Nothing vs Everything

[Iacchus]

Great, you just defined what a brain is. How's that definition for the intelligence of the Universe coming along?

Take a look around. Everywhere it's the same. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is why the whole of the "collective brain cells" equals the brain.

 

[Donks]

Take a look around. Everywhere it's the same. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This is why the whole of the "collective brain cells" equals the brain.

You keep tossing these assertions and questions, when I have simply asked you to define your terms. How are you defining the intelligence of the universe? How would you measure the greatness of the universe, or the greatness of its parts?

 

[KingMerv00]

There is nothing "mindless" about the way things behave. In fact things are known to be quite predictable. It could be just as easy as following a "predefined" course.

You did not address my question. You derailed. Mindless can be predictable.

How can you tell the difference between a universe created by a supreme being and a universe created by the predictable, ordered, laws of nature WITHOUT a creator?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Let me just say that Nothing is Nothing....It's the Lack of Something.

Nothing IS NOT A THING...It is NO THING.

That's the only way it can be defined,Nothing does not exist.Nothing never has existed and never will exist...It's not a thing. It's not even an "it"...Simply the lack of an it,the lack of a thing.

There is no universal "nothing"...even the concept of nothing does not mean nothing exists because it's a concept(something)...It means that the concept of nothing exists.



Do you follow?

 

[Iacchus]

You keep tossing these assertions and questions, when I have simply asked you to define your terms. How are you defining the intelligence of the universe? How would you measure the greatness of the universe, or the greatness of its parts?

The Universe is a collective, just as we (our bodies) are a collective in and of ourselves.

 

[Iacchus]

Let me just say that Nothing is Nothing....It's the Lack of Something.

Nothing IS NOT A THING...It is NO THING.

That's the only way it can be defined,Nothing does not exist.Nothing never has existed and never will exist...It's not a thing. It's not even an "it"...Simply the lack of an it,the lack of a thing.

There is no universal "nothing"...even the concept of nothing does not mean nothing exists because it's a concept(something)...It means that the concept of nothing exists.

Do you follow?

So, what is the difference between something and nothing, everything right?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, what is the difference between something and nothing, everything right?

The difference between something and nothing....

Something is something and Nothing is nothing.


I can't grasp what you are trying to get at. It's pretty simple,Something is SOME(any) thing...and nothing is NO(lack of a)Thing.

 

[Donks]

The Universe is a collective, just as we (our bodies) are a collective in and of ourselves.

Are the parts of the universe working together to accomplish some goal? Are they organized under the supervision of something? If you answer yes to either of this questions, do you have any evidence? How do you define the intelligence of the universe? How do you measure the greatness of the universe or its parts? Will you answer any of the questions or will you assert some other point?

 

[Z]

And since the Universe demonstrates no intelligent interaction of component parts - no 'neural firings', if you will - then it's fairly clear that there's no 'hyper-intelligence' going on here.

Might just as well say that the earth is one cell - or atom, more like - floating within the lower intestines of God.

From a practical POV, trying to suggest that God is the sum physical total of the Universe still leaves us with a God that is irrelevant to us. Unless God finally decides to take The Grande Dumpe...

 

[Iacchus]

You did not address my question. You derailed. Mindless can be predictable.

How can you tell the difference between a universe created by a supreme being and a universe created by the predictable, ordered, laws of nature WITHOUT a creator?

First of all, the Universe is the Universe, there's nothing hypothetical about its existence. Second of all, there's nothing chaotic (mindless) about the way it functions. Can a computer function wihtout a mind or central processor? No. Why? Because it's all about timing and accuracy. Indeed, it can run thousands of processes at once which, may appear to be at random or chaotic, and yet that's simply not the case. The same thing applies to all the timing and accuracy which is necessary to provide a "stable" Universe. There's nothing about the Universe which does not behave according to what it's been "told" what to do ... i.e., through the "collective process" which holds everything together.

