Re: Intelligence and consciousness

> On 1/21/2012 12:43 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> On 21.01.2012 08:12 meekerdb said the following:
>>> On 1/20/2012 12:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>> On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<usenet@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> " What about Big Bang?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about Big Bang?
>>>>>
>>>>> " It has also happened for a reason?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it
>>>>> did not happen for a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> John K Clark
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, then you have an infinite progression, as then you have
>>>> to find a reason for that reason and so on. I guess that this
>>>> contradicts with the whole idea of the Big Bang. Or you do not
>>>> believe in the Big Bang?
>>>
>>> The idea of the Big Bang is that the visible universe evolved to
>>> its present state from a state of extreme density and
>>> temperature. It is independent of whether there was a previous
>>> state, as in the models of Andre Vilenkin or those of Sean
>>> Carroll, or not as in the Hartle-Hawking model.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>
>> This still shows that there are physicists who do not believe in
>>
>> On 20.01.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following:
>>> but we also know that everything, absolutely positively
>>> everything, happens for a reason OR it does not happen for a
>>> reason.
>>
>> In other words such a statement does not follow from physics that
>> we know.
>
> Of course it doesn't follow from physics. It follows from the meaning
> of the words (assuming it refers to things that happen). It's a
> tautology.

> Brent
>
>>
>> I have recently listened to Kontroversen in der Philosophie by Prof
>>  Hoenen:
>>
>> http://www.podcasts.uni-freiburg.de/podcast_content?id_content=93
>>
>> and the question whether the Universe if eternal or not belongs to
>>  such controversies.
>>
>> Evgenii
>
>
>