[Discussion] If a god created the universe

[Redhothabanero]

if u want the answer then why don't u ask god about it?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Then you don't truly understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Everything is subject to entropy. The information stored within genetic code is subject to entropy in the same manner, just as all information is.

What was the hair color of your G^15 Grandmother?

In all likelihood - that information has completely disappeared from existence. Not only is it unknown - it has become impossible to know. The information has been distributed by entropy in such a manner that it is no longer capable of being reconstructed.

The same is true for all information systems. Despite our best efforts and even the best error correction systems available with millions upon millions of mirrored storage systems... all information will be lost to time.

Just consider the photocopied hand-outs that have been successively copied since the 80s. You can hardly read the damned things, most of the time. This exact phenomena should have doomed live eons ago. The correction systems within modern photocopy machines are better - but they introduce some of their own errors. Eventually, making copies of successive generations of copies will begin to yield errors that reduce the information to null values.

That is precisely what -should- have happened to life.

There is an answer - but involves macroscopic applications of quantum mechanics to bring the observed in line with physics. The 'problem' with information being lost to entropy is, actually, the saving grace.

Remember your G^25 Grandmother's hair color? You can use known factors to reduce the possible hair colors to a range of possibilities. She could have had blonde or black hair (for example)... Red and Brown are eliminated because they conflict with currently known factors. It becomes functionally irrelevant whether she had blonde or black hair... and this allows things to work out as if she had both concurrently.

The only way for evolution to work within physics is if we adopt a quantum mechanical model where individuals within a species are allowed to behave as though the plausible mutations within the entire population are allowed to factor into speciation. This allows for very efficient use of 'energy' and -may- provide an avenue for net decrease in entropy rather than the expected increase in entropy encountered by classical physics.

But then we are forced into accepting the universe, itself, as a sort of Schrodinger's Cat... which begs the question: "So... did this all happen when I was born... or was it the people before me who led to the decoherence of the universe?"

I think I need to sit down and read this law some more and see if I can't apply it to other means of science and learn from it. I apologize for my other comment

 

[Krauq]

Then you don't truly understand the laws of thermodynamics.

Everything is subject to entropy. The information stored within genetic code is subject to entropy in the same manner, just as all information is.

What was the hair color of your G^15 Grandmother?

In all likelihood - that information has completely disappeared from existence. Not only is it unknown - it has become impossible to know. The information has been distributed by entropy in such a manner that it is no longer capable of being reconstructed.

The same is true for all information systems. Despite our best efforts and even the best error correction systems available with millions upon millions of mirrored storage systems... all information will be lost to time.

Just consider the photocopied hand-outs that have been successively copied since the 80s. You can hardly read the damned things, most of the time. This exact phenomena should have doomed live eons ago. The correction systems within modern photocopy machines are better - but they introduce some of their own errors. Eventually, making copies of successive generations of copies will begin to yield errors that reduce the information to null values.

That is precisely what -should- have happened to life.

There is an answer - but involves macroscopic applications of quantum mechanics to bring the observed in line with physics. The 'problem' with information being lost to entropy is, actually, the saving grace.

Remember your G^25 Grandmother's hair color? You can use known factors to reduce the possible hair colors to a range of possibilities. She could have had blonde or black hair (for example)... Red and Brown are eliminated because they conflict with currently known factors. It becomes functionally irrelevant whether she had blonde or black hair... and this allows things to work out as if she had both concurrently.

The only way for evolution to work within physics is if we adopt a quantum mechanical model where individuals within a species are allowed to behave as though the plausible mutations within the entire population are allowed to factor into speciation. This allows for very efficient use of 'energy' and -may- provide an avenue for net decrease in entropy rather than the expected increase in entropy encountered by classical physics.

But then we are forced into accepting the universe, itself, as a sort of Schrodinger's Cat... which begs the question: "So... did this all happen when I was born... or was it the people before me who led to the decoherence of the universe?"

Nobody knows the rate of which entropy increases or decreases. We can say very fast or very slow. But no evolution does not contradict entropy.

 

[Krauq]

And it is a logical fallacy.

I refuse to accept the existence of the Krauq until I know what created the Krauq.

It's not a logical fallacy. If we assume that everything is complex and that everything is complex has a creator than that creator must've had a creator, and that creator too, ad infinitum, infinite regress. Just because something may seem complex doesn't mean it was created.

 

[Ninja Hidden in the Leafs]

Nobody knows the rate of which entropy increases or decreases. We can say very fast or very slow. But no evolution does not contradict entropy.

You are missing the point of what we are trying to say though. No matter how you ask it you will never get a 100% correct answer because of the way things have happened and because of the lack of information.

 

[Takure]

If that's all it takes for you to not believe in something greater than yourself than you have a very lacking imagination.

I didn't say that, stop putting word in my mouth. I said a "God" with absolute power over everything and anything doesn't exist. I said nothing about beings greater than us.

 

[CurseSealofEarth]

I didn't say that, stop putting word in my mouth. I said a "God" with absolute power over everything and anything doesn't exist. I said nothing about beings greater than us.

I didn't put them in your mouth, I put them in the comment box.

