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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---