Pinnacle of evolution: Existence comprehending itself. [trollville]

Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Pinnacle of evolution: Existence comprehending itself. [trollville]

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

 

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

 

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

 

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

 

in which language? 

 

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

 

Will the next generations want to know?  What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

 

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

 

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

 

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:every breath,

Bishadi wrote:

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Everything about us is part of the natural world, of course - so??

Quote:

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

Assuming we are the only, or the first, self-aware beings with a language. 

Quote:

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

Human words are our creation, of course.

Quote:

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

No.

Quote:

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

No 'perfectly' involved.

Naming something only creates a label for it, and defines nothing more than that label, nothing else about what that label refers to.

Quote:

in which language? 

 

Our own language, of course.

 

Quote:

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

 

We are NOT 'existence, only a small part of it. Scientific, empirical study is how we attempt to satisfy our desire to understand,

 

Quote:

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

Not necessarily, in fact, mostly NO.

Quote:

Will the next generations want to know?  What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

Some in the next generations will want to know, so it would be nice to do what we can to help that happen.

 

Quote:

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

The "pinnacle of evolution" is largely meaningless and certainly subjective. Irrelevant.

Quote:

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

If we found a way to indefinitely extend our life-span, that would be nice. You are just confusing the issue by talking about 'magic'.

Quote:

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

A poorly defined concept. Do you mean "What is the most advanced life-form on Earth?". Probably Homo Sapiens, at least right now, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

 

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:i said,

Bishadi wrote:

i said, existence comprehending itself, is the pinnacle of evolution.

is it, or is it not?

 

why?

 

I answered before.  Evolution has no pinnacles.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  The question is meaningless.  Therefore, the question has no meaningful answer.

See Mark Twain -

http://smcgrat.blogspot.com/2007/12/mark-twains-was-world-made-for-man.html wrote:

Very well. According to Kelvin's figures it took 99,968,000 years to prepare the world for man, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see him and admire him. But a large enterprise like this has to be conducted warily, painstakingly, logically. It was foreseen that man would have to have the oyster. Therefore the first preparation was made for the oyster. Very well, you cannot make an oyster out of whole cloth, you must make the oyster's ancestor first. This is not done in a day. You must make a vast variety of invertebrates, to start with -- belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them to soak in a primary sea, and wait and see what will happen. Some will be a disappointments - the belemnites, the ammonites and such; they will be failures, they will die out and become extinct, in the course of the 19,000,000 years covered by the experiment, but all is not lost, for the amalekites will fetch the home-stake; they will develop gradually into encrinites, and stalactites, and blatherskites, and one thing and another as the mighty ages creep on and the Archaean and the Cambrian Periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed, the Oyster is done. An oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a scientist has; and so it is reasonably certain that this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen-million years was a preparation for him; but that would be just like an oyster, which is the most conceited animal there is, except man. And anyway, this one could not know, at that early date, that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme, yet.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:The environment

Ktulu wrote:

The environment is the benchmark against which competing mutated (evolved) organisms are tested against.  If they are better adapted to the environment, they will prevail and out-breed the original organism, conversely, they will die out.

I agree with you on this point Bishadi, but you still have yet to answer my post.

 

Evolutionary changes, as I see it, don't change to suit an environment.  Generally they are random type changes that either allow better survival in the environment or not.  The random changes do not happen because of the environment although environmental factors such as radiation, mutagenic plants and so on may cause genetic mutation.   If the environment directed evolution versus random mutation then there would have been no reason for marine animals to ever "evolve" to walk on land.

 

You made my point Ktulu with your post but credited Bishadi with it.  I'm sure my confusing point by point addressing didn't help the thread read smoothly.

 

At least I think we are looking at evolution the same?

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:Peto Verum

Bishadi wrote:

Peto Verum wrote:
The environment doesn't cause evolution.  My children are decendant of me and my ex-wife and if our biological reproduction is without DNA replication error [/b]

 

that was enough stupid for me

 

 

 

Evolution is RANDOM.  If DNA replication was perfect AND no RANDOM errors with the DNA strand then there would be no evolution as I'm referring to it.  The error I see with your refuting this is that you see evolution as determined.  Rewind the geological clock and set it to run forward from the Cambrian era and you may find that totally different animals evolve because there would have been different RANDOM errors.

