Evidence for Higher Being Intelligence (not human)

[GoodJBoy]

Does the existence of things like DNA and  the ability for the body to repair itself and gravity point to the existence of a higher form of intelligence?  

[barn]

On 07/18/2018 at 5:44 AM, GoodJBoy said:

Does the existence of things like DNA and  the ability for the body to repair itself and gravity point to the existence of a higher form of intelligence?  

Faith needs no proofs. You wanna believe, do it.

Eventhough I have come to the conclusion of : 'the existence of a God/Gods would be a self-contradiction' , I have faith in things I don't yet acquired proof for, nor do I feel /think the need to... I know I'm 'reasonably biased' , so what. For me, it's amplified hope, suspended doubt as I had been wrong before regarding my capabilities. Within reasonable boundaries, it's a fair ask of myself to push my own limits until they settle and teach me more of this 'reality thing' .

On the other hand, let us use the appropriate tools for the right set of challenges. (As in: science, biology as an extension can't grasp morals, it's specifically designed for not meddling in matters of the metaphysical, the mind's eye... etc.)

There's a plethora of inanimate, yet highly complex systems where fascinating new properties emerge from the aggregate of many 'simple' parts.

i.e. weather systems, 'evolution' of stars...etc.

Intelligence and awareness (not self-awareness) are two different types of things though...

Take a lake for example. If you scoop out a bucket of water at one point of it, it doesn't get refilled there because 'the lake is aware' of the missing amount of water there. The lake isn't 'intelligent enough to know' what you did with the bucket at that specific location.

The body isn't 'aware of its state', nevertheless it has mechanisms in place capable to self-sustaining with tandem of the mind. But it would be a false conclusion to draw, that which is capable of self-sustaining must possess a mind. It's a special property for us humans to be able to :

Compare proposed actions to ideal standards and choose a desired action.

Something that hasn't been demonstrated to be in possession of anything but by humans. One of the biggest hurdle btw for AIs is that it can't be programmed, completely unique to human brains...so far.

As of intelligent and aware beings out there?... sure, most likely yes. Any proof? I have seen none (credible) .

Has this been a sort of an answer you were looking for?

[ofd]

Why should it?

[A4E]

I've just many a times wondered why and how this universe exist at all. DNA and other pretty clearly evolutionary traits are kinda boring for me compared.

One theory I've had for roughly 20 years is that gravity is all protons pulling on all electrons. And/or the other way around. (I don't accept the general relativity theory.) But a theory as simple as that was probably proposed before, and perhaps ignored because its boring.

[AnonLifeForm]

21 hours ago, A4E said:

I've just many a times wondered why and how this universe exist at all. DNA and other pretty clearly evolutionary traits are kinda boring for me compared.

One theory I've had for roughly 20 years is that gravity is all protons pulling on all electrons. And/or the other way around. (I don't accept the general relativity theory.) But a theory as simple as that was probably proposed before, and perhaps ignored because its boring.

And all electrons push away all electrons, thus canceling the effect. Given that they average the same force over distance... and if I'm correct they have the same electromagnetic force as protons.

[RichardY]

Like the beginning of the Movie "War of the Worlds"? Or Like Star Wars?

I heard Jordan Peterson mention "What is Life" a book by Erwin Schrodinger, where it mentioned that life is anti-entropic, was one of the things Jordan Peterson mentioned when discussing freewill. I thought that was interesting, as I figured maybe consciousness, could counteract entropy. Sounds a bit like the Force from Star Wars, the scene on Dagobah.(swamp planet). 

[Jsbrads]

Yes, non scientists do say life is antientropic, it isn’t true. Entropy has to do with the arrangement of atoms, most of life ignores that and burns a bushel of fuel to make a few bricks.

Some scientists do believe the creation of the universe may be something other than chance.

From what I understand, the singularity at T=0 was uniform and of a precise mass that precludes chance (1st), yet at T=10^-32 the universe (now about the size of a grain of sand) was not uniform (violates entropy, 2nd). The start of life may have required intervention (3rd?), but once life was started, evolution is accepted science. 2-3 interventions.

The ability to heal, while a very complex process, does not defy natural law. While life once existent, could have been designed, it could also have evolved many of the beneficial character traits we enjoy like healing, talking, thought, etc. 

Gravity is not electromagnetic, nor is it relativity.

As to the existence of gravity pointing to a higher intelligence. It would seem that the particular physical laws of our universe are based on the size of our universe therefore the amount of energy used to create the singularity (now not discussing the source of that energy). Conservation of energy would seem to apply in all universes, but even entropy would hardly make sense if another universe didn’t have time as a dimension. Gravity, while likely, is far from a given, and matter, magnetism, electromagnetism, nuclear forces, etc would be different. Note, two universes of the exact same mass can still have different laws of physics and possibly be different shapes, but it would be really unlikely for two universes of very different size to have similar laws of physics.

[ofd]

Quote

Yes, non scientists do say life is antientropic, it isn’t true.

If they do, they are stupid. Life follows the laws of thermodynamics just like every other entity. Earth is an open system, getting energy from the sun. This is why life can increase complexity and order while not violating the laws of thermodynamics. As a whole, the sun system follows entropy, while there are local exceptions.

