Matter is contingent in its being. Matter does not exist necessarily, nor do space/time. Anything subject to change is subject; it is contingent in its being.
Bald assertions with no evidence to support them. You’ve had this argument refuted in dozens of threads.
There's your problem. You think your untrained mind has all the answers to the deepest questions of existence because...? You get your information from god? You an unrecognized super-genius? You were endowed at birth with magical insights? Everyone else is stupid and the entire world would see you're right if they just listened? Building brick walls puts one in touch with the great cosmic consciousness? What makes you so special?
Two simple observations: 1. Something cannot come from nothing 2. Chance is not a creative force. I'm more than willing to have my mind changed about those two observations; after all, I brought them up. You have made your opinion of me quite clear, but you have not addressed the ideas at hand. Do you contend that something can come from nothing or that chance is a creative force?
these are 2 bald assertions that you keep repeating. You’ve offered no evidence to support these assertions, and have had numerous people provide evidence showing they are wrong.
I asked you a simple question. What makes you so special? Before you explain to the world the secrets of the universe, tell us why anyone should care what you guess based on your total lack of knowledge of the subject? And not all models have something coming from nothing. I said that but you ignore it. Why?
I can appreciate your interest in me, but I am not that interested in you. Do you want to discuss the topic at hand or me? I'm putting forth two very simple observations: 1. something cannot come from nothing 2. chance is not a creative force I often put observations to the test, even long standing observations. Now, the two above observations may seem self-evident or even axiomatic, but they are none the less very important. They form the axiomatic foundations of my world view. An educated mind is able to entertain ideas without accepting them. The uneducated know who they are and will reveal themselves to the rest of us by how they react to new ideas.
Anything that is subject to change is subject. It is not-necessary; it is contingent in its being. No particle of matter can occupy the same position, relative to the balance of matter, in any two increments of time. Therefore, all matter is subject to constant and exhaustive change.
This is a weird thread. Everyone here is the result of chance when their parents genes were spliced together to make a unique individual. Some are stupid, some are violent but some are geniuses and some great artists. Darwin, Newton and Einstein were all the result of chance, as were all the great artists of the world. The mutations created when parents genes mix are a result of chance: some are negative and get deleted, some beneficial and get passed on to future generations because the offspring have a better chance to survive and breed. To say that chance cannot be a creative force is plain nonsense. (It can, of course, also be a destructive force..... I sat through an earthquake once.)
You are right. Chance is simply a mathematical idea and mathematical ideas by themselves have no physical power. All mathematical ideas can do is describe or approximate what happens in the real world. Mutations can modify our genes and our morphology and help give up adaptations to our environment. Natural selection will select those mutations that are beneficial and weed out harmful mutations. You are right that natural selection really doesn't contribute information and create. All it does is remove bad mutations and result in those with good mutations take over the population.
Beautiful people can be low IQ and not beneficent for survival as a plain looking high IQ person would be. There are more plain and ugly people than those of beauty. Seems like nature selects for IQ and wisdom that gives better chances for survival ?
The queues that we perceive as beauty are the same queues for health and reproductive viability - symmetry, sexually dimorphic shape cues, averageness, clear skin as well as the color and texture,. the waist to hip ratio... Also, IQ and especially wisdom may not have mattered much when it was survival of the fastest and strongest. A dead smart mate doesn't reproduce. Interestingly, one measure of beauty is averageness. Studies have shown that distinct features are generally perceived as unattractive. People tend to select computer generated composite faces averaged from many people, as the most attractive, compared to actual faces. That is why we think babies are so cute - they are virtually featureless. Advertising people figured this out some time ago. The new Betty Crocker is a composite of four women, IIRC.
Mix a bunch of atoms together and molecules result. I don't think the semantics of the word "creative" particularly matter.
The problem is that multiverse theory has been and still is largely regarded as a 'fringe' theory by theoretical physics. Yes it answers a lot of questions that derive from quantum mechanics but it has one critical flaw that even its adherents admit is a major stumbling block i.e. it cant be tested. In fact if I recall correctly a lot of whatever work is being done in this area is actually dedicated to coming up with theoretical experiments that could detect evidence of its existence. So far with little or no success. This means that for the foreseeable future its not being given a whole lot of credence in the physics world. Its is grist for a whole genre of SF novels though.
Oh and before I forget. The above statement is incorrect. Yes 'chance' by itself is not a creative force, that much is correct. But then how could it be? Chance' is no more than the name we give to what is described in mathematics as the laws of probably. As a mathematical concept it does nothing in an of itself. However.... add the laws of probability to the laws of thermodynamics aka a heat gradient and you get motion and energy distribution, you get forces that are both creative and destructive and if you add in time you get complex systems - including, to the best of our current knowledge life.
Q No matter how fast or strong a human is, we are not as fast or strong as our predators. And so IQ is what created flint points that allowed us to defend against predators . But do agree physical attributes had a role. Just think IQ and wisdom is more important. Are there not cultural differences when it comes to beauty? I think sso . Therefore it seems like the survival of our species relied more on our brain and IQ over beauty. And wisdom was essential .
I think we have to be a little careful with that, as beauty can be associated with characteristics that do correlate with survival/utility.
Sure and that is reasonable that looks has played some role. I just do not think it's as fundamental as our superior brains and IQ.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-my-world-view-diverges-from-most.558928/ @bricklayer @HereWeGoAgain @skepticalmike @Jacob E Mack @Ronstar @An Taibhse @rahl @HonestJoe @WillReadmore @modernpaladin @Derideo_Te @roorooroo @Diablo @Distraff @One Mind @yguy @Monash This is a pretty interesting discussion. Any thoughts on the above?... bricklayer, between this thread and the one you made a few months ago, it seems as if you still believe that either a) chance does not exist or b) if it does exist it is not useful to humans as a concept. Is this true? And if it is, then what are your thoughts on the above quote from the older thread? And on the subject of whether or not chance (assuming it exists) can be a creative force specifically, it seems like there's a lot of discussion here relating to evolution and how that relates to chance as a creative force. It may be a bit easier though if we were to discuss something that occurs across a much shorter timescale. bricklayer, are you familiar at all with how neural networks are formed? LMAO! XD -Meta
