a consequence of those rules.

But if we are to postulate that God is the consequence of those rules, to paraphrase Sagan, then why not skip a step and assume that we and our universe are the consequence of those rules without the need for a God in the mix?

But now you seem to be switching strides to suggest that God does not really resemble emergent complexity, and instead that God and the rules are essentially one and the same. A first cause that is not emergent but eternal and ever present. This begs the question of why given our experience of simple rules being behind all of the emergent complexity in our universe would we postulate that a complex entity such as a God was the first cause? Why not assume that simple rules were the first cause there, as they have been in every other emergently complex system we have experience with?

I asked the question,"what would eternal emergent complexity look like?", and I answered by saying it would look like God. Its akin to asking what the eternal iteration X=X+1 would look like? Well X would be infinite no matter when you looked at it. You could never find X to be a small finite number.

We humans are intelligent and we are the consequent of a process that has gone on for 13.7 billion years. We are now creating intelligence ourselves and feeding back into the process. However since the emergent process that we are the result of had a beginning our intellect will alwys be finite. What would intelligence look like that was a consequence of eternal emergent complexity? It would be infinite.

Reality is everything that exist and I don't have a problem with God's existence being a consequent of the existence of reality,

You sound more like a Deist than a theist. Consider

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 07:36 AM
Re: Emergent Complexity
Reality is intelligent? :consider:

My wisdom teeth, appendix, and the fact most of our solar system appears to be largely devoid of life, seems to indicate a lack of intelligence and more so happenstance. Or (more preferably) chaos.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(10-04-2013 07:33 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(10-04-2013 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I asked the question,"what would eternal emergent complexity look like?", and I answered by saying it would look like God. Its akin to asking what the eternal iteration X=X+1 would look like? Well X would be infinite no matter when you looked at it. You could never find X to be a small finite number.

We humans are intelligent and we are the consequent of a process that has gone on for 13.7 billion years. We are now creating intelligence ourselves and feeding back into the process. However since the emergent process that we are the result of had a beginning our intellect will alwys be finite. What would intelligence look like that was a consequence of eternal emergent complexity? It would be infinite.

Reality is everything that exist and I don't have a problem with God's existence being a consequent of the existence of reality,

You sound more like a Deist than a theist. Consider

Except I believe that God interferes with some of His creations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(10-04-2013 07:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-04-2013 07:33 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You sound more like a Deist than a theist. Consider

Except I believe that God interferes with some of His creations.

It is a belief without evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-04-2013, 08:11 AM
Re: Emergent Complexity
It is a delusion devoid of any rational discourse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 08:50 AM (This post was last modified: 10-04-2013 08:59 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Emergent Complexity
(10-04-2013 07:29 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-04-2013 06:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Heywood,

Just to amplify on my previous post -

The fundamental question is the question of how we deal with infinite regress. "What is the cause of the universe as we know it?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?" I think the conventional answers are:
1. There was some conscious or otherwise first cause that has special properties that enable it to cause everything else. For example, assuming some infinite time (or other free dimension) at some point in time a thing that always existed caused other things to come into existence. For example the boiling sea of universes caused this universe to exist, or a God that always existed caused this universe to exist
or
2. There was some fundamental beginning for which it doesn't make logical sense to look back further than. For example the universe itself has a beginning in time, a point at which time was created or time can be thought of as ending if we were to travel backwards in time. Beyond then there was no cause, so whatever state existed at that time requires no cause.
or
3. Infinite regress - that is to say that we have a cause, and that cause had a cause, and it to had a cause etc etc infinitely in some time-like dimension.

No matter whether you take the universe we know with the big bang as the beginning or some other set of physics that is deeper and older than the big bang with its own distinct beginning it seems we need one of those things to happen.

I believe you said that you thought God looked like emergent complexity, which explicitly places him in the realm of the caused rather than in the realm of the first cause. His existence might be a necessary consequence of that first cause just as strange little artefacts are a necessary consequence of the rules that govern Conway's game of life... but under this model he would be created as a consequence of those rules.

But if we are to postulate that God is the consequence of those rules, to paraphrase Sagan, then why not skip a step and assume that we and our universe are the consequence of those rules without the need for a God in the mix?

But now you seem to be switching strides to suggest that God does not really resemble emergent complexity, and instead that God and the rules are essentially one and the same. A first cause that is not emergent but eternal and ever present. This begs the question of why given our experience of simple rules being behind all of the emergent complexity in our universe would we postulate that a complex entity such as a God was the first cause? Why not assume that simple rules were the first cause there, as they have been in every other emergently complex system we have experience with?

I asked the question,"what would eternal emergent complexity look like?", and I answered by saying it would look like God. Its akin to asking what the eternal iteration X=X+1 would look like? Well X would be infinite no matter when you looked at it. You could never find X to be a small finite number.

We humans are intelligent and we are the consequent of a process that has gone on for 13.7 billion years. We are now creating intelligence ourselves and feeding back into the process. However since the emergent process that we are the result of had a beginning our intellect will alwys be finite. What would intelligence look like that was a consequence of eternal emergent complexity? It would be infinite.

Reality is everything that exist and I don't have a problem with God's existence being a consequent of the existence of reality, nor do I have a problem with the idea that reality itself is intelligent.

No it wouldn't. In order for your sad little paradigm to be true,

1. spaceTIME had to ALWAYS exist along with your god. That means she is not it's creator.
2. Prove that space time exists apart from this universe.

I see now you never even understood my comments above. BlowJob's knowledge of science in the thread discussing when life begins proves he has not even a high school Biology level education in science, and philosophy.

No wonder.

No wonder.

No wonder.

If the god is "improving", the god is/was not perfect. That is no god. NO religion's theologians in the world would spout such crap about their god. BlowJob makes up shit, and thinks people should accept it.

"Eternal" in Philosophy and Theology is TIMELESSNESS, NOT ENDLESS TIME. BlowJob needs an education, seriously, badly.

He may not intentionally be trolling. That is the result. He is ignorant, and laughable.

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
10-04-2013, 08:57 AM
Re: Emergent Complexity
To be fair, I think Heywood did say something on the order of his god coming into existence at the big bang and it being some form of reality or something along those lines.

Not that it is any more credible, but I think you're criticisms might be a bit misdirected.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-04-2013, 09:30 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
If that's what he said, it's just as bad. A god that "came into being" is not eternal.
His pathetic T+1 is so utterly devoid of logic, it's a complete joke.

He may as well be saying "the moon is made of green cheese, and I know it is because I believe it".

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
10-04-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Emergent Complexity
(10-04-2013 09:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  If that's what he said, it's just as bad. A god that "came into being" is not eternal.
His pathetic T+1 is so utterly devoid of logic, it's a complete joke.

He may as well be saying "the moon is made of green cheese, and I know it is because I believe it".

Agreed Drinking Beverage

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: