Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

[kc0itf]

Hi,

a newbie to these particular forums. I'm presently making my way through The Electric Sky. Just got done watching the documentary The Privileged Planet, which argues that the Earth is perfect for both life and meaningful scientific observations! The film assumes Big Bang cosmology when dealing with material. Based on what I've read throughout thunderbolts.info and other sites, The Electric Universe, and The Electric Sky, the argument seems to fall apart in the Electric Universe!

In general, wondering what the electric universe model says about this and other facets of intelligent design? Is electricity the driving force for some, if not all the "biological design" ID proponents claim when it's apparent that it's responsible for cosmic structures?

[MGmirkin]

Urey-Miller experiments created precursors of life, using electricity. Dusty plasma can self-arrange into life-like formation not unlike DNA. Final word on the issue? No, but interesting nonetheless... I think that plasma's life-like qualities (the reason the name was borrowed by Langmuir from blood 'plasma') may have some bearing on how/why life developed like it did, with DNA et al, large electric fields in relatively small regions of cells, etc. Hard to know specific origins, of course. Kind of like figuring out what came "before" the Big Bang or where the ultimate "power supply" for galactic / universal circuits comes from in an Electric Universe... Maybe we'll know some day. Maybe not.

~Michael Gmirkin

[jtb]

Neither the Big Bang (BB) nor the Electric Universe (EU) can answer origin questions scientifically since no one was there to observe everything being created out of nothing, or, witness the origin of the generator powering our EU; however, since we are here to perceive the universe, we are free to guess at it’s origin. And, your guess is as good as anyone’s, despite their credentials, because no one knows everything. Origins is a philosophical question usually arrived at using reason and logic based on assumptions (guess) and facts to come to a conclusion (theory). A theory becomes a scientific fact when enough evidence is found, through experimentation, to support the theory. A scientific law maintains it’s status until an exception is found contradicting it.

Look around the room in which you are sitting. What in the room was not intelligently designed? What was self-organized? You have to be indoctrinated to believe that the spider web in the coroner ceiling was intelligently designed, but the spider happened by accident, or was self-organized. Intelligent design, like the BB and the EU, does not attempt to answer the question of origins; however, it may be a scientific law--I can’t think of any effect without a cause.

I love Michael's quote: "The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
jtb

[squiz]

There's no doubt that electricity and it's related phenomena play a huge part in biology. Biologists suffer from what has been called a "free lunch" in relation to understanding complex information systems. In this way I think engineering principles can and do offer a greater understanding of biological systems. Especially electrical engineering. Engineering is the science of design.

Personally I think we can learn much more from this approach, and it seems we are.
Ironically engineers can learn even more from the designs in nature.

[squiz]

One of the things that attracted me to EU was it's biological implications. Plasma does self organize some synonomous structures in relation to biolology but this is not the real issue with the problem of the origin of life. Plasma has never produced a functional symbolic code.

This is the real problem, the origin of information, in particular symbolic information that actually performs a function. In biology it's sometimes called the sequencing problem.

Norbert Weiner the founder of cybernetics wrote "information is information not matter or energy".

This statement was quite enlightening for me, when I understood it.

[jtb]

One of the things that attracted me to EU was it's biological implications. Plasma does self organize some synonomous structures in relation to biolology but this is not the real issue with the problem of the origin of life. Plasma has never produced a functional symbolic code.

Self-organization of plasma is evidence that information is contained within non-living matter, and that plasma was intelligently designed for a purpose. Organic matter consists of inorganic matter, so there is a connection.

Spontaneous Regeneration, which supposedly was proven wrong, has been renamed A-bio-genesis and continues as an article of faith in all religions--"And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground". The problem of the origin of life always comes down to the same question: How did inorganic matter become plant life and then evolve into living creatures? (all creatures eat plants or other creatures that eat plants, so obviously, plants evolved before creatures)

Origins is a philosophical, rather than a scientific question because it cannot be observed or "created" in the laboratory. Every time I think something is new, I find that someone else had the same theory previously. An example is the modern Multi-verse (multiple universes) theory. Democritus in ancient Greece had a similar theory which he probably got from some other unknown ancient.

In short, both inorganic and organic matter was intelligently designed for a purpose.
jtb

[squiz]

Self-organization of plasma is evidence that information is contained within non-living matter, and that plasma was intelligently designed for a purpose. Organic matter consists of inorganic matter, so there is a connection.

