Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Commonalities of intelligence in the cosmos

  1. Dec 14, 2006 #1
    What do you believe to be the most shared philosophy of intelligent civilizations throughout the universe?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 16, 2006 #2
    That the universe can be explained! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Have fun -- Dick
  4. Dec 16, 2006 #3
    Before explanation must come some"thing" to explain, before a "thing", existence itself, thus the "most shared commonality" from whence all philosophy in this universe must derive is the fundamental axiom: existence exists.
  5. Dec 16, 2006 #4
    Isn't a common intelligent philosophy more than such circular reasoning as "existence exists"?
  6. Dec 16, 2006 #5
    That their own existence is something special and even sacred instead of being an out control form of self replicating pests who disturb the serenity of planets. :smile:
  7. Dec 16, 2006 #6
    Instead of being? Isn't it considerably more rational (after all Loren did constrain the question to "intelligent civilizations") to acept the fact that even an "intelegent civilization" could be (and most probably will be) an out of control form of self replicating pest? I see no evidence that Human beings (our only reference here) are not out of control self replicating pests. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Have fun -- Dick
  8. Dec 16, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, if you don't like "existence exists", then how about "Je pense, donc je suis." (Descartes was French, not Latin.)
  9. Dec 17, 2006 #8
    How about Rene Magritte when drawing a pipe - "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" ("This is not a pipe")?
  10. Dec 17, 2006 #9
    Say Dick, is not your theory of "explanation" that you discussed many times on this forum based on a fundamental axiom that "existence exists" ? That is, is not existence prior to explanation ? If not, can you explain why not ?
    Second, gene replication, if it is anything, clearly is "controlled"--but do you talk about a difference between "control" and "regulation" vis-a-vis cybernetic theory ?
  11. Dec 17, 2006 #10
    If not these words, from whence does your philosophy derive ? "Existence exists" is nothing more than a statement where its negation is a contradiction, and clearly a "common intelligent philosophy" would never hold a contradiction to be true.
  12. Dec 17, 2006 #11

    This is a Cretan truism for rocks to rationality. There are an infinite number of statements for whom ". . . negation is a contradiction, and clearly a 'common intelligent philosophy' would never hold a contradiction to be true." Of what fundamental significance are these to intelligence?

    How about the philosophy "seek out other intelligence"?
  13. Dec 18, 2006 #12
    Perhaps: What is reality? and what is its origin?
  14. Dec 18, 2006 #13
    Subtleties of exact thought!

    Could you explain what you mean by "exists"? :wink:

    And, by the way, that's not a "theory of explanation", it's my definition of "an explanation"! Definitions and theories are very different things.
    Not without the concept of "an explanation"! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Now if I had the concept, "an explanation" to work with, "existence" could be "something which might be explained!"
    Oh, and could you explain what is controlling it? :rolleyes:

    You should understand that, baring other interpretations, an explanation is, in essence, a theory! Just because you have an explanation for something, it doesn't follow that you are correct.

    Have fun -- Dick
  15. Dec 19, 2006 #14
    In words, does your "definition of explanation" = that which enables one to infer the properties of some complex system from the properties of its parts together with the laws of their interaction.
  16. Dec 19, 2006 #15
    Could you please explain what you mean by "explain" :biggrin:
  17. Dec 19, 2006 #16
    I do not see how this process is a "philosophy"--a goal perhaps--but a philosophy ? Perhaps I do not understand how you define "philosophy" as relates to your OP.
  18. Dec 19, 2006 #17
    From Wikipedia:

  19. Dec 22, 2006 #18
    OK, but now I have a problem, for if philosophy is concerned with the "scientific method", and "faith", what use "science" and "religion" ? I view the three as distinct, as shown here:
    [tex][ science <-----philosophy-----> religion][/tex] ​
    with philosophy linking science to religion--in a way similar to how the gluon links matter and antimatter quarks in the pion. Your comments (pro-con) are appreciated.
  20. Dec 22, 2006 #19
  21. Dec 22, 2006 #20

    Your vectors seem a visualization (progression of knowledge) aesthetic in its simplicity, as is its interesting metaphor (QCD).

    Why not a continuum of knowledge, as PIT2 may be suggesting, including a two-way interaction? Also, does the resultant structure of QCD (not just the triad of quarks and gluons) fit any phenomenon of philosophy? Finally, do you think knowledge will come full circle if science meets religion?
  22. Dec 22, 2006 #21
    In order of philosophical evolution.

    1. Egocentrically based philosophical reasoning.

    2. Big bearded guy is running the show
    (externally based philosophical reasoning.)

    3. Survival is the common denominator.

    4. Love is the common denominator.

    5. Stay within the established natural laws or cease to exist.
  23. Dec 22, 2006 #22

    Worth contemplating (and acknowledging).
  24. Dec 22, 2006 #23
    My definition is quite simpel:I define "An explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. :approve:

    If you are confused by that definition, note the following: "given known information" can be absolutely anything you wish it to be (whatever it is you are explaining); your "expectations" consist of what you expect (as guided and defined by that explanation). :yuck:

    Have fun -- Dick
  25. Dec 26, 2006 #24
    OK, then when you asked me to "explain exists", it is (using your definition of explain) my expectation from known information of awareness that there is something, as opposed to nothing. And thus results the fundamental axiom of philosophy, "existence exists".
  26. Dec 26, 2006 #25
    Yes, two-way interactions seem appropriate, thus revised:
    [tex][ science <-----> philosophy <-----> religion][/tex]​
    Perhaps QCD (http://webphysics.davidson.edu/mjb/qcd.html [Broken]) is like the philosophy of the dialectic--THESIS (matter color quarks), ANTITHESIS (antimatter color quarks) SYNTHESIS: Negation of the opposition between thesis and antithesis (Matter observed is color neutral).
    Perhaps science never meets religion, as there is a limit of the calculus, the limit of both scientific and religious knowledge may be philosophy ?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook