<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intentional Causality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/</link>
	<description>Web Standards, Web Culture, Web Everything.™</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Sep 2011 04:23:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Tetlaw</title>
		<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/comment-page-1/#comment-77461</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Tetlaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arapehlivanian.com/2009/12/12/intentional-causality/?iphone=true#comment-77461</guid>
		<description>Hi Ara, I personally have a couple of problems with your theory. Firstly natural order doesn&#039;t require intent. Complexity can emerge from pure randomness. Take ants for example. Out of purely random behaviour it appears that a colony of ants are coordinated and purposeful. That&#039;s not proof of the non-existance of a god, it&#039;s just that we don&#039;t need the presence of a god to explain the apparent purposeful behaviour of ants.

The other problem I have is that your theory assumes that events in the bible actually happened and that the bible is an accurate record of those events.

Just another opinion from &#039;the other side&#039;.

Cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ara, I personally have a couple of problems with your theory. Firstly natural order doesn&#8217;t require intent. Complexity can emerge from pure randomness. Take ants for example. Out of purely random behaviour it appears that a colony of ants are coordinated and purposeful. That&#8217;s not proof of the non-existance of a god, it&#8217;s just that we don&#8217;t need the presence of a god to explain the apparent purposeful behaviour of ants.</p>
<p>The other problem I have is that your theory assumes that events in the bible actually happened and that the bible is an accurate record of those events.</p>
<p>Just another opinion from &#8216;the other side&#8217;.</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ara Pehlivanian</title>
		<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/comment-page-1/#comment-76555</link>
		<dc:creator>Ara Pehlivanian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arapehlivanian.com/2009/12/12/intentional-causality/?iphone=true#comment-76555</guid>
		<description>Luke: Not being omnipotent beings ourselves, it&#039;s a little difficult to grasp the whole idea of seeing the whole of space time before us in one, non-linear thing. So I&#039;ll try my best to draw crude parallels according to the best of my understanding.

The way I see it, God created the universe (multiverse?) with certain ground rules--what we&#039;d call physics, chemistry, etc... He also created this universe with the intent for humanity (all self-aware beings?) to love Him. But since love can never be pre-programmed and still be genuine love, He also created choice (quantum superstate?). 

Being outside of space time, He&#039;s able to observe time unfold non-linearly so He has knowledge of people&#039;s choices before they make them. Thus He&#039;s able to intervene, maybe even to the point of pre-programming certain things to occur at certain times.

Like I said, it&#039;s a crude approximation. I think Einstein said it best, &quot;As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Luke: Not being omnipotent beings ourselves, it&#8217;s a little difficult to grasp the whole idea of seeing the whole of space time before us in one, non-linear thing. So I&#8217;ll try my best to draw crude parallels according to the best of my understanding.</p>
<p>The way I see it, God created the universe (multiverse?) with certain ground rules&#8211;what we&#8217;d call physics, chemistry, etc&#8230; He also created this universe with the intent for humanity (all self-aware beings?) to love Him. But since love can never be pre-programmed and still be genuine love, He also created choice (quantum superstate?). </p>
<p>Being outside of space time, He&#8217;s able to observe time unfold non-linearly so He has knowledge of people&#8217;s choices before they make them. Thus He&#8217;s able to intervene, maybe even to the point of pre-programming certain things to occur at certain times.</p>
<p>Like I said, it&#8217;s a crude approximation. I think Einstein said it best, &#8220;As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality..&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke Maciak</title>
		<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/comment-page-1/#comment-76549</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke Maciak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arapehlivanian.com/2009/12/12/intentional-causality/?iphone=true#comment-76549</guid>
		<description>Here is my take on this whole science vs. religion thing:

If we assume that the universe was created by an omnipotent being then we can also assert the following:

1. The omnipotence implies that the creator will know the exact state of every single atom of his creation, at any given point in time - from the moment of inception, to entropic destruction of universe. This includes knowledge of completely &quot;random&quot; events. In other words, universe is a deterministic finite state machine of sorts.

2. This in turn implies that every event that occurs in the created universe has been known by the omnipotent being before the act of creation. Every event can be traced to some previous condition that can be eventually traced to the moment of creation (ie. before big bang - maybe long, long before that even).

In other words &quot;everything that happens, happens according to god&#039;s plan&quot; - after all, omnipotence.

3. Because of the above, every miracle and &quot;divine&quot; intervention can be explained using science. The will and intent behind these events is still divine though - it just that the presence of actual divinity cannot be detected in any scientific way. You have to remember that omnipotence transcends space and time - therefore we can assume that every thought and act of god occurs simultaneously across time. 