So God is impossible but higher beings aren't?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

I didn't put them in your mouth, I put them in the comment box.

So God is impossible but higher beings aren't?

Like the species that may be still alive when all life on Terra was just bacteria three billion years ago, who figured out exponentially-greater science than we currently have, who are at least a Type-3 civilization. Those crazy creatures.

 

[Takure]

I didn't put them in your mouth, I put them in the comment box.

So God is impossible but higher beings aren't?

Things evolve. There are things out there that are much, much more powerful than us. If you think, that humans are the most advanced form of life in this Universe, then you're delusional.

 

[zesto]

Is this a question you are looking for an answer to? No one could possibly know this. Fail thread

yes i do, and no I'm not a troller

 

[Aaenix]

Edgy thread.

Nope.

 

[Aim64C]

Nobody knows the rate of which entropy increases or decreases. We can say very fast or very slow. But no evolution does not contradict entropy.

Yes, evolution does.

Revisit the photocopier example.

Under no situation will a photocopier increase the amount of information present in a document. It will only decrease the amount of information. More advanced error-correction systems reprint the document with incorrect letters (introduced by electronic errors in the memory or through misinterpretation of the copied character). Even more advanced ones have internal dictionaries that will attempt to correct for these basic errors.

But the system does not. Cannot. Increase the information within the document. At some point - the error correction will fail, and that error will be propagated through successive generations. The original information will decay, as it is subject to entropy.

Within biological systems, under classical physics, the amount of energy necessary to stave off entropy (let alone decrease it) is very, very high.

Quantum Mechanics allows for 'impossibly high' efficiencies. It does this by exploring multiple potentials concurrently and 'selecting' (in a sense) the most efficient route(s) and/or branches. This cannot happen under classical physics that requires exacting definitions to existence.

You're going to have to start addressing the issues, here, rather than repeating the dogma you've been trained.

It's not a logical fallacy. If we assume that everything is complex and that everything is complex has a creator than that creator must've had a creator, and that creator too, ad infinitum, infinite regress. Just because something may seem complex doesn't mean it was created.

You missed the point, entirely.

I -assume- that your post was created by an intelligent source (or... what most humans would identify as intelligent). But I do not know. I did not see you type this response. For all I know - it's a coincidental set of read/write errors on a server, somewhere.

I know that your account exists... but can I really accept the existence of your user account until I know what created that user account?

You, actually, provide your own counter-argument. Why should I accept your existence until I know what created you? And what created what created you? And after? And After?

Eventually, you reach a point where the answer is unknowable. It's pointless to speculate on what created God, or to even let it be a point of contention. When I refer to "You" - I inherently accept your existence and everything that led to it to be fact. If one addresses/accepts "God" - they refer to it and the processes that led to its formation (all are "God").

Proposing such arguments illustrates a severe lack of circumspective ability.

 

[sage22]

I don't know if god exist or not but its very unlikely based on what we know as humans and can ser and measure. But I can guarantee you their is no god in the sense as the way Christians describe him in the bible.

 

[zesto]

Your answer is simple, God does not exist he/she is an imaginary answer created by mankind

big bang is the answer

if your not insane something is wrong

 

[CurseSealofEarth]

Things evolve. There are things out there that are much, much more powerful than us. If you think, that humans are the most advanced form of life in this Universe, then you're delusional.

No, because I know God is.

And what if we are the most advanced? What then?

 

[Kurisutina]

That's what separates a god from a man. Man can only alter things but never create. God can create out of will. Of course with different beliefs comes different answers.

Tell that to nuclear physics where mass can be lost and converted into Kinetic Energy or Kinetic Energy creates mass. We can spark this event, therefore we can create matter. So you're wrong.

 

[Takure]

No, because I know God is.

And what if we are the most advanced? What then?

You know God is what?

We aren't.

 

[Aim64C]

Tell that to nuclear physics where mass can be lost and converted into Kinetic Energy or Kinetic Energy creates mass. We can spark this event, therefore we can create matter. So you're wrong.

Conservation of mass and energy remains, however. The energy that is converted to mass can never result in more mass than what was annihilated to generate it.

Not to mention, all of these processes are subject to entropy. Energy is constantly being 'leaked' to form an increasingly higher 'ground state' or 'zero point.' 100% of the energy from matter-to-energy conversion is -not- harnessed for useful purposes and what is lost distributes itself as evenly as it can through the known universe (over time, of course).

We've yet to discover a means of energy-matter conversion that is anything worthy of the term 'plausible' - let alone 'practical' (which is not to say 'efficient'). You're looking at a <1% efficiency rating, there.

Though I fully expect that, one day, we will become a "Null Entropy" species - having discovered a sort of 'Maxwell's Demon" that allows us to ignore standard entropy. Later, I expect we'll be able to develop a means of over-unity (though this might require a structure of truly stellar proportions - or highly intricate meta-materials that we can't even begin to speculate on); thus becoming a "Post-Entropic" species.

But, so far, we are bound to the seemingly finite existence around us.

 

[Krauq]

Yes, evolution does.

Revisit the photocopier example.

