Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang


"Zoe" <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t28da2tqv30olsamh93n4p9h0d2mrt0j1s@xxxxxxxxxx
The first law of intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of chaos or
disorder in a system is inversely proportional to the level of applied
intelligence. Or vice versa, the level of organization or order in a
system is directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence.

(Okay, that's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but "six" is
handier when studying negatives and "1/2-dozen" is handier when
studying positives.)

If this law is unrefuted and allowed to stand, then it can be further
developed as follows:

Order can arise from chaos through inintelligent means, your FLOI is
refuted.



The unit of measurement for applied intelligence, i.e., creative
mental activity, is the start-stop command. The more start-stop
commands that build on each other in a created item, the more evidence
there is of applied intelligence. How so?

Processes in chaotic systems can "start stop" on their own accourd with no
intervention of any intelligence.



Start-stop commands are evidence of decision-making, and
decision-making is the exclusive property of mental activity. Optimal
decision-making will produce the highest level of creativity, and the
highest level of creativity reflects choices of the best options
available. As aptly stated in Nature Neuroscience, "Learning the value
of options in an uncertain environment is central to optimal decision
making." July 2006, Volume 9, pp. 940-947.

Your context train has jumped the rails. How does the above apply to the
sorted order of sand on a beach?


Which brings up the concept of the big bang, a point in time where the
environment would be rife with uncertainties.

If the universe started with a big bang, as theorized, there perforce
is a necessity for the laws of intelligence to have been in operation
back then, based on the present state of the universe. Why so?

Because you feel the need for some sort of intelligent agency to be involved
because you have some fantasy idea of something you call the FLOI, so you
can feel all scientifical about justifying your religious belief.


Well, the big bang is theorized to have occurred (for reasons unknown)
when matter and antimatter annihilated each other, resulting in pure
energy.

Please provide a citation in hte scientific litrature which states that
matter/anttimater colision caused the Big bang.

And for further reasons unknown, the final outcome of this
annihilation is NOT an expanding body of photons, as one would expect
of such an event.

That's a pretty odd statement considering your concept of the "cause" of the
Big Bang is not accurate.

Instead, we see a situation in which there exists a
preponderance of mass versus non-mass. Where equilibrium should
exist, there is, instead, marked disequilibrium. Why is this?

Are you claiming that the universe should be 50 % matter and 50% emptyness?


The scientific data reveals some hints, but no real answers. It is
left up to the proponents of varying worldviews to bring their
understanding to the data. Data such as?

Well, pure energy, they say, just might consist of n-dimensional
strings, vibrating at various frequencies. These frequencies interact
with each other in basic units labeled quarks and leptons, and the
mechanisms for these interactions are forces called gravity, strong
force, weak force, and electromagnetism. These forces cause quarks to
hang out together as units called hadrons, which units consist, only
in small part, of quarks, and in large part of.... good question.

Further, it is noted that strings, quarks, baryons, mesons and the
like do not whirl around in random, chaotic activity. For instance,
up quarks consistently have a 2/3 electrical charge and down quarks
consistently have a -1/3 electrical charge; and the same fractions
exist for charm/strange and top/bottom quarks......

Look, let me pause here for input, lest I overwhelm myself (puns,
mockery, objections and education entertained here) But let me just
sum up so far:

The kind of order seen at these most basic levels do not suggest that
the universe came about through random activity. Consistent
regularity implies decision making, whereas random behavior is never
consistent.

A better translation should be "I'm reading too many of nando's posts, and
my brain has turned to mush."


So....

If not random, then deliberate.

Misleading: "deliberate" implies intent. Intent implies intelligence.
Grains of sand on a beach are similar in size, therefore, not random. What
intelligence sorted the gains of sand?


If deliberate, then planned.


What intelligence planned the sorting ofthe grains of sand on a beach?

If planned, then there is evidence of mental activity.

Who's mental activity?


With me so far? May I proceed?

No. Your first assertion "If not random, then deliberate" is flawed: False
dichotomy with accerted characteristics which begs the question., therefore
a logical fallacy. If you can't get by that hurdle, then going on is
meaningless.

Boikat


.

Relevant Pages
Loading