[Kartazion (OP)]

Hello,

According to your knowledge of science on the various theories studied, do you think the universe was created by an intelligent entity rather than a chance evolution?

Arguments must be substantiated whether it is for classical evolution to the result of quantum mechanics that surprises us all. [edit] Personal opinions on the matter with scientific input are appreciated.

Thanks.

[edit] Theology and philosophy can be discussed while keeping common sense, to know and even if it is difficult, a scientific answer to the problem posed.

[Kartazion (OP)]

I take the example of biology.

1 - Biology has the power to structure particles to an intelligent living organism. Is intelligence the fruit of evolution, where then and is it a gift?

[Kartazion (OP)]

I find it hard to imagine why choosing chance would make fruits good, and landscapes beautiful, and we can think intelligently. In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world? The universe follows rules like biology follows DNA.

[alancalverd]

Biology is a human construct, the means by which we systematise and investigate the behavior of complex organic systems. It doesn't "structure particles" or indeed do anything.

Why do fruits taste good? Because those that don't, don't get eaten, so their seeds don't get distributed and the subsequent generation competes with (and eventually starves) its parents instead of expanding  the population.

Why are landscapes beautiful? Presumably this means natural landscapes rather than the mess left behind by God's Highest Creation in Flanders or Nagasaki, and the reason is because this rather stupid ape recognises places where there might be food and water. We have evolved to recognise green as generally nurturing, and "England's green and pleasant land" is actually the product of thousands of years of forest clearance to grow more food on whatever contours were left by the retreating ice age.

If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion,  to try to get rid of us.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Biology is a human construct, the means by which we systematise and investigate the behavior of complex organic systems. It doesn't "structure particles" or indeed do anything.

Ok. I wanted to talk about the physical process that follows the DNA to arrive from the fertilization to the living being.

Why do fruits taste good? Because those that don't, don't get eaten, so their seeds don't get distributed and the subsequent generation competes with (and eventually starves) its parents instead of expanding  the population.

Why are landscapes beautiful? Presumably this means natural landscapes rather than the mess left behind by God's Highest Creation in Flanders or Nagasaki, and the reason is because this rather stupid ape recognises places where there might be food and water. We have evolved to recognise green as generally nurturing, and "England's green and pleasant land" is actually the product of thousands of years of forest clearance to grow more food on whatever contours were left by the retreating ice age.

If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion,  to try to get rid of us.

The current result is due to human greed. Climate warming and starvation could have been avoided.

[Kartazion (OP)]

If the universe was created by an intelligent entity, it's hard to see why, but fairly easy to deduce that we are a big mistake, which is why said entity created famine, fire, flood and disease, not to mention religion,  to try to get rid of us.

In a more cruel configuration, this intelligent entity could plays with us. But what religion says and besides plagues like disease, war and such is that the bad guy would be rid or judged. Please excuse my english.

[Origin]

I find it hard to imagine why choosing chance would make fruits good

It wouldn't, but that's not how evolution works.

and landscapes beautiful

Evolution doesn't make landscapes beautiful.

In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?

Yes.

The universe follows rules like biology

Of course.

[Kartazion (OP)]

It wouldn't, but that's not how evolution works.

Evolution doesn't make landscapes beautiful.

This gives us a clue of being able to appreciate this. If we have the opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of life then the life is beautiful. Why not the other way around? I speak on behalf of most people who have access to it, even though poverty sometimes brings misfortune and disease. Misery should not have existed if we had wanted it to. So la vie est belle!

[edit] Everything is done to be able to be well. What's more beautiful than love and family. Nature take care of us. Why?

[Kartazion (OP)]

In the case of an evolution without rules and hazardous would it not be a chaotic world?

Yes.

The universe follows rules like biology

Of course.

Interesting. Where can this code or procedure come from, if it's not a hazard?

[alancalverd]

Ok. I wanted to talk about the physical process that follows the DNA to arrive from the fertilization to the living being.

That's pretty well understood, at least in principle, and appears to be the inevitable consequence of organic chemistry.

The current result is due to human greed. Climate warming and starvation could have been avoided.