 

Sorry you found my comment stupid.   Now you know how I feel about your thread.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Bishadi

BobSpence wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Everything about us is part of the natural world, of course - so??

  basic aint it
Quote:

Quote:

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

Assuming we are the only, or the first, self-aware beings with a language. 

  point taken.

 

perhaps 'our' (mankinds) language/descriptions aint the first......................  i can leave that open. Fair

Quote:

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

Human words are our creation, of course.

 

another easy one

Quote:

Quote:

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

No.

  please explain.  I see trade as ooosually being the first order, when cultures bump into each other.

can you explain your point?

Quote:

Quote:

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

No 'perfectly' involved.

Naming something only creates a label for it, and defines nothing more than that label, nothing else about what that label refers to.

 

perfect is a huge word, i can see that part.  Even if i know it qualifies, you may not know that just yet, so OK.

 

naming existence can be as simple as 'nature' or the universe, etc..... but to define it, in which 'we' as human beings can call upon a action, then defining the measure is absolutely important.

 

for example: moving mountains, mankind can do it because we know how to use iron (of nature), which temp to smelt, forming, production of equipment and so forth......   labeling nature is what we do just for the phenomena in all her forms (gravity as ex).

 

i can see you point of not wanting to box in something with a stupid label.  A fine trait of the objective nature.

 

And again, i apologize for being so upfront with these premises (math; universal language and 'naming' existence) but if you were to sit back and YOU required a defining of how existence operates, how would you think it must be completed?

 

be fair

 

Quote:

Quote:

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

 

We are NOT 'existence, only a small part of it. Scientific, empirical study is how we attempt to satisfy our desire to understand,
 Let me rephrase that question; do 'YOU" or did you ever want to know?
Quote:

 

Quote:

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

Not necessarily, in fact, mostly NO.

  i disagree.  Most everyone wants to comprehend what they are and the life they live within.

if you deny that, then i will call that a fib

 

ie... what th hell are you on the forum for?

 

Quote:

Quote:

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

The "pinnacle of evolution" is largely meaningless and certainly subjective. Irrelevant.

  to you perhaps.

 

i see it that just about every conscious life ever to walk has wanted to know what the fuch it is.

 

and knowledge has been evolving over time to define

 

these are facts

 

Quote:

Quote:

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

If we found a way to indefinitely extend our life-span, that would be nice. You are just confusing the issue by talking about 'magic'.

 

to comprehend the 'life' that you are, is how to extend yours........  ah dah.

 

that is what the whole concept enables;  conscious life to live longer by choice, an know it!

Quote:
Quote:

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

A poorly defined concept. Do you mean "What is the most advanced life-form on Earth?". Probably Homo Sapiens, at least right now, but there is plenty of room for improvement.

 

'

sorry..... the problem is not the concept, it is that people, like even you, have never looked at it this way.

 

hence the 'paradigm shift

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Bishadi

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

Peto Verum wrote:
The environment doesn't cause evolution.  My children are decendant of me and my ex-wife and if our biological reproduction is without DNA replication error [/b]

 

that was enough stupid for me

 

 

 

Evolution is RANDOM.  If DNA replication was perfect AND no RANDOM errors with the DNA strand then there would be no evolution as I'm referring to it.  The error I see with your refuting this is that you see evolution as determined.  Rewind the geological clock and set it to run forward from the Cambrian era and you may find that totally different animals evolve because there would have been different RANDOM errors.

 

Sorry you found my comment stupid.   Now you know how I feel about your thread.

 

 

funny sheeeeet dood.

 

you said yur kids were perfect reproductions in one sentence, then claim the mutation are normal.

 

which is it?

 

the random is not a form or law of nature, it is that often the cause, is not easily identifiable on the face.

 

for example: i could not look at you and tell if  your integrity is shot or if you had aids.  I can tell that your ignorance is why you are having a hard time with the thread and comprehending to such a level.

 

the whole random/uncertainty/reductionary scope of the sciences is based on walking the planck and the adherance to the 2LoT within todays physics.

 

that model is wrong.

 

it aint rocket science to comprehend or just be honest with that FACT!

