No, we have hard evidence of objects outside of spacetime.TexasScientist said:Publication titles and headlines can be catchy and sometimes sensational, but don't always accurately capture the content. You don't know that space time isn't fundamental to our existence. It's certainly relevant to your existence, unless you think you don't really exist. Yes I have. That is only speculation from someone's mental exercise of imagination. There are a lot of interesting ideas from string theory. String theory is all over the place and hasn't produced anything that tells us anything useful about our universe, as of yet. Everything breaks down at the Plank scale. That doesn't discount, nor invalidate quantum theory and special relativity. Those have been tested and are validated. The science is pointing in the direction of a multiverse outside of our universe. Many string theorists and cognitive psychologists struggle to make their specific fields of study relevant beyond speculation. Follow what is predictable from testable evidence. Given enough time, we may be able find a unified theory that will address what happens at the Plank scale.Doc Holliday said:I didn't say science is stupid?! Science is I how I know about this topic. I don't have evidence of God, I have faith and a hypothesis that the substrate of reality is unlimited consciousness which is God.TexasScientist said:This whole thread shows a complete ignorance about science and space/time. So far science, acting upon our understanding of general relativity, and quantum theory, and other scientific understandings have provided you with the ability to experience the technologically advance lifestyle your perception and consciousness enjoys, which all happen to reside within this universe. You say science is stupid and defies logic, neither of which is true simply because you want to believe, yet you believe in the idea/concept of a god that has evolved over time out of the lore from primitive people who had not even a rudimentary understanding of the universe in which they reside - a god their imaginations created in order to give them answers to what they could not even begin to understand. That defies logic, and your beliefs certainly show ignorance - entrenched views without any empirical evidence defies logic and approaches the stupidity you hurl at science. Science is built upon the evidence of reality, not mystical primitive ideas.Doc Holliday said:The best science today shows us that spacetime is a tool, not fundamental reality.ATL Bear said:Sorry for TL,DR.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:Order.RMF5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:First of all, I did not quote a scientist to show I'm "right".RMF5630 said:He is saying his is right... I am saying mine is right. It is all opinion. It can't be proven. There are no experiments to prove that their is an Intelligent Designer, it is supposition and opinion. We can do this all day. If we want to discuss aspects of it and delve into the details, ok. But, we are at an impasse. I suggest a duel...D. C. Bear said:RMF5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, you don't understand ID. You are characterizing it all wrong.RMF5630 said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You must prove ID is false, if you are going to rule it out. If you can't rule it out, what is the problem with my stance on macroevolution?RMF5630 said:There can be no evidence for Intelligent Design! ID is a catch-all for what we can't explain, yet. For Intelligent Design to succeed, science has to fail. You cannot prove ID. So asking for proof it does not exist is a ridiculous request. I am sure there is a stripper with a heart of gold paying her way through Medical School too somewhere in the Universe!BusyTarpDuster2017 said:What evidence shows there was no intelligent design involved? You are citing evidence that confirms what, exactly?BaylorJacket said:From what I have gathered in previous conversations, you do not fully believe in the theory of Macro-evolution (without inserting magical explosions). Out of all the scientific theories, quite possibly the one with the most evidence. Evidence that has been extensively tested and confirmed by multiple independent sources.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The historical Jesus is NOT their field of study and therefore they have no authority, it's as simple as that, and for you to assert otherwise is evidence of how desperate you've become. The fact that you had to appeal to FOREIGN LANGUAGE professors to bolster your claim, in the face of virtually ALL reputable and relevant scholars in the field of study essentially declaring these claims as "foolish" and "completely spurious", shows exactly how incredibly weak and baseless your argument is. Not just weak, but as those scholars have said, it's stupid.
You are flailing at this point, and how you're not embarassed by it is beyond me. It's time to just concede.
Intelligent design has done nothing to advance science. It has pitted science against religion. It has done nothing to advance understanding. It is a bone being thrown to the Creationist. Sorry, even if there is an ID there is no way to prove it. Unless you have God's Cook Book or notes...
ID may or may not be able to be definitively proven...however, it can be the best inference from the data. Note that neither can it be proven that mere random, undirected DNA mutation and natural selection is the explanation for the origin of animal kinds and for what is seen in the fossil record. That is merely an inference, just like ID.
You don't seem to understand what ID is or what it entails. It most certainly is an advanced scientific argument.
You can't prove it false, The whole premise is based on science can't prove it so there must be a designer we can't explain! ID is based on science failing.