 

Quote

From what I understand, the singularity at T=0 was uniform and of a precise mass that precludes chance (1st), yet at T=10^-32 the universe (now about the size of a grain of sand) was not uniform (violates entropy, 2nd)

This is a textbook example because the entropy increased. The question is whether the second law was violated before the whole shebang got started. An elegant solution to that is the theory of multiverses where our universe is itself an open system and the low entropy could exist locally (pretty much like earth today) since the energy came from another universe.

[A4E]

14 hours ago, AnonLifeForm said:

And all electrons push away all electrons, thus canceling the effect. Given that they average the same force over distance... and if I'm correct they have the same electromagnetic force as protons.

huh... didn't think of that. interesting.

 

Many atoms have more than 1 electron... They push on each other, but not enough to push them away from the proton(s) perhaps?...

[Jsbrads]

OFD, at T=0, the universe was a singularity. Energy concentration prior to T=0 created the singularity, but not time prior because time didn’t exist, causality prior, the concentration of energy could have formed instantly.

At this time, we have no reason to believe that a singularity would be heterogeneous in nature that seem to contradict the definition of a singularity. We also presume that expansion would have been uniform in all directions, and yet we observe uneven temperatures in the microwave background radiation...

[RichardY]

Reminded of the universe of energy ride at Epcot Disney. Where the ending of the ride has human ingenuity, rather than the sun as the source of energy. Funnily Epcot was actually planned to be a fully planned corporate city at one point, saw a video about it on Youtube.

However, if the Earth continues to heat up, presumably the excess radiation would have to be vented into space, or stored in the core gradually increasing the Earth's temperature over time? Although there is the carbon cycle.. life, why we have oil right? So presumably energy could be stored in more complex molecules oils for example. But to avoid extinction level events someway of reflection or absorbing excess energy of the sun. On a less conscientious level human terraforming of the planet is a presumable plus. Unless paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. If not maybe, the giant killer robot from the Day the Earth Stood Still would be funny.... I guess there's probably more intelligent life somewhere out there in space.........

[Jsbrads]

LoL, yes, we could put up solar shades tomorrow if we really needed to. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

A bit off topic, but I'm curious: do smart people naturally find themselves interested in "higher beings", "how the Earth was made", or "purpose for life"?

I don't mean to insult or flatter anyone, but as someone with a nice IQ I have had very little interest in any of these things. The first two will never have any affect on my life or how I live it while the latter I've always had an answer for: You/I make a purpose. 

I'm curious if curiosity about the abstract is a sign of intelligence, and perhaps super-intelligent people are even more interested. Or, quite the opposite, smart people don't really care but the super smart do. Or super smart don't but the normal smart do. 

Maybe it's just a personality/life thing. Maybe people with lots of time on their hands (they tend to be smart) think about this stuff, while people who always seem short of time don't. Or maybe there is no correlation.

But I find this personally interesting just because I've never fit in with some kinds of smart people because they'd like to talk about abstractions like this while my main interests were either politics, ideologies, history, video games, or pretty women.

Again, I don't intend to insult or flatter anyone. I'm just curious and this seems like the best place to ask.

[ofd]

Quote

At this time, we have no reason to believe that a singularity would be heterogeneous in nature that seem to contradict the definition of a singularity.

My understanding is that after some planck time units the elemental forces began to be seperated, while prior to that they were more or less the same or they had the same effects.

[AnonLifeForm]

On 7/25/2018 at 10:59 AM, A4E said:

huh... didn't think of that. interesting.

 

Many atoms have more than 1 electron... They push on each other, but not enough to push them away from the proton(s) perhaps?...

Atoms that have more than 1 electron also have more than 1 proton, unless they don't in which case the difference in force will manifest.

[A4E]

Considering that gravity might have been much less when dinosaurs were alive (because of a possibly smaller planet), gravity is pretty weak with the size of our planet now, and even weaker when our planet might have been smaller at that time... so im still hoping there is some very simple explanation for gravity. General relativity is just too complicated imo, and ripe with problems.

[RichardY]

Instead of trying to be the highest intelligence. Why not just accept there were people, however flawed, that were imo much more intelligent than modern man. Yeah ok they were human, but they're dead. Even though what they wrote remains, the intelligence has lived on. My point is to think of contemporary humanity as a high point in intelligence, and not some other entity, be it God, Consciousness, Ancients or Aliens. Would be a mistake, instead of trying to assume the mantle. You perhaps can be intelligent by assimilating knowledge, even if you're not fully conscious of it.

[barn]

On 07/31/2018 at 10:06 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

A bit off topic, but I'm curious: do smart people naturally find themselves interested in "higher beings", "how the Earth was made", or "purpose for life"?

I don't mean to insult or flatter anyone, but as someone with a nice IQ I have had very little interest in any of these things. The first two will never have any affect on my life or how I live it while the latter I've always had an answer for: You/I make a purpose.  

I'm curious if curiosity about the abstract is a sign of intelligence, and perhaps super-intelligent people are even more interested. Or, quite the opposite, smart people don't really care but the super smart do. Or super smart don't but the normal smart do.  

Would you say that Astrophysicists, Planetary Biologists... etc. have a rather high cognitive capability and that they tend to be quite intrigued by questions such as you put forward?

[ticketyboo]

On 7/17/2018 at 8:44 PM, GoodJBoy said:

Does the existence of things like DNA and  the ability for the body to repair itself and gravity point to the existence of a higher form of intelligence?  

No.