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:Vastet wrote:I

Bishadi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument. I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented. " Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. " http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm
"S"  the direction to ->

of the steam engine era (2nd law to the paradigm/physics)

 

'h' is the constant to quantify energy but that potential difference is associated to its environment, just to exist

 

are you familiar with electrical theory, to the sense of broadcasting (ride the lighting) your voice.  Could you design and make a wavelength do what you want it to do?  What range of energy (see the spectrum) can you manipulate?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. It's not the topic of discussion.

Are you aware that the paper you presented is bullshit?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bishadi

Vastet wrote:
Bishadi wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I read the paper. It did not assist me in trying to figure out the general direction of your argument. I did however find criticisms of the paper you presented. " Planck used an imaginary experiment to guide him as he worked out his derivation. " http://bado-shanai.net/map%20of%20physics/mopPlancksderivBRL.htm
"S"  the direction to ->

of the steam engine era (2nd law to the paradigm/physics)

 

'h' is the constant to quantify energy but that potential differ

 

ence is associated to its environment, just to exist

 

are you familiar with electrical theory, to the sense of broadcasting (ride the lighting) your voice.  Could you design and make a wavelength do what you want it to do?  What range of energy (see the spectrum) can you manipulate?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. It's not the topic of discussion.

then stay on topic.

Why not answer the opening posts questions and start your education, now.

 

otherwise, you will not do well arguing with me!

Quote:

Are you aware that the paper you presented is bullshit?

 

 

http://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html

 

that pub?

 

to answer yourr question, you bet i know that.

 

i ws playing with the old physics at an age before most had hair on their yahoos

 

when i point to references, perhaps write them down and then go over every line item conveyed, if you learn, just one item, then we both win.

 

if you think you have identified me in an error, please represent the argument/post it.

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:then stay on

Bishadi wrote:
then stay on topic.

Talking to yourself?

You're the one who changed the topic, not I.

"Why not answer the opening posts questions and start your education, now."

I already addressed the OP. The questions are 99% nonsensical, 1% laughable, and 100% foolish. I'll show you.

1: Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

Maybe. Maybe not. I wasn't there when the first word was spoken. Neither were you.

2: math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

Maybe. Saying "the" instead of "a" presupposes there isn't a superior universal language.

3: mankind is describing itself, yes?

With what? When? Where? How? Your question has insufficient information to be a question.

4: and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?

Probably.

5: in which language? 

Does it matter?

6: If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

Incomprehensible. Go back to school and learn how to use English.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
7: How about every conscious

7: How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

I don't know. I'm not every life form that was ever conscious.

8: Will the next generations want to know?

Same as 7:.

9: What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

Subjective question. There is no duty to forthcoming generations unless we decide to make a duty. Different beings make different choices in this regard. No answer is possible.

10: If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

You presuppose a pinnacle where there is none. Evolution is a symptom of entropy. The pinnacle of entropy is equality among forces. The heat death of the universe. The end.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In closing, you are an idiot

In closing, you are an idiot who understands neither English nor science. You've presented a paper of lies and thrown around ad hominem attacks without provocation. You've made ridiculous claims without presenting evidence to back them up.

I conclude you are 12 years old and too stupid to realise how stupid you are. This amuses me. Please continue to make an ass of yourself. Free entertainment is always welcome.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Ktulu

peto verum wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

The environment is the benchmark against which competing mutated (evolved) organisms are tested against.  If they are better adapted to the environment, they will prevail and out-breed the original organism, conversely, they will die out.

I agree with you on this point Bishadi, but you still have yet to answer my post.

 

Evolutionary changes, as I see it, don't change to suit an environment.  Generally they are random type changes that either allow better survival in the environment or not.  The random changes do not happen because of the environment although environmental factors such as radiation, mutagenic plants and so on may cause genetic mutation.   If the environment directed evolution versus random mutation then there would have been no reason for marine animals to ever "evolve" to walk on land.

 

You made my point Ktulu with your post but credited Bishadi with it.  I'm sure my confusing point by point addressing didn't help the thread read smoothly.

 

At least I think we are looking at evolution the same?

You are correct, yes we are on the same page.  I stand correct it.  Bishadi is likely very high.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In closing, you

Vastet wrote:
In closing, you are an idiot who understands neither English nor science. You've presented a paper of lies and thrown around ad hominem attacks without provocation. You've made ridiculous claims without presenting evidence to back them up. I conclude you are 12 years old and too stupid to realise how stupid you are. This amuses me. Please continue to make an ass of yourself. Free entertainment is always welcome.