Under no situation will a photocopier increase the amount of information present in a document. It will only decrease the amount of information. More advanced error-correction systems reprint the document with incorrect letters (introduced by electronic errors in the memory or through misinterpretation of the copied character). Even more advanced ones have internal dictionaries that will attempt to correct for these basic errors.

But the system does not. Cannot. Increase the information within the document. At some point - the error correction will fail, and that error will be propagated through successive generations. The original information will decay, as it is subject to entropy.

Within biological systems, under classical physics, the amount of energy necessary to stave off entropy (let alone decrease it) is very, very high.

Quantum Mechanics allows for 'impossibly high' efficiencies. It does this by exploring multiple potentials concurrently and 'selecting' (in a sense) the most efficient route(s) and/or branches. This cannot happen under classical physics that requires exacting definitions to existence.

You're going to have to start addressing the issues, here, rather than repeating the dogma you've been trained.



You missed the point, entirely.

I -assume- that your post was created by an intelligent source (or... what most humans would identify as intelligent). But I do not know. I did not see you type this response. For all I know - it's a coincidental set of read/write errors on a server, somewhere.

I know that your account exists... but can I really accept the existence of your user account until I know what created that user account?

You, actually, provide your own counter-argument. Why should I accept your existence until I know what created you? And what created what created you? And after? And After?

Eventually, you reach a point where the answer is unknowable. It's pointless to speculate on what created God, or to even let it be a point of contention. When I refer to "You" - I inherently accept your existence and everything that led to it to be fact. If one addresses/accepts "God" - they refer to it and the processes that led to its formation (all are "God").

Proposing such arguments illustrates a severe lack of circumspective ability.

Yes it will eventually fail. Your point?

Well yes, just because we don't know what created that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That wasn't the point I was making.

Also we have observed the amount of information increased when a mutation occurs, so yes the amount of information can increase.

 

[Aim64C]

Yes it will eventually fail. Your point?

To be blunt, if you don't understand the obvious problem, here - then you're hardly worth talking to.

However, I'm feeling charitable.

Each word on the copy machine represents an object or function - like in computer programming or like in a gene sequence creating a protein.

Even mathematical simulations of evolutionary systems suffer massively from entropic losses. Different models of gene behavior have slightly different implications - but none of them show a decrease in entropy. At best - they minimize the types of errors and the cost they come with - which only delays the inevitable.

What this means is that life -should- be incapable of creating more information - of increasing in complexity.

Well yes, just because we don't know what created that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That wasn't the point I was making.

Be honest with me. Did you really have a clear point in mind when making that statement?

Also we have observed the amount of information increased when a mutation occurs, so yes the amount of information can increase.

No, we have not observed information increase. We have observed information exchange within existing systems. The overall entropy of the system remains similar or unchanged.

Now, through concentrated effort, we have made the conscious effort to migrate genes into other species through very elaborate selective breeding processes (such as the Indigo Rose tomato) and through direct genetic engineering.

Most of what we have observed, however, are errors in the process that alter existing function. Even the celebrated "we've created a yeast that devours alcohol instead of sugar" experiments are far less sensational than they sound. Sure - they sound impressive to the lay person... but the biochemistry involved is akin to saying: "We used a flat-head screwdriver to remove a Phillips screw!"

To compare it to our infamous copy machine, it is the difference between O and 0.

But that begs a question:

Obviously... the life in existence bears striking similarities to itself. There are a lot of anatomical and biochemical features that would indicate that we all have some inter-related ancestry going on. But random mutation in the case of classical physics simply doesn't work to explain the course of this change.

This leads to two general ways to work out a resolution to the problem. Either one must adopt non-classic physics (such as Quantum Mechanics) and see how it can address the issue. Or, one must begin to entertain the idea that these mutations could not have been random.

Though including QM essentially solves the problem by inverting the perspective of statistics. Rather than looking at the odds of something happening, the odds are assumed at 1:0 and the probability that something contributed to the event are factored. Therefor, mutations assume a super-position state within a distant species (as well as various hereditary branches) and the selection process is to increase the odds of the observed to 1:0.

Even so - the only source of information we know of stems from intelligence, itself (rings of the same tune as the consciousness/material universe conundrum in physics). Even the "raw QM" model will see only an increase in entropy until the system becomes moot. It doesn't explain the increase in information.

Which brings us back around to "what is intelligence" or "what is consciousness?" No matter how much math we throw at these problems, we keep coming back around to these same problems. The only reason copy machines still print out legible copies is because humans create new pages to be printed and copied. They may resemble the older versions - but the copy is refreshed as a new creation.

Again - under all known principles of physics... this shouldn't happen. The ability of intelligent life to create information goes against what we know should be happening. The ability for life to evolve in a way that its information content and complexity increases should, also, not happen.

That means either these paradigms in physics are wrong/require considerable adjustment to describe the exception... or that Evolution is fundamentally flawed in many of its assumptions aside from the concept of common ancestry.

Or... as I'd argue - that our entire concept of past, present, and future is flawed and based on classical reasoning that has no place in scientific thought as we become more aware of how Quantum Mechanics behaves. But the idea that the past can become entangled as a set of super-positions (or never really existed to begin with) will take some getting used to.