Yes I thought this as well until I understood the non physical component that is inherant in language and codes. The classical information that is present in plasma is a result of the laws of physics only. It does not encode and there is no decoded function understood by something else, unless it is arranged/programmed to do so. We can say that the fine tuning of these laws allows self organization. Sure.

As far as codes go, the information is encoded in matter but it is not the matter itself. Language, computer programs, morse code, smoke signals etc... These all have elements of both classical information and non physical symbolic information. This is self evident when you think about it.

Entities can be categorized or classified as tangible/physical, intangible/non-physical, or both. Tangible/physical may be defined as things composed of matter (e.g., planets, furniture, or persons), and intangible/non-physical may be defined as things that cannot be touched, such as abstract concepts (e.g., mathematical concepts, alphabets, and literary works). Examples of entities that are both tangible and intangible at the same time are a printed book, a thumb drive, and a person. They are physical, but also contain intangible knowledge and information that is independent of and transcends the physical media upon which the information is placed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-physical_entity

Coded information is different to classical information. for example these two lines contain an equal amounts of classical shannon information.

This is a sentence

iTh sas nes ceenit

But what is obvious is that the first line contains specified functional information in the arrangement of the data, the other does not. Its meaning is understood through a decoding process we have learnt. It takes two if that makes sense.

The information that is in dna is encoded. DNA does nothing by itself. The arrangement of inorganic matter is what conveys the specified functionality. This type of information requires encoding, a transmission medium and a decoder, ontop of that it then performs a function upon decoding.

This is a very strong case for design simply because the only source of coded information comes from a mind. As well the very concept of codes requires intent.

DNA has logic gates, decision nodes, configurable swithches, self correcting and repair programs and a formal non physical symbolic code.

We do agree on a design perspective, this only makes it stronger.

[tholden]

You might find this useful:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

Static electricity cannot create living information systems any more than it can create computers.

[tholden]

Urey-Miller experiments created precursors of life....

~Michael Gmirkin

They created a few amino acids. They didn't come close to creating proteins and the gulf between the two is gigantic.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... le/51.html

[VelisEtRemis]

It seems overwhelming to us that creation does or may not have a top down component to it to explain the apparent coherence that we observe and experience. After all, all human organizations that function coherently at all utilize both a top down and bottom up expressed structure and it would be difficult or impossible for society to function without both. To answer this mystery, I guess we will have to get smarter?

[jtb]

V, please expound on what you mean by an explanation of top down and bottom up coherent structure. Which portion of creation are you referring to: plants, animals, humans, heavenly bodies, etc? Give an example to help clarify.
Thanks,
jtb

[VelisEtRemis]

Creation from a bottom up perspective relies upon the basic laws of physics unfolding before us in enexorable ways. A top down perspective relies upon a creator, people usually refer to as god who is directing creation.

[jtb]

V, please keep in mind that animals only eat plants, or, they eat other animals that eat plants. Therefore, plants had to exist before animals. This opens the possibility that animals evolved from plants. Also, plants only survive on organic matter. A plant in inorganic sand will starve to death. Therefore, organic matter had to exist before the first plant. Organic matter only comes from dead plants and animals. So, logically, the first organic matter either came from inorganic matter here on earth, or, was somehow transported to Earth from the heavens. Keep in mind that organic matter has never been created in the laboratory, and, traveling at C, it would take nearly 4,000 years for it to reach the earth from the nearest solar system. Also, keep in mind that Evolution is just another Creation myth. None of us were there to witness the creation of the universe, so my guess, and yours, is as good as anyone's. I am interested in your top down explanation of Creation. I believe Thunderbolt's explanation is that our sun was once a brown dwarf star that showered the earth with organic matter.

Below is my top down explanation of the first 4 days of Biblical Creation:

Initial Creation: Gen 1:1-19 in Bold
“In the beginning” (if there is a beginning there is an end, if there is an up there is a down) “God created” (brought into being or existence—creation requires action) “the heaven” (impersonal singular noun, material with form—probably spherical—and solid—Planck dense material—a place to put the earth—the universe) “and the earth” (matter). “And the earth was without form, and void;” (Boze-Einstein Condensate Experiment: at zero Kelvin motion ceases and matter loses its form and becomes void) “and darkness” (darkness is cold—lack of energy—lack of motion) “was upon the face of the deep” (matter without form). “And the Spirit” (something that has the power of self motivation caused by desire) “of God moved” (set the Planck dense heaven in motion creating heat) “upon the face of the waters” (motion produced heat and the deep—formless matter—became a form of water, carried about with the rotating heaven).

