Dear Stathis,
Is this not an extreme form of "Occasionalism"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
Why does it seem that we humans perpetually imagine the possibility that
the Universe we observe requires some form of "hidden behind the curtains"
machinery to "hold it up"; I am remined of the image of Atlas standing on a
Tortoise hold up the Earth.
Could it be that all of the "machinery" required is right in front of
us?
Consider the question of the computational resources required to compute
the dynamics of the Earth's ecosphere, as Stephen Wolfram wrote:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html
"The behavior of a physical system may always be calculated by simulating
explicitly each step in its evolution. Much of theoretical physics has,
however, been concerned with devising shorter methods of calculation that
reproduce the outcome without tracing each step. Such shortcuts can be made
if the computations used in the calculation are more sophisticated than
those that the physical system can itself perform. Any computations must,
however, be carried out on a computer. But the computer is itself an example
of a physical system. And it can determine the outcome of its own evolution
only by explicitly following it through: No shortcut is possible. Such
computational irreducibility occurs whenever a physical system can act as a
computer. The behavior of the system can be found only by direct simulation
or observation: No general predictive procedure is possible.
...
...their own evolution is effectively the most efficient procedure for
determining their future."
The Universe's Computation of its future is its Evolution.
Onward!
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:11 PM
Subject: RE: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted
Brent Meeker writes:
snip
> A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the
> natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his
> argument does not apply to a deist God.
It's also possible that God intervenes all the time in a perfectly
consistent
manner to sustain natural laws, such that if he stopped doing so the whole
universe would instantly disintegrate. This would make it seem as if God
either
does not exist or, if he does, he is a deist, whereas in fact he is a
theist. The
problem with this idea, and for that matter with deism, is that it is empty
of
explanatory value. Ironically perhaps, it is God-as-miracle-worker which
comes
closest to a legitimate scientific theory, albeit one without any supporting
evidence
in its favour.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
