Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang

Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote in news:t28da2tqv30olsamh93n4p9h0d2mrt0j1s@
4ax.com:

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:

This isn't a "law." It has no operational value since neither "applied"
nor "intelligence" has any definition. We already have a well-defined
concept called entropy to measure disorder in a system. The entropy of a
system is a constant (Boltzmann's) times the natural logarithm of the
number of microstates of the system consistent with its macroscopic
state.

Chaos has a mathematical meaning as well, and it is not a synonym for
disorder.


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?

Oh, good. A definition for applied intelligence. Now we're up to three
undefined words: creative, mental, and activity.

Start-stop commands aren't a "unit of measurement." That's like saying
that electrons are the unit of measurement for electromotive force. Do
you mean absolute numbers of start-stop commands, regardless of the size
of the system?
It hardly matters. You have no definition of start or stop, let alone of
command.

Start-stop commands are evidence of decision-making,

Not until you can operationally define them.

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.


Great. You can't define what a decision is, but you know what an optimal
decision is. Is that one that takes the least time to make? the least
energy?
leads to the "best" conclusion?

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.

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

Really? And how would an article in Nature Neuroscience bring up the big
bang? And please explain how time even existed at a spacetime
singularity.


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?

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

Sheer ignorance. Matter didn't exist at the big bang. Not until after
an excruciatingly long time, maybe one millionth of a second.

resulting in pure
energy. 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.


Well, only one totally ignorant of physics.

Instead, we see a situation in which there exists a
preponderance of mass versus non-mass.

What is "non-mass"?

Where equilibrium should
exist, there is, instead, marked disequilibrium. Why is this?

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?

Translation: scientists don't make firm predictions when they don't have
the data, so it is left to ignoramuses to push their "worldviews" and
call that "understanding."

Well, pure energy, they say, just might consist of n-dimensional
strings, vibrating at various frequencies.


As opposed to impure energy? adulterated energy?

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.


More ignorance. Quarks "hang out together" because of the strong force
(namely the exchange of gluons between quarks). Your good question has a
good answer ? quantum chromodynamics (QCD).


Further, it is noted that strings, quarks, baryons, mesons and the
like do not whirl around in random, chaotic activity.

Quantum particles do not "whirl around" at all in the sense that your
teacup notions whirl around in the amusement park of your mind.

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......

And their charge has nothing to do with whirling.


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.

Check out the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction. You can watch it in
action:

http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/darnold/deproj/Sp98/Gabe/

Consistent, regular, start-stop and everything. And, of course, nothing
to do with any decision marking.


So....

If not random, then deliberate.

Wrong. As has been pointed out to you many times. Entropic pressure,
genetic algorithms, etc.


If deliberate, then planned.

Tautological.


If planned, then there is evidence of mental activity.


Tautological.


With me so far? May I proceed?


To do what? Display your enduring ignorance? Do you need permission for
that?
I don't know why your repeatedly-demostrated ignorance of basic science
doesn't give you pause, but only you can stop yourself long enough to
learn.

Deadrat

.

Relevant Pages
Loading