No, the climate has been a lot hotter in the past - it's a cyclic phenomenon that has been going n long before humans evolved. The Iceland famine in 1784 was caused by God's volcano erupting. The Bihar famine of 1873 was caused by God's decision to stop the rain falling. And so it goes on: whatever deity you believe in, will sooner or later make life very uncomfortable for you.

poverty sometimes brings misfortune and disease.

Does  it ever bring anything else?

[Kartazion (OP)]

That's pretty well understood, at least in principle, and appears to be the inevitable consequence of organic chemistry.

The inevitable consequence of organic chemistry is to understand that we ourselves are intelligent? From studying our functioning to genetic technological modifications?

No, the climate has been a lot hotter in the past - it's a cyclic phenomenon that has been going n long before humans evolved.

No causes of global warming for now?

The Iceland famine in 1784 was caused by God's volcano erupting. The Bihar famine of 1873 was caused by God's decision to stop the rain falling. And so it goes on: whatever deity you believe in, will sooner or later make life very uncomfortable for you.

This does not justify the current socio economic state of the world. But indeed you are right, that's already too much death. But we have been given this nature. It is up to us to do what is necessary to survive it despite everything. However, accidents can happen like earthquakes and forest fire too. But measures can be taken to no longer build on these risky areas and/or to adapt the construction accordingly. In another way, there are also epidemics and diseases. But now humanity suffers from what? I an talking about the discomfort of the billions that we are. The humanity suffer from extreme poverty which leads to absolute decline followed wars. These are the arguments that I expose in order to weigh the pros and cons. knowing that current technology allows you to have every chance of living well. Unfortunately, appropriation by patent locks most technical and medical innovations.

Does  it ever bring anything else?

The happiness of others?

[alancalverd]

The inevitable consequence of organic chemistry is to understand that we ourselves are intelligent?

It is clear that the inevitable consequence is that we have defined ourselves as intelligent. And by observation, more intelligent than any possible creator of the universe.

 

No causes of global warming for now?

Suffice it to say that there is obviously a cause because we can observe an effect, and the effect has recurred roughly every 100,000 years in recent geological history.

This does not justify the current socio economic state of the world.

in which poverty, however defined, decreases year on year. Doesn't seem to require much justification, though I'd be happier of it were quicker and sustainable

already too much death.

At a senior scientific meeting in the National Health Service, one rising star said his objective was to reduce mortality. The Chief Medical Officer said "If you can get it below 100% I'll recommend you for a Nobel Prize."

But measures can be taken to no longer build on these risky areas

Volcanic soil is extremely fertile and geothermal energy is as green as you can get. There are fish in the sea, and also hurricanes. Food doesn't grow in supermarkets.

I an talking about the discomfort of the billions that we are.

There's the future problem - too many humans, with unreasonable expectations.

The humanity suffer from extreme poverty which leads to absolute decline followed wars.

The USA's most prosperous period, and also that of the USSR, followed the Second World War. Extreme poverty was the root cause of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. 

Unfortunately, appropriation by patent locks most technical and medical innovations.

No, it protects the inventor from theft. You  can't "appropriate" a patent: if you aren't the "true and first inventor" (and very clever government agents spend a lot of time investigating that claim) you have to buy the patent or agree a licence fee to exploit it.  I've worked for a number of small innovative companies who survive by licensing our patents to big manufacturers. Without the protection of patent law, we would never have taken the risk of developing the product. And patent protection can be challenged if the inventor hasn't exploited or licensed it.

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 17:32:08

Does  it ever bring anything else?

The happiness of others?

We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?

[Bored chemist]

We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?

Yes.
The rich are happy because they have wealth taken from the poor.
The poverty is the cause of the happiness.

[alancalverd]

No, it's the effect of theft (rarely - stealing from those significantly worse off than yourself is not likely to be profitable) poor rainfall (frequently) overpopulation (often) sheer bad luck (even the wealthy can make bad decisions or have a crop wiped out by the Hand of God) or meanness (giving your kids' inheritance to the cats' home).

