Thanks Ron!

That was an excellent review. Zeroed right in on a weakness that I can now see too. Gives me something to reword for version #8 I can work with, that will strengthen the science even more, even if it seems like being precise would be a problem. I'll be sure to post the new version here when done.

I changed the paragraph to:


If there was a big bang then there are possibilities for us to consider. Either it was a "natural" event with little or no significance to this hypothesis. The creator is whatever caused it. Or this is a cycle that the entity we call Creator is itself a part of. In the latter case the Creator expanded with the universe or is larger than it. We're inside the expansion. Thus we would here be one with the creator and/or its creation.

Since it is proving to be possible to through science understand our origins, we can infer that the creation of life and thus the "Creator" is not (at least in part) outside the universe. If the "Creator" and our creation were unknowable then the origin-of-life science we now have could not exist.


What do think Ron? Anyone?

I think that there's no way to detach intelligence, or at least logic, from observations of the universe. Whether the intelligence is externally imposed or a product of interpretations made by intelligent observers, there is an inherent subjective property of intelligence or logic that rules even our ability to think or experience coherently, anything at all.

And there also appears to be many logical/scientific ways by which such inexplicable properties can be observed, yet not be describable, communicable or verifiable etc.

I think you can see the issue anytime you have an observer/observed relationship.

In order for something to observer something outside itself, as the external system must possess at least one attribute that is not immediately available to be detected by the observer, otherwise the observed would already be contained within the observer and not change relative to the observer.

At least one dimension of those available for shared communication must be used to convey time and hence an observed system can only be viewed, at any specific moment, as existing in a space at least one dimension lower than it truly exists.

This (these) non-commonly shared property (or properties) create the equivalent of hidden dimensions of motion that are only viewable over time, and because these hidden dimensions of motion aren't immediately visible, any understanding of them must be indirectly constructed and modelled in the observer, but this is necessarily a statistical process as the information is not immediately detectable and verifiable.

A simple analogy here is that in a 3 dimensional space, only surfaces are visible and the properties contained in the depth of an object is only revealed over time (we don't actually see apples in their entire 3 dimensional glory at any specific moment but instead only witness a flat surface (2-D), and it takes time to interact with an apple and discover what information various constructed interior surfaces reveal, assume apples have interiors but that's only because we've learned that this property exist over time), and this is a necessary hidden component or there would be no hidden motions to allow differential changes to occur between observer and observed - basically if someone could already see the entire volume of a space, there would be no change over time after this and the observer would effectively encompass that volume after witnessing it once.

So there's a constant flow of novel information in everything we experience - for example a room is not immediately visible without light or sound, but that light and sound do immediately eminate from the objects we see or hear, but instead that sound and light are filtered by various surfaces of an object over time, but the raw and chaotic information/energy of this sound or light arose from a source beyond those - for example, when we "see" an apple, it's generally not because apples are very hot (and cooling) and spontaineously emit radiation (in which case this would only be a temporary event as prior reserves of energy would be emitted and decay in the available information they could convey over time), but instead because a light is reflected off the apple. So where did this light come from? It came from priorly unobserved information that was hidden behind the surface of the Sun or as electricity in a distant power plant, that is transferring unwitnessened energy in terms of chemical bonds in oil that was previously hidden underground, that were in themselves results of other flows of energy and information from a previous chemical or nuclear reaction in space etc. etc. etc.

The point of all this is that science and religion are just two sides of the same coin (with yet another realm sandwiched between them) in that human knowledge is a product of unchanging constants that can be predicted (matter) as well as human experience (which is fundamentally unpredictable as it's a constant viewing of yet another unobserved surface of information over time) and you have a system by which experiences are converted to knowledge via. logic (and these are represented physically in the form of physical laws).

There's no way to detach intelligence, or at least logic, from this process as this removes the ability for us to understand and communicate about any of it and the only thing left possible would be inexplicable, incoherent experience (truly not much different than a void in terms of physical properties).

So the question is really over why there exists any logic to anything at all, and I don't believe science can rely give the answer to this because science can't apply logic to the question if no such logic existed (science is also a product of its (human) creators as well and exists in a form that reflects their (physical) attributes and communication between them etc., though science, as a social institution cannot witness beyond this effectivel "surface of information" and understand the depth of qualities behind conscious experiences behind those physical moments etc.)

So the way I see it is that not only is the universe an unbounded flow of physical information, but conscious experiences similarly arise from an unbounded flow of a broader aspect of existance that includes non-physical qualities as well and these likely arise at specific moments with specific traits that are themselves changing over time and subject to further information beyond them (for example, the conscious experience of an emotion or color is not something that can be physically communicated and you could see this similar to a 4 dimension system attempting to communicate with a 3 dimensional one - one dimension simply doesn't exist as communicable between them, and the 3 dimensional system will be seen as 2 dimensional information + time, but those specific emotions or colors or experiences of timbres of sound etc. are themselves qualities that were revealed over time and someone didn't, for example, always know precisely what emotions or colors or sounds etc. were experiencable until they encountered one of these novel qualities to consciousness and then intergrated it into their equivalent alphabet/language and comprehended it relative to other experiences, but even though an experience conveys novel information, its relationship to past experiences constructs a logical interpretation that is not entirely novel - for example, experiencing pleasure the first time you tasted ice cream could be considered to be largely a novel and unpredictable experience, but experiencing pleasure the second time you tasted ice cream is not as novel and unpredictable and can be seen as an inertia or learning or intelligence that's constructed by the past that imposes a logic upon the interpretation of future events. Without this logic or intelligence, ice cream and tasting etc. wouldn't exist in the first place and even something as fundamental a driving force as gravity would not be comprehensible as every moment you fell down due to gravity would be as entirely unique and inexplicable as every other moment you fell down due to gravity and the fact that it was predictable would be unknowable, so even time couldn't be seen to pass without logical correlations and learning/growth occuring after an experience occured, in which case you can see this knowledge similar to an observer expanding to encompass a greater realm of information over time, and of course this occurs moment to moment similar to constantly viewing new surfaces of information within a hidden component/depth that's described by distance in time).

Yes, I generally always ramble on too much, but the point was simply that the universe would appear to inevitably possess intelligent traits and the remaining question would be as to why they exist and to what extent they're externally imposed upon the universe or internally imposed by an observer or some combination of these.

(Though I'd also add that there are likely realms beyond intelligence as well that fall into a more subjectively experienceable but objectively uncommunicable category, as well as the more irrational class of experienceable but not even subjectively comprehensible category, in which I think this would be indistinguishable from a void of nothing specific).

This is pseudo-science at its best (worst, note that this is irony for all you fundies).

"Creation" did not occur; the word is e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n. Read about it in real texts, not some story of barbarism that is the bible.

Physfan