Hi Everyone

Let's see, what is absolute - change, at least in our universe.

The only absolute is change because the nature of our universe is energy and energy is either a potential action (waiting for a nudge) or it is in flux.

What we think of as change is a product of motion and the laws that dictate the nature of our universe are gounded in motion.

Evolution of all things within the universe is merely the product of the emergent qualities attributed to the universe.

Time is not absolute, but rather a product of motion because time denotes a position within space. Our concept of time is the product of action or potential action witch is the only constant and therefore the only absolute we can be sure exists in our universe.

Oddly, it is the nature of this absolute that makes it impossible for other absolutes to exist, because nothing is ever in exactly the same space at the same time more than once.

I'm clipping out some pieces here, as it's the only way I can manage to understand where you are going. If you say everything physical has duration, then how do you incorporate the finding that energy is actually matter and matter is actually compressed energy? For these I have come to believe (discovery channel) are one and the same.

To me what you have accomplished in the above statement is to admit there is no evidence for intelligent design.

If you were seeking evidence of intelligent design and using the quantum field as the object of that design - then that is as far as your designer has gone.

From that point whatever occurred is no longer part of the design but rather a consequence of it having been designed in the first place. In other words, any matter which exists would simply be a byproduct of the design - or perhaps a byproduct of having created the design.

Either way, consequence or byproduct, there is still no current evidence of intelligence behind the design for several reasons.

First, we have very little knowledge or understanding of the quantum field, so it can not be used to support a claim that it provides evidence of being designed. Which you have obviously conceeded in the above statment.

However, if we were to proceed on the premise that the QF might have been 'designed' we cannot maintian that because the QF might have been designed that there was an intelligence behind it, it might have been the only possible outcome of what pre-existed it, as in the only natural form it could take.

Secondly, any matter which eminates through the quantum field is a direct result of the field and not the designer - therefore, matter itself is not the design.

Thirdly, if your intention is to imply that the QF was designed for the purpose of creating matter and that the matter was a pre-programmed part of the design, then we have a greater argument against the intelligence of a so-called designer and in favor of natural universal laws.

If the program is only to produce matter, then there is nothing to guide how that matter interacts or connects other than what exists within its inherant properties.

While this limitation is obvious in the singular pieces of matter which are generated - the interactions between these pieces of matter broadens the scope of limitation. With enough variables (the matter which QM materializes) there may be a nearly infanite pattern capability but these are not directed, or in and of themselves designed but are simply the consequence of how the particular pieces of matter begin their interactive journey. How this process unfolds may just as simply be the consequence of which atoms came together first. (ie. hydrogen and helium)

For example, in our own universe we find only certain elements and the way in which they combined created the foundation for the natural laws from which all other combinations would arise.

This would explain why there appears to be so much overall confomity, pattern, and unity without ascribing any matter, which we currenly have knowledge of, to an intellegent design theory.

An attempt to do so brings up the question of exceptions. Why don't all planets have exactly the same axis tilt. Why do some planets have an opposing orbit, and why aren't all solar systems exactly the same? Why do humans come in different shapes and have different physical anomolies? Why doesn't DNA always function perfectly - why are there genetic diseases and differences between humans and animals and plants?

You see, to argue that the universe is the product of intelligent design, requires that the premise of WHAT IS THE DESIGN (what are the characteristics and properties of the desgn) must be idendified. If the design is only the QM field then we currently have no evidence of intelligent design.

Yes - the universe is expanding - but what is it expanding into?

Perhaps we are hung up on a definition in regards to this OP.

So what defines universe? Think about it...

What defines space - must matter exist in all space?

It's always expanding and it's us that helps it to do so...

hhhmm sometimes an arguement for say is a heated differing in opinion or point of view. When an agruement begins it is important to remember that compromise, reasoning, and understanding msut come into play and recognize the beginnings of esculation..Finally, in relationships remember why you are together....cos you love one another..

Circular motion is due to centripetal force exerted by nucleus on electron and sun on planet.this force keeps the planet and sun at a fixed distance which is only possible in circular motion.for the same region if an electron enter in a magnetic field in a perpendicular direction it starts revolving in circle due to force exerted by magnetic field

Cool. I never thought of that distinction. You politely corrected my word usage. Thanks Sky.

But does everything have duration?? Really? Or is it all about an endless continuum of changes, which we decide to stop-gap, if you will, in order to identify the processes in an intelligible way?

Now you've got me looking up the difference between universal and absolute...
Absolute
One of Websters answers: Unrelated and unaffected by anything else
Unaffected by circumstances of time, space or material.

Universal: Any general or widely held concept or principle. Applying to all members of a particular class or genre.

So, it looks like the difference here is mainly in its usage. Absolute is used for as a basis for measurements in science,
whereas Universal is used by orators in philosophical discussions or gross generalizations of people, places and events.
Right?

Here Here!!
Nice work SkyHook

ok, all conflict aside, i have a question about the whole 'there are no absolutes' deal. its probably been asked before so mabey someone could help me catch up, but math is an absolute correct? (im not sure exactly, but i would imagine it is)
so if math is absolute then there are absolutes? or adleast one?
im not arguing for or against i just need clarification.
thx

No problem. That will cost ya!

Yes I downloaded those papers. I haven't read them yet though. I think I get the gist.

So now that I know where Shoku, Creative and Billyclub are coming from, I guess there is no further thing to discuss. They are students of a different science.

Sky, Jeannie, and Abra

VS

Shoku, Billy, and Creative

Who will have the ultimate answers?

Stay tuned after these commercials.

Don't mind me, I just hand out the sodas

I see the humor you are eluding to, but I fail to see how it applies

Consider the quote you quoted:




Anthropomorphism exists within this universe. Therefore it is indeed a property of this universe. That's a fact.

To set up any logical reasoning based on a premise that anthropomorphism is irrelevant to the true nature of the unvierse is to ignore the facts.

Could that be because intent/purpose is subjective and cannot be 'observed' only assumed?

Considering what Shoku said, and taking into consideration an exchange I had with Bushi, which resulted in the statement “there is not intent or purpose, only structure and interaction”, I think this is the way the logic goes.

The fundamental order we observe in all things (i.e. that which makes up all other observables) has no observed intent/purpose.
Therefore, all intent/purpose is illusory.

Several people have used the term "naturalism" in an attempt to explain how the universe evolved intelligent life without an intelligent designer.

I have created this thread to ask what people mean by Naturalism?

I will post an answer to Shoku on something he said to me.

Shoku, you stated that:
"Naturalism explains."




So you are defining "naturalism" as being the conclusion of/by "all of the sciences put together" that there is no 'creator' or 'intelligent design'?

When did they (science) conclude or assume this premise?

This is not an explanation, it is an assumption or a conclusion; and you are now making the claim that it is the conclusion of "all sciences put together."

Therefore, if this is your definition of "naturalism" it cannot explain anything because it is not an "explanation," it is a "conclusion." ( ----> yours, not science's)

Therefore your conclusion is that "order without intention" explains everything. That is a conclusion, not an explanation.

Do you really think that is an "explanation?"

Not sufficient. It looks like a circular argument to me.

But Sky, he is defining "Naturalism" as "Order without intent."

To say that, he is making the assumption that "no intent" is involved. That is a conclusion.

Then, he (and others) claim that "naturalism explains" how the universe evolved without intelligent designer(s.)

Which is just stating that the universe evolved (and order arose from chaos) without intent, purpose or design...which means that there is no intelligent design.

A circular argument.

Therefore, "naturalism" is not an "explanation" it is a conclusion, --according to his definition of "naturalism."

I will need a different definition of naturalism.