I don't recall Bill Gates actually stealing anything from anyone, or even cornering the market in essential commodities, but he made a lot of money selling a product into a market he created. Nor have I met anyone actually impoverished by Windows.

Come to think of it, have you ever seen Herr Trumpf  or any senior member of the Royal Family looking happy?

[Kartazion (OP)]

We were discussing poverty. Does that ever bring happiness to anyone?

Yes.
The rich are happy because they have wealth taken from the poor.
The poverty is the cause of the happiness.

No, it's the effect of theft (rarely - stealing from those significantly worse off than yourself is not likely to be profitable) poor rainfall (frequently) overpopulation (often) sheer bad luck (even the wealthy can make bad decisions or have a crop wiped out by the Hand of God) or meanness (giving your kids' inheritance to the cats' home).

I don't recall Bill Gates actually stealing anything from anyone, or even cornering the market in essential commodities, but he made a lot of money selling a product into a market he created. Nor have I met anyone actually impoverished by Windows.

Come to think of it, have you ever seen Herr Trumpf  or any senior member of the Royal Family looking happy?

I just relied on the expression: "The happiness of some is the misfortune of others". But wealth contributes greatly to happiness.

It is clear that the inevitable consequence is that we have defined ourselves as intelligent. And by observation, more intelligent than any possible creator of the universe.

I didn't understand the meaning of this post. But is defining ourselves as intelligent a problem? Wouldn't it be pretentious to say that we are smarter than what we still don't know? PS: "What is essential is invisible to the eye".

Suffice it to say that there is obviously a cause because we can observe an effect, and the effect has recurred roughly every 100,000 years in recent geological history.

A bit of both then.

in which poverty, however defined, decreases year on year. Doesn't seem to require much justification, though I'd be happier of it were quicker and sustainable

Poverty decreases? Sources?

At a senior scientific meeting in the National Health Service, one rising star said his objective was to reduce mortality. The Chief Medical Officer said "If you can get it below 100% I'll recommend you for a Nobel Prize."

This post was in response to natural disasters.

Volcanic soil is extremely fertile and geothermal energy is as green as you can get. There are fish in the sea, and also hurricanes. Food doesn't grow in supermarkets.

Adjustments can be made. The place of work may be different from the place of residence. But accidents do happen.

There's the future problem - too many humans, with unreasonable expectations.

Humans with unreasonable expectations?

The USA's most prosperous period, and also that of the USSR, followed the Second World War. Extreme poverty was the root cause of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. 

So they're the bad guys? Westerners are so good at it.

No, it protects the inventor from theft. You  can't "appropriate" a patent: if you aren't the "true and first inventor" (and very clever government agents spend a lot of time investigating that claim) you have to buy the patent or agree a licence fee to exploit it.  I've worked for a number of small innovative companies who survive by licensing our patents to big manufacturers. Without the protection of patent law, we would never have taken the risk of developing the product. And patent protection can be challenged if the inventor hasn't exploited or licensed it.

No comment.

[alancalverd]

Humans with unreasonable expectations?

Sadly, yes. It seems that most humans aspire to a western lifestyle, a meat diet, and living long enough to enjoy at least four grandchildren. Many of us work to sell and provide these delights to others.However you do the maths and physics, this is not sustainable.

"The happiness of some is the misfortune of others".

Schadenfreude provides an occasional diversion but isn't the primary cause of misery or happiness.

[Kartazion (OP)]

coffee break
__________

Imagine: "Creation is only a decoy, because the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you." 

[Colin2B]

coffee break
__________

... the dinosaurs were there just to deceive you." 

That’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.

[Kartazion (OP)]

That’s a very old argument, but it suggests a very strange god who is prepared to deceive his followers.

It is not his followers that it/he/she deceives, but rather his kings blinded by the reflection of gold and diamonds. If I refer eg. in the Abrahamic religion, it would be a question of capturing evil spirits and their master. The end will justifies the means.

[Kartazion (OP)]

It is not his followers that it/he/she deceives, ...

Because they already know what to expect ; Everything can be possible.

PS: I'm just imagining the probable scenarios that can drive evolution in case of a "religious configuration".

Rendez vous page 2.