 

[Iacchus]

Are the parts of the universe working together to accomplish some goal? Are they organized under the supervision of something? If you answer yes to either of this questions, do you have any evidence? How do you define the intelligence of the universe? How do you measure the greatness of the universe or its parts? Will you answer any of the questions or will you assert some other point?

You tell me, isn't this how structure functions as a whole? To serve the constituency of its lessor parts? Everything seems to come together in the collective sense, does it not?

 

[Donks]

You tell me, isn't this how structure functions as a whole? To serve the constituency of its lessor parts? Everything seems to come together in the collective sense, does it not?

Is it physically impossible for you to answer a question?

 

[Z]

First of all, the Universe is the Universe, there's nothing hypothetical about its existence. Second of all, there's nothing chaotic (mindless) about the way it functions. Can a computer function wihtout a mind or central processor? No. Why? Because it's all about timing and accuracy. Indeed, it can run thousands of processes at once which, may appear to be at random or chaotic, and yet that's simply not the case. The same thing applies to all the timing and accuracy which is necessary to provide a "stable" Universe. There's nothing about the Universe which does not behave according to what it's been "told" what to do ... i.e., through the "collective process" which holds everything together.

Since when do we have a 'stable' universe?

 

[Iacchus]

The difference between something and nothing....

Something is something and Nothing is nothing.

I can't grasp what you are trying to get at. It's pretty simple,Something is SOME(any) thing...and nothing is NO(lack of a)Thing.

Yes, but how can some "thing" exist all by itself, i.e., without the laws of physics to support it? So that pretty much applies to every "other" thing now doesn't it? In which case it's "all or nothing."

 

[Iacchus]

Since when do we have a 'stable' universe?

It's stable enough to allow you to get up and take a dump every morning isn't it?

 

[Iacchus]

Is it physically impossible for you to answer a question?

No. Neither is it for you.

 

[Donks]

No. Neither is it for you.

Excellent. So, how do you define the intelligence of the Universe? How do you measure the greatness of the Universe, or that of its parts? Do the components of the Universe work together to accomplish some goal? Are the components of the Universe under supervision?

 

[Iacchus]

Excellent. So, how do you define the intelligence of the Universe? How do you measure the greatness of the Universe, or that of its parts? Do the components of the Universe work together to accomplish some goal? Are the components of the Universe under supervision?

You begin to try and understand how it works on a smaller scale, in which case I suggest we have plenty examples of that, beginning with ourselves. Is there a Universal pattern by which structure forms and brings everything together? Yes or no? As for "how" that Universal structure comes together and "thinks," I don't know if we can answer that? But that doesn't mean we can't assess that it's there, because there are other ways of affirming God exists.

 

[KingMerv00]

First of all, the Universe is the Universe, there's nothing hypothetical about its existence. Second of all, there's nothing chaotic (mindless) about the way it functions. Can a computer function wihtout a mind or central processor? No. Why? Because it's all about timing and accuracy. Indeed, it can run thousands of processes at once which, may appear to be at random or chaotic, and yet that's simply not the case. The same thing applies to all the timing and accuracy which is necessary to provide a "stable" Universe. There's nothing about the Universe which does not behave according to what it's been "told" what to do ... i.e., through the "collective process" which holds everything together.

You are getting closer to answering my question.

From this I infer that a "mindless" world would be chaotic, correct? And that's how you would tell the differencne.

First off "chaotic" is relative. You have just arbitrarily decided that the universe is a vast machine. Where you see perfect order I see disorder.

Here is my main point. How is your hypothesis falsifiable? By what method do we begin to test it?

 

[Donks]

Is there a Universal pattern by which structure forms and brings everything together? Yes or no?

A universal pattern by which structure forms? No, I do not believe there is.

As for "how" that Universal structure comes together and "thinks," I don't know if we can answer that?

Good, because I didn't ask you that.

But that doesn't mean we can't assess that it's there, because there are other ways of affirming God exists.

Ok, which ways are there to affirm that God exists?
How do you define "the intelligence of the universe"?
How do you measure the greatness of the universe or that of its parts?
Do the components of the Universe work together to accomplish some goal?
Are the components of the Universe under supervision?