So, God actually knows  he will decide destroy Sodom and Gomorrah  before he creates the universe. In fact, because he is omnipotent, he already decided to destroy it, just like he decided everything else - simultaneously prior to creation, in the moment, and after it. 

Ergo, the destruction of the two cities is built into the pattern of creation. The universe will unfold in such a way which will result in random meteor crashing down and destroying these settlements. It will be a natural event, but also divine intervention.

Does that make sense?

Corollary to this is that science is actually a way to get closer to god. I mean, what better way there is to get closer to a creator than by studying his creation?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here is my take on this whole science vs. religion thing:</p>
<p>If we assume that the universe was created by an omnipotent being then we can also assert the following:</p>
<p>1. The omnipotence implies that the creator will know the exact state of every single atom of his creation, at any given point in time &#8211; from the moment of inception, to entropic destruction of universe. This includes knowledge of completely &#8220;random&#8221; events. In other words, universe is a deterministic finite state machine of sorts.</p>
<p>2. This in turn implies that every event that occurs in the created universe has been known by the omnipotent being before the act of creation. Every event can be traced to some previous condition that can be eventually traced to the moment of creation (ie. before big bang &#8211; maybe long, long before that even).</p>
<p>In other words &#8220;everything that happens, happens according to god&#8217;s plan&#8221; &#8211; after all, omnipotence.</p>
<p>3. Because of the above, every miracle and &#8220;divine&#8221; intervention can be explained using science. The will and intent behind these events is still divine though &#8211; it just that the presence of actual divinity cannot be detected in any scientific way. You have to remember that omnipotence transcends space and time &#8211; therefore we can assume that every thought and act of god occurs simultaneously across time. </p>
<p>So, God actually knows  he will decide destroy Sodom and Gomorrah  before he creates the universe. In fact, because he is omnipotent, he already decided to destroy it, just like he decided everything else &#8211; simultaneously prior to creation, in the moment, and after it. </p>
<p>Ergo, the destruction of the two cities is built into the pattern of creation. The universe will unfold in such a way which will result in random meteor crashing down and destroying these settlements. It will be a natural event, but also divine intervention.</p>
<p>Does that make sense?</p>
<p>Corollary to this is that science is actually a way to get closer to god. I mean, what better way there is to get closer to a creator than by studying his creation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marcus Hamaker</title>
		<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/comment-page-1/#comment-73825</link>
		<dc:creator>Marcus Hamaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arapehlivanian.com/2009/12/12/intentional-causality/?iphone=true#comment-73825</guid>
		<description>Ara, even though we disagree in our belief structure and even though I have had the aforementioned arguments with religious believers, this is one of the most intelligent points of view I have heard.

From either side.

Well said.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ara, even though we disagree in our belief structure and even though I have had the aforementioned arguments with religious believers, this is one of the most intelligent points of view I have heard.</p>
<p>From either side.</p>
<p>Well said.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Tellis</title>
		<link>http://arapehlivanian.com/intentional-causality/comment-page-1/#comment-73577</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Tellis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://arapehlivanian.com/2009/12/12/intentional-causality/?iphone=true#comment-73577</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t disagree with you.  There&#039;s no reason why science and religion can&#039;t go hand in hand.  In reality, the laws of physics are constant, which means that if you knew the values of all variables at any point of time, it is possible to project the state of the universe at any other time.  The problem for us humans is that we don&#039;t even know what all the variables are, let alone their values.  Sure, human psychology and (ir)rationality also have a part to play, but let&#039;s ignore that for a bit.

I do have a problem with people who have blind faith.  People who believe that they can sit back in their arm chairs and pray and God will fix that huge tumour growing out of their liver.  The old adage &quot;God helps those who help themselves&quot; has some merit.  I prefer to think that if there is a God, it definitely intends for its creations to help themselves.  We just need to look at ourselves when building artificially intelligent systems.  Perhaps this God is just a geek who gets a thrill out of seeing things unfurl the way they were designed to.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t disagree with you.  There&#8217;s no reason why science and religion can&#8217;t go hand in hand.  In reality, the laws of physics are constant, which means that if you knew the values of all variables at any point of time, it is possible to project the state of the universe at any other time.  The problem for us humans is that we don&#8217;t even know what all the variables are, let alone their values.  Sure, human psychology and (ir)rationality also have a part to play, but let&#8217;s ignore that for a bit.</p>
<p>I do have a problem with people who have blind faith.  People who believe that they can sit back in their arm chairs and pray and God will fix that huge tumour growing out of their liver.  The old adage &#8220;God helps those who help themselves&#8221; has some merit.  I prefer to think that if there is a God, it definitely intends for its creations to help themselves.  We just need to look at ourselves when building artificially intelligent systems.  Perhaps this God is just a geek who gets a thrill out of seeing things unfurl the way they were designed to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