I recommend a book by the genius Stephen Meyer, "Return of the God Hypothesis" to get a deep understand the arguments behind Intelligent Design (Add*: also the excellent book "Signature in the Cell") Here is a quote from a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, Brian Josephson, Fellow of the Royal Society, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Cambridge, regarding Meyer's book, and about Intelligent Design:
"This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science."
I understand it. I don't agree with you or the author. We can do dueling Physicist if you like.
. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design
Isn't that kind of his point?
Secondly, even if that's what I was doing, I would win, because your physicist in his article doesn't even argue the points made by Meyer in his book, or even argue that Intelligent Design is wrong! Here is a quote from his essay:
"None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong."
So if we're playing dueling physicists, it seems as if your guy has conceded.
He is saying it is not something that can be proven. It is a movement not science. How do you prove an intelligent design? Give us one metric? One measurable? One experiment?
It is a philosophy, not a science. A middle of the road compromise to reconcile religion. Saying you can't prove it isn't science, doesn't make it science.
I believe in God and believe God created the universe, it is a matter of faith. Physics is just the mechanics.
Lost me. Physics provides order or order is proof of intelligent design?
If we are talking ID. How do you test order? Science is about testing and measuring. How do you test and measure order, DNA, or even origin of universe for an intelligent designer?
By the way, I don't think there is a conflict between religion and science. To me ID is unnecessary. A stretch that is not needed.
Order had to exist before matter and energy. Neither creates their own, they only react to the order that exists in the matrix of orders within all forces (known and unknown by humans). Physics is simply our rudimentary understanding of order within our existence that we have the capability to comprehend, measure, and test. But without order, our existence would look and be much different. It exists in biology also. How DNA replicates, phylogenic speciation, protein synthesis, etc. In fact the only true chaos factors appear in higher level intelligences (the unpredictable factor). The vast majority are instinctive or bio process oriented. The advanced sentient factor is the "wild card".
Ultimately the universe was created from an underlying order. Just the slightest variance from that order would have had incredible repercussions across the existence of everything. To make a simplistic and not perfect analogy, imagine watching a video game. Most humans can observe what happens in that game when certain stimulus (think controller input as mass, energy, biomatter, etc.) occurs. Human science has told us quite a bit about what happens when you do certain things on the controller, but not nearly everything. Some advanced theoretical science has gone so far as to attempt to explain what programming would be required for certain actions to occur in the video game, but it is limited or changed when another theory or variable from another type of action/input occurs in the game. Observationally we will continue to expand our understanding of what happens from different controller inputs. We'll also continue to theorize and understand the programming behind why those outputs occur as our ability to comprehend and measure the game grows. But ultimately, there's an underlying program that makes the game happen. That's the order tied to existence in my mind, and the greatest observable evidence of a higher power. As I said before, if time is an infinite factor, there is nothing random. And perhaps instead of thinking of God as a magician snapping things into existence, he was a divine programmer of the game of existence.
Spacetime is a data structure that we create to represent fitness payoffs and how to get them.
Natural selection does not shape us to see objective reality. Seeing the truth will drive you to extinction. Evolutionary game theory shows the chance of survival when shown objective reality is literally 0%.Our new paper, "Fusions of consciousness," is published today, and free. We propose a dynamics of conscious agents beyond spacetime, and a mapping of this dynamics into spacetime physics via our new application of decorated permutations to Markov chains.https://t.co/twE8O2DFzN
— Donald Hoffman (@donalddhoffman) January 9, 2023
Personally I hypothesize that reality is derived from perception/consciousness outside of spacetime which is self created and that the substrate of total reality is a syntax or medium of pure potential in which everything is possible within itself.
We hit a paradox when we describe nothingness: when "nothingness" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". The exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate.
The whole idea that 3D spacetime emerged without a precursor is beyond stupid and defies logic. God is consciousness, you are a piece of him, made in his image, and I have faith that Jesus was fully conscious - one with god.
Spacetime isn't fundamental. Operational meaning ceases to exist at planck scale.
Have you not heard of the amplituhedron or decorated permutations? These are objects outside of spacetime and they perfectly project down to spacetime. See Nima Arkani-Hamed and last years Nobel on proving the universe isn't locally real.
I don't think you have the knowledge or IQ to even being to understand what I've been posting about on this topic.
Our best physicists are saying spacetime is doomed.
There's no mathematical possibility for anything to have operational meaning beyond planck. There's no speculation there.