 

do you understand that paper?  planck's constant?

 

entropy, mathematically imposing to systems direction

 

Your whole 'the end' crap is based on what planck did at the copenhagen meetings with the uncertainty principle of the d/t.

 

dood your are kicking your own self in the butt!

 

 

The whole of the entropic direction to how mankind comprehends nature is based from 'walking the planck'

Wow!

 

I wonder how many on the forum just watched you step on your own dick and you had no idea you were doing it.

 

what a crack up!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
 1: Words are mankinds

 

1: Words are mankinds creations, agreed? Maybe. Maybe not. I wasn't there when the first word was spoken.Neither were you.    You got me there

2: math, being the universal language............. yes no?!? Maybe. Saying "the" instead of "a" presupposes there isn't a superior universal language.  i am just standing with my feet on the ground, so even as i could submit to 'superior' universal language, on this earth, math is how we currently build just about anything.

 

3: mankind is describing itself, yes? With what?  Words/math/symbols When? all the time/see history and this page itself Where? all over this taco stand How? words/math... pencil perhaps.

 

Your question has insufficient information to be a question.   OK

 

4: and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps? Probably.

 

that didnt need me to comment

 

 

5: in which language?  Does it matter?   how about a combining?  math is the best so far

 

6: If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand? Incomprehensible.

are you alive?

or let me guess, you know it all, already

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
 1: Words are mankinds

 

1: Words are mankinds creations, agreed? Maybe. Maybe not. I wasn't there when the first word was spoken.Neither were you.    You got me there

2: math, being the universal language............. yes no?!? Maybe. Saying "the" instead of "a" presupposes there isn't a superior universal language.  i am just standing with my feet on the ground, so even as i could submit to 'superior' universal language, on this earth, math is how we currently build just about anything.

 

3: mankind is describing itself, yes? With what?  Words/math/symbols When? all the time/see history and this page itself Where? all over this taco stand How? words/math... pencil perhaps.

 

Your question has insufficient information to be a question.   OK

 

4: and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps? Probably.

 

that didnt need me to comment

 

 

5: in which language?  Does it matter?   how about a combining?  math is the best so far

 

6: If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand? Incomprehensible.

are you alive?

or let me guess, you know it all, already

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:7: How about

Vastet wrote:
7: How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life? I don't know. I'm not every life form that was ever conscious.

Fair when kept simple minded.

8: Will the next generations want to know? Same as 7:.

no comment

 

9: What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations? Subjective question. There is no duty to forthcoming generations unless we decide to make a duty. Different beings make different choices in this regard. No answer is possible.

ooops.

i guess the instinct to survive dont exist in mankind, to you?

 

10: If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice? You presuppose a pinnacle where there is none.

i know i am an "I" and the most important thing to comprehend within existence is what the f'ck 'I" am.

 

always has been to any "I" that i know, having the balls to be human 

Quote:

Evolution is a symptom of entropy.

  dude, your drunk!

 

go lay by your dish

 

claiming entropy would mean you put them letters together on that keyboard by accident, with no choice and i can see perhaps to stupid to know it is abusing the hell out of entropy, to the atomic level

 

Quote:
 The pinnacle of entropy is equality among forces. The heat death of the universe. The end.
that's the same absolutions to a belief as a religious wingnut is to a 'god' and have no idea what your saying,

 

what a goof!

 

to be objective, as i thought this forum was about is also to be capable to finding your own knowledge is also suspect.

 

Oooops!

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote: 1: Words are

Bishadi wrote:

 

1: Words are mankinds creations, agreed? Maybe. Maybe not. I wasn't there when the first word was spoken.Neither were you.    You got me there

2: math, being the universal language............. yes no?!? Maybe. Saying "the" instead of "a" presupposes there isn't a superior universal language.  i am just standing with my feet on the ground, so even as i could submit to 'superior' universal language, on this earth, math is how we currently build just about anything.

 

3: mankind is describing itself, yes? With what?  Words/math/symbols When? all the time/see history and this page itself Where? all over this taco stand How? words/math... pencil perhaps.

