Edgar, there are better ways to spend your time.]Love the reviews.
Edgar, there are better ways to spend your time.]Love the reviews. I detect a symmetry there.
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.
Do tell.It is simple: There are always patterns for any origins or cause & effect of X in the entire existence. naturen = natural process or natural products = problem:solution (or problem-solution)....a symmetry or symmetrical phenomenon intellen = intelligent process or intelligent designed products = problem:solution-solution-solution (or problem-solution-solution-solution, three solutions)...an asymmetrical phenomenon Let me see if I understand you correctly. a) Nature is not intelligent because it is symmetrical and just works through mathematical determinism? b) God is intelligent because it is asymmetrical phenomenon and exempt from mathematical determinism. I found an interesting article on asymmetrical thinking. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/13/asymmetrical-brains-help-fish-and-us-to-multi-task/Yes, what we knew so far, and the empirical evidence that we could test is that all naturen (naturally made products and naturally made processes) has always the pattern of symmetry. One of the most obvious example is: when you eat because you are hungry, you are only following a symmetrical phenomenon. naturen = eat:hungry or problem:solution...with a ratio of 1. And we knew that a ratio of 1 is always a natural phenomenon since that is how we compute Probability, the event likely to occur = 1 (0 < P < 1) Of course, failure too is not intelligence. Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical... Did you get it?The new Intelligent Design called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.Sounds interesting. Can you expand on that?
Edgar, there are better ways to spend your time.]Love the reviews. I detect a symmetry there. LOL!
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one.
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one. And the universal intelligence calls your work, "A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar."
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one. And the universal intelligence calls your work, "A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar."LOL!! I am a freelance scientist and I don't receive taxes and grants/funds from anyone...thus, you expect me that I cannot have a perfect grammars since I have 6 science books. I cannot pay those editors. But in spite of the fact that I am not funded, I discovered the real and universal intelligence and wrote 6 science books. Now, if you think that my newly discovered intelligence (as universal) is wrong, you can always smash it... CAN YOU???
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one.
MrIntelligentDesign, Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical…Therefore, the universe (Naturen) is symmetrical. Yet you claim that real intelligence is always universal, while also claiming that intelligence is only asymmetrical? Please clarify the apparent conflicts in your propositions.
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one.
MrIntelligentDesign, Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical…Therefore, the universe (Naturen) is symmetrical. Yet you claim that real intelligence is always universal, while also claiming that intelligence is only asymmetrical? Please clarify the apparent conflicts in your propositions.Did you read the OP?? There is no conflict! I said that so that all X to exist, intelligence is needed. But if an intelligent agent (IA) would like to use intelligence, that IA will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon.. Did you read my post above talking about asymmetrical?? Please, read all my posts since I am answering all of your questions here. I don't want to answer twice.
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one.
MrIntelligentDesign, Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical…Therefore, the universe (Naturen) is symmetrical. Yet you claim that real intelligence is always universal, while also claiming that intelligence is only asymmetrical? Please clarify the apparent conflicts in your propositions.Did you read the OP?? There is no conflict! I said that so that all X to exist, intelligence is needed. But if an intelligent agent (IA) would like to use intelligence, that IA will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon.. Did you read my post above talking about asymmetrical?? Please, read all my posts since I am answering all of your questions here. I don't want to answer twice. Actually I am forced to read your posts very loosely because you use words that don't exist in science, but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in your linguistics. But now you have introduced yet another problematic proposition; If IA (intelligent agent) would like to use intelligence, that IA will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon. Can you give an example of such a scenario and explain how that function would be different from "accepted science" of how things work in reality?
Might be a manifestation of universal intelligence.LOL! Yes, real intelligence is always universal and it is only one.
MrIntelligentDesign, Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical…Therefore, the universe (Naturen) is symmetrical. Yet you claim that real intelligence is always universal, while also claiming that intelligence is only asymmetrical? Please clarify the apparent conflicts in your propositions.Did you read the OP?? There is no conflict! I said that so that all X to exist, intelligence is needed. But if an intelligent agent (IA) would like to use intelligence, that IA will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon.. Did you read my post above talking about asymmetrical?? Please, read all my posts since I am answering all of your questions here. I don't want to answer twice. Actually I am forced to read your posts very loosely because you use words that don't exist in science, but I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in your linguistics. But now you have introduced yet another problematic proposition; If IA (intelligent agent) would like to use intelligence, that IA will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon. Can you give an example of such a scenario and explain how that function would be different from "accepted science" of how things work in reality?THIS WAS MY REPLY TO OTHER POSTER.. Did you read it? Did you understand it? Yes, what we knew so far, and the empirical evidence that we could test is that all naturen (naturally made products and naturally made processes) has always the pattern of symmetry. One of the most obvious example is: when you eat because you are hungry, you are only following a symmetrical phenomenon. naturen = eat:hungry or problem:solution…with a ratio of 1. And we knew that a ratio of 1 is always a natural phenomenon since that is how we compute Probability, the event likely to occur = 1 (0 < P < 1) Of course, failure too is not intelligence. Now, since we knew already that symmetrical is naturen, then, the intellen is obviously asymmetrical… Did you get it?
Even if you have a great idea, which you don’t, if you speak to people like that, they won’t listen. You sound like a teenager on the internet from 1992, yet your amazon bio says you are 50.
Also, failure does not equal a lack of intelligence, so your theory has a major flaw.