One Biblical Creation Day:
One complete rotation of the Planck dense heaven around a central point equals one Biblical creation day, however long it takes. A day couldn’t be based on the greater light and the lesser light and the stars, because they did not exist until the fourth day of creation. There is no heavenly body yet created around which the heaven is rotating to determine the length of a day. I suspect a day has always been approximately 24 hours. The Biblical definition of day was established in the beginning, starting cold and dark (evening) and ending with the creation of light being separated from darkness (morning).

The First Evening:
“And the Spirit of God moved” (God initiated the rotation of the heaven around a central point. Movement raised the temperature above zero K) “upon the face of the waters”. (The earth, formless matter, turned to a form of water due to increase in temperature).”

The First Morning:
“And God said,” (vibration of his voice: additional heat) “Let there be light:” (singular, light here is a form of water vibrating at a specific frequency in the rotating heaven. Therefore, this light is both a wave (vibration) and a particle (water)—living waters. The frequency and composition of this light may not be the same as the multiple frequency light created on day four) “and there was light. And God saw” (perception by a physical sense: 5 senses--God can see any frequency of light. We are limited to the visible spectrum) “the light, that it was good:” (good is a conception in the mind of God as a result of perception) “And God divided the light from the darkness” (The frequency of the living waters does not resonate, or spill over, into the rest of the cold, dark waters of the universe) “And God called the light Day,” (living waters, third heaven, throne of God) “and the darkness he called Night.” (the cold, dark waters) “And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

Second Day of Creation: Firmament/Heaven:
“And God said” (resonance, vibration, wave motion), “Let there be a firmament” (this particular resonance of his voice in the waters formed something firm) “in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.” (We have the rotating heaven, a solid dense form, probably spherical, containing a firmament called Heaven, separating the waters within the heaven). “And God called the firmament Heaven” (personal noun—we have a smaller rotating sphere within a larger rotating sphere separated by something firm called Heaven). “And the evening and the morning were the second day”. (second rotation of the heaven around a central point)

Third Day of Creation: Earth, Seas, Grass, Grain, & Fruit Trees:
“And God said,” (the vibration of his voice) “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.” (All the water under Heaven, the firmament, was gathered into the center of the inner rotating sphere) “And God called the dry [land] Earth;” (one of the frequencies of the vibration of God’s voice was absorbed by the water, produced additional heat, evaporated moisture, and dry land appeared—see Electromagnetic Theory of Light) “and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.” (third evening) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.” (third morning) “And the evening and the morning were the third day.” (third rotation of the heaven—vegetation created before sunlight—grass, grain, and trees)

Fourth Day of Creation: Greater Light, Lesser Light, and the Stars:
“And God said,” (vibration of his voice) “Let there be lights” (plural, multiple frequencies of light) “in the firmament of the heaven” (the inner, Planck dense sphere w/o water: water was confined to the seas of the dry land on day 2—outer space) “to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:” (days and years are grouped together) “and let them be for lights in the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” (The stars are important, but mentioned as an afterthought. If the sun is a star, it could not have been that greater or lesser light created on day 4. The words sun and moon are not used until after Noah’s flood, so the greater light and lesser light may not have been the sun and moon we see today.) “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven” (God placed the lights in the rotating Planck dense inner sphere) “to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness:” (light has a frequency range that limits visibility) “and God saw” (perceived) “that it was good.” (conception)
jtb

[VelisEtRemis]

I think that if the universe is created and unfolds as it does strictly from bottom up causation without any top down causation, that this introduces the dilemma that there is no purpose to creation and that deity can only be found in the ultimate rules of physics. This seems pretty scary to me, so I choose not to think about it or identify with it much.

[VelisEtRemis]

It is pretty Interesting that Stephen Hawkings asserts that the net energy of the universe as a whole is zero. This seems quite in agreement of what we know about the quantum vacuum. So as far as physical reality is concerned, the grand sum is zero!

If this is true then all the phenomena that we experience and witness is the expression of unfolding physical existence maintaining the total net energy balance of nothing. This unfolding is obviously coherent, and this why we study science?

And perhaps existence is our privilege and the vacuum is obviously not nothing? I don't know much more than that, and have no fantastic claims to make about gods or anything else.