Before I begin my post, I urge you to have an open mind, and momentarily suspend your disbelief.

A mathematical system such as a function, a matrix, an algorithm, or even a computer program have 3 fundamental similarities. Input, Constants, and output. The way it works is the mathematician or programmer creates the constant. Essentially this is the equation, or matrix set, or program engine. Then input can be put into the constant, and output will be determined. Input can be data points, user input, essentially any information relevant to the constant. Then the constant determines the output based on the input.

The natural universe has these same similarities. Constants, are the laws of physics. Input is all the matter and energy in the universe, as well as it's location, and the output is either not yet determined, or is continuously being monitored by the creator of the constant. In this view God is not the all powerful being that most religions make him out to be, but a being responsible for our existence nonetheless.

I don't expect many of you to agree with me, but I hope that I can be considered an ally in my opposition to dogmatic belief systems.

Views: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This way of thinking is an existential fallacy. Simply put you are saying
"equations have constants, the universe has constants, they both have creators"
It's the same as saying
"Unicorns are animals, Dogs are animals, they both exist."
Clearly fallacious.
Your example is not very good Ian, for constants in the universe and constants in equations are known facts, in your comparison only one is a known fact.
It is certainly non-linear, as are many equations. and to our understanding it may seem probabilistic. However I would contend that is only due to error in our ability to view the world on the quantum scale. Quantum theory is far from complete. I think it is at least equally likely that it will be found to fit a rigid cause and effect scenario, than not to. Only time can tell.
Nope. QM says trajectories of particles are truly stochastic.
Yes! The universe is NOT deterministic. Newton is just a really good approximation.
Sorry, let me rephrase.
"Equations have constants, the universe has constants, they both have creators"
"Dogs are animals, lizards are animals, they both hatch from eggs."
Dogs are animals, lizards are animals, they both hatch from eggs." I like this.
Hi Tenzin, it seems you are drawing a parallel between our universe and a Turing machine (of course a really BIG Turing machine). However, Turing machines require discrete states (no matter how big they are) and modern complexity theory is discovering that the universe cannot be represented as such (REF: Stuart Kauffman, Carl Woese, Ernst Mayr). I used to really be into Artificial Intelligence, having read a book called "Mind's Eye", which has stories like "A conversation with Einstein's brain". Old school AI is strongly reductionist, claiming that you could represent any lifeform as a giant digital computer program and that you could even represent the whole system that the lifeform exists in as a computer program (ala the movie "MATRIX"). These days with the new ideas of complexity theory, I would say that you could represent the lifeform as a copy of what already exists, but you could not predict its emergence. Subtle but significant difference in these two viewpoints.
I don't agree with Tenzin, but I don't see why you two, Doone, and Roger, seem so confident that the universe is dynamic and probabilistic. So Quantum Mechanics says so. Because radioactive molecules decay at seemingly random Intervals? The Bohm interpretation hasn't been disproven, and Bell's theorem hasn't been proven. There could be hidden variables, or quantum particles could be stochastic, but until an experiment proves either without a doubt, how can you be so sure as to tell someone as though you know?
Umm... dude, you didn't reply to my post, you replied to the original post that you've already replied to lol
I think I made a similar point last night, I agree that if we close our minds to the eerie order of the universe then we are as bad as those we condemn. We all have to have 'I dont know' as our starting point and that 'I dont know' must include the possibility that there IS a creator. Just a creator and not a monitor.
Being a non-believer I found studying physics to be unsettling. I can't help seeing some design there, it's all too perfect. But if the dials of the universal constants were tweeked just a little, and all matter ceased to exist, would other life form arise in the gaseos mists and think that their universe was perfectly balanced for them?
All I can say is that I believe I don't know!
Douglas Adams had an opinion on this as told by Richard Dawkins.

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."
-- Richard Dawkins, in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 5 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 14 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service