Can a house build itself?
I would like to question your statement that 'the probability of a house building itself is zero'.
It may be infinitesimally small, but it is not zero !
joseph
Perhaps. In this case let's focus our attention on whatever is an infinite number of times more probable.
You have the Freedom of Choice to focus your attention on anything you like and I sincerely respect your choice.
Tom
Hi Tom, If a life is harder to create than a house then it must follow that a great intellect is also harder to create than a house.
HK
I do not agree with your logic. You forget that Intellect can actually develop ITSELF and a house cannot.
You also forget that the presence of Intellect is a necessary condition for a house to exist. Do you understand the (mathematical) concept of "necessary condition"?
In order to understand what I am trying to say, please study your Self. In particular, try to find out how to become more intelligent. Can anyone give or sell you any intelligence? Have you ever wondered WHY ?
For a more scientific explanation please read this article
Tom
Dear Tom, I have a question regarding your arguement that a house cannot build itself (without the help of a conscious intelligence). You accept this as an axiomatic truth. But i guess there is a section of physicists who believe that a supreme intelligence is not required for the Universe to have evolved: everything that exists has 'emerged' from the fundamental laws of physics. This thoery does not require the presence of a conscious intelligence.
I quote Murray Gell-Mann:'In my opinion, a great deal of confusion can be avoided, in many different contexts, by making use of the notion of emergence."
Sourish
You are welcome to wait for a house (or an atom) to "emerge". I respect your choice. My approach is to focus on an alternative that is almost an infinite number of times more probable. (See above)
It is the "notion of emergence" that is a purely axiomatic statement that cannot be proven by observations. My approach is exactly the opposite - it is based on EXTENSIVE OBSERVATIONS of the Observable Reality. Isn't it how all laws of physics are verified?
I have studied laws of physics for the first 45 years of my life and hold a PhD in this discipline since 1979. So-called laws of physics comprise extremely intelligent and coherent set of rules that govern aspects of the material reality. Note that our understanding of these rules is determined and limited by our Intellect.
Have you ever thought how and why did these "laws" come to existence? Have you ever thought what would happen if they were not so intelligent? Do you realize how much intelligence is required to begin to comprehend or even become aware of these "laws" ?
When you deliberately disregard the overwhelming evidence of the Intelligent Design of Nature around us - you will most likely miss the essence of everything, including the essence of your own life.
On the other hand, the approach of seeking LOGIC (an aspect of intelligence) in Nature always leads to better explanations of the Observable Reality, better understanding of laws of physics, and even enables us to predict the future. Please read articles at NUjournal of Discovery for more details.
Tom
Dear Tom, Thank you for your reply. It set my mind to rest. I cannot agree more that deliberately denying the existance of intelligence in the Universe is likely to lead one to miss the essence of everything. Very true, but its amazing how many 'intelligent' scientists are in denial over this issue.
Sourish
Very few scientist today have intellect and integrity of Einstein, who insisted that "God doesn't play dice" and that all he ever wanted to know is "God's thoughts" simply because "everything else is just details"...
My current (21 Dec 2001) understanding is that "God's thoughts" are private (like thoughts of everyone else in the Universe) and aiming to know them may may violate The Freedom of Thought. In a truly cleverly designed Universe reading someone else's thoughts without the consent of a given individual should be almost impossible. Please read this article for more explanation.
However, it is within everyone's reach to focus on MOTIVES for designing the Universe by establishing and studying the fundamental properties and NEEDS of their own consciousness.
Tom
Tom, where can one find your electromagnetic theory of matter papers?
Sourish
In my mind. The article has been withdrawn, because I still work on it. There are more urgent things to do as well. The Planet is about to explode within the next 2 decades. Have you seen this article?
As we speak, dozens of volcanoes are becoming active UNDER the Antarctic ice...
Tom
Tom, do you have a solution to this problem? It seems to me that the only thing that will prevent this explosion is if we stop poluting the Earth this very instant. As this is very unlikey to happen a solution seems improbable. If you do have some other ideas do you need any help? I have some scientific training and access to computer hardware and software and various sensors. Is there anything you would like me to do (if I can)? Cheers,
Davem
You are correct that action is needed urgently. The sooner the better.
Since people won't do anything unless they Understand the danger, the first and the most urgent thing to do is to provide the information and the supporting evidence.
So far, people are not even intrigued by the volcanic activity doubling every year, even under Antarctic ice. Perhaps crust temperature rise underneath their own backyard will make them THINK. Why don't we measure the crust/soil temperatures at depths where it is normally "constant".
Tom
The real question should be, can a book write itself?
I think that given an everlasting powerfull enough tornado, and a big enough junkyard containing all the nessesary elements, there is a slight chance that a shelter arise. This shelter or 'primitive house' might have a few purely coincidental features such as:insulation: the walls were put together with a layer of isulating wool.water proof: a huge plastic sheet fell on the top of the roof.windows: the tornado catapulted big boulders through the walls creating irregular holes which could server the same purpose as windows.running water: the structure was build on top of hot water springs.this unlikely 'primitive house' can be entirely explained in terms of random mechanical processes.This is how main stream science attempts to explain life, and yet completely ignores the fact that life can only exist because of it's chemically encoded information which defines all the many thousands of process needed to: duplicate, maintain and repare a cell, inter cell communication, the structure of a complex organsim made of billions of theses incredible cells, complexe 'atomatic pilot' nessesary to coordinate the entire system without us even realising it, etc...
Yet everybody knows this!! just ask the question:'Is DNA information?' and everybody is forced to agree! so then ask them 'is information material- does it depend upon the physical caraterisitcs of the matter/energy used to encode it?'and again, everybody will agree with you and answer 'NO' now ask them:'can you give me an example of any random mecanistic process able to generate a language and to encode randomly generated meaningfull information using this language?'And that's usually when people get confuse and either laugh at you, or start explaining you about the power of natural selection, or even tries to extend the definition of information to include all which exists whether it is informative or not! - ex: 'just look at the clowds..you might see a cute rabbit but all i see is a puddle of vommit'. Frustrated, and infuriated by theses idiotic answers, you decide to switch on TV to clear you mind, and that's when you have a 'brilliant' scientist trying to explain you that art, music & all human creativity in general is nothing more than an evolutionary extention of our genitals...
Jacques
Don't expect a TV or other media to "clear your mind". They seem to be controlled by those who want humanity confused and misinformed to the greatest extent possible.
The essence of the matter is this: if intellect is unwilling or unable to comprehend analysis - no explanation is possible.
No matter how vivid examples you try to present, you won't succeed unless the intellect you communicate with is willing and able to understand.
The question you propose is in essence no better than any other (i.e. can an atom build itself?). In the computer age some may say that computers CAN write books very quickly. The may not necessarily be good books, but they are books. For example a search engine composes a "book" of answers to your query from all the junk, god or bad, that is online.
Tom