Even if you have a great idea, which you don't, if you speak to people like that, they won't listen. You sound like a teenager on the internet from 1992, yet your amazon bio says you are 50. Also, failure does not equal a lack of intelligence, so your theory has a major flaw.Not to worry Lausten, we'll get to the bottom of this of what he is actually saying. I am beginning to piece this together and it is not anything NEW. He just cloaks it in a way that sounds new. Phrases like "I said that so that (for) all symmetrical X to exist, intelligence is needed." IOW Intelligent Design (ID). and "But if an Intelligent Agent (IA) (presumably God) will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon", set off alarms in my mind and red flags appear everywhere in this "X" (me). What on earth is the "assymetrical phenomenon"? What I understand from this word salad is that the universe is an Intelligently Designed symmetrical geometric is designed by an Intelligent Agent (IA) and when a symmetry breaking occurs, it requires this Intelligent Agent (IA) to use his intelligence as a tool to correct the situation. MisterIntelligence, or MrIntelligentDesing, or Edgar Whatever, I am an atheist and I don't buy any of it. It is just more religious drivel, cloaked as a physics problem of symmetry breaking with results in an imbalance of X, which then must be repaired by the IA's use (choice) of Intelligence. Notice the introduction of willful action by a higher Intelligence (which you so modestly identify as (id) instead of the natural tendency described in the simple laws of Equilibrium. That just does not make your proposition new or revolutionary. It's old spiritual woo. What you do seem to understand is that "All movement of X is always in the direction of greatest satisfaction" , be it hunger, or the cause of a supernova. It's all the same thing. Pure mathematics, all of it, no intelligence, no intent, just the Mathematical Function, which exists in the abstract, until activated by a prior event. Hunger > food = 1 ? No mathematics there? Supernova < energy = lots of mathematics requiring AI to intervene? Nothin new, IMO.
Even if you have a great idea, which you don't, if you speak to people like that, they won't listen. You sound like a teenager on the internet from 1992, yet your amazon bio says you are 50. Also, failure does not equal a lack of intelligence, so your theory has a major flaw.Yes, I am using a very simple words since I believed in what Einstein has said that a good theory is always understandable even to a child...
Even if you have a great idea, which you don't, if you speak to people like that, they won't listen. You sound like a teenager on the internet from 1992, yet your amazon bio says you are 50. Also, failure does not equal a lack of intelligence, so your theory has a major flaw.Not to worry Lausten, we'll get to the bottom of this of what he is actually saying. I am beginning to piece this together and it is not anything NEW. He just cloaks it in a way that sounds new. Phrases like "I said that so that (for) all symmetrical X to exist, intelligence is needed." IOW Intelligent Design (ID). and "But if an Intelligent Agent (IA) (presumably God) will surely use the asymmetrical phenomenon", set off alarms in my mind and red flags appear everywhere in this "X" (me). What on earth is the "assymetrical phenomenon"? What I understand from this word salad is that the universe is an Intelligently Designed symmetrical geometric is designed by an Intelligent Agent (IA) and when a symmetry breaking occurs, it requires this Intelligent Agent (IA) to use his intelligence as a tool to correct the situation. MisterIntelligence, or MrIntelligentDesing, or Edgar Whatever, I am an atheist and I don't buy any of it. It is just more religious drivel, cloaked as a physics problem of symmetry breaking with results in an imbalance of X, which then must be repaired by the IA's use (choice) of Intelligence. Notice the introduction of willful action by a higher Intelligence (which you so modestly identify as (id) instead of the natural tendency described in the simple laws of Equilibrium. That just does not make your proposition new or revolutionary. It's old spiritual woo. What you do seem to understand is that "All movement of X is always in the direction of greatest satisfaction" , be it hunger, or the cause of a supernova. It's all the same thing. Pure mathematics, all of it, no intelligence, no intent, just the Mathematical Function, which exists in the abstract, until activated by a prior event. Hunger > food = 1 ? No mathematics there? Supernova < energy = lots of mathematics requiring AI to intervene? Nothin new, IMO.What I said is that if you want any X (like bike) to exist or stay longer than expected, you will support your bike (or reinforce) to keep it longer. Your action is called a principle and when you support your bike, that phenomenon is called asymmetrical phenomenon since you want your bike to exist, to stay, to survive. That is the same thing in my new discoveries about intelligence... Then, go back again to my OP and you will see that it is talking the same thing..
MrIntelligentDesign, What I said is that if you want any X (like bike) to exist or stay longer than expected, you will support your bike (or reinforce) to keep it longer. Your action is called a principle and when you support your bike, that phenomenon is called asymmetrical phenomenon since you want your bike to exist, to stay, to survive.Your action is based on a principle. In this example, the principle is that regular maintenance will extend the life of the bike. The action of maintenance itself is not a principle, it is work. The principle of maintenance of a symmetrical object demands that it is performed symmetrically, so that the bike maintains structural and functional integrity which will extend its life. (when you have a car with 4 worn tires and you get a flat, the mechanic will recommend replacing all 4 tires to maintain symmetrical performance. Replacing just the flat with a new tire disturbes the symmetry of the car's traction). There is no fundamental difference between eating when your body requires food to restore symmetrical body function and servicing your bike when it requires repairs to maintain its symmetrical function.
deleted for duplication
You are talking about ToE or evolution! You are completely clueless.