 

Your question has insufficient information to be a question.   OK

 

4: and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps? Probably. 

that didnt need me to comment

  

5: in which language?  Does it matter?   how about a combining?  math is the best so far

 

6: If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand? Incomprehensible.

are you alive?

or let me guess, you know it all, already

1. The words we use are our creation. Seems reasonable. So?

2. Math is NOT a universal language. It is a framework, a tool, for analysing and studying many, not all, aspects os reality.

3. We do describe ourselves, both individually and as collectively. In words, and including math, where relevant and appropriate.

4. Simple nonsense. Naming something only defines a label with which we can refer to it. We still need more labels to be defined to refer to the components of reality we identify thru studying it, and for use in the math we use to analyse the relationships between those components. We do not 'define' existence in any way. It is what it is. We learn about its nature by careful study.

5. Which language we use does not matter, as long as it has adequate descriptive power. Math, by itself, is inadequate. Otherwise, why are you not posting math expressions here instead of these strings of words? Math is part of a comprehensive language.

6. I exist, and have a desire to understand and know about existence. What is 'incomprehensible' about that?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:do you

Bishadi wrote:
do you understand that paper?  planck's constant?

I didn't read it all, because simultaneously to opening it I ran a search on criticisms of it. Those criticisms tore it a new asshole.

In short, if you understand it and believe it has anything in it that resembles reality, you are a fool. So there's no reason to read it and see whether I can understand it all. It's a lie.

"entropy, mathematically imposing to systems direction"

Nonsensical sentence.

"Your whole 'the end' crap is based on what planck did at the copenhagen meetings with the uncertainty principle of the d/t."

First of all I came up with it myself. Secondly, what's your point?

"dood your are kicking your own self in the butt!"

More projection.

Feel free to continue. We're all laughing at you, but that's ok.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
2: Describe and build love

2: Describe and build love with math.

5: Not really. Math is very limited. It doesn't even work unless you already have a language to work with.

6: I appear to be.

9: Education at the levels we teach now is anything but instinctive. Learning to breathe is instinctive. Learning to live is instinctive. Taking care of future generations is not. Otherwise global warming wouldn't be an issue. Neither would religion, for that matter.

10: You know you are, yet presuppose that knowing you are is as far as evolution can go. lol.

11: More projection, coupled with further evidence you know nothing about science. Entropy = chaos? ROTFlmfao.

12: You're the complete moron who want to throw science out the window for a crackpot who made shit up to bolster his failed hypothesis. You are quite the goof all right.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
 1. The words we use are

 

1. The words we use are our creation. Seems reasonable.   So?      to define with/articulate

2. Math is NOT a universal language.      It is a framework, a tool, for analysing and studying many, not all, aspects os reality.  I aint debating this

3. We do describe ourselves, both individually and as collectively. In words, and including math, where relevant and appropriate.       Agreed..............  that is a premise of the thread..    Nice to see someone can read.

4. Simple nonsense. Naming something only defines a label with which we can refer to it. We still need more labels to be defined to refer to the components of reality we identify thru studying it, and for use in the math we use to analyse the relationships between those components. We do not 'define' existence in any way. It is what it is. We learn about its nature by careful study.

 

i thought that hat was stupid.  Now i see that 3 and 4 of your comments, contradict and shares a lack of integrity/consistancy 

 

 

6. I exist, and have a desire to understand and know about existence. What is 'incomprehensible' about that?

 

it wasn't.

 

the incomprehensible part is how a mans integrity can be quite low for some!

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bishadi

Vastet wrote:
Bishadi wrote:
do you understand that paper?  planck's constant?
I didn't read it all, because simultaneously to opening it I ran a search on criticisms of it.

 

i will leave you alone on scientific material.

Quote:

Those criticisms tore it a new asshole.

and i could be why!

Quote:

In short, if you understand it and believe it has anything in it that resembles reality, you are a fool. So there's no reason to read it and see whether I can understand it all. It's a lie.

punks that believe entropy rules, are planck adherants

 

ie.. you just dont realize it

 

Quote:
First of all I came up with it myself.
  and have no idea what started it.

Max Planck is the El Rong Cubbard, of Entropy within todays physics, even if you came up with 'the end'........

 

you'd be more like the tom croooze of the show!  (that will probably be considered a compliment to you)

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:2: Describe and

Vastet wrote:
2: Describe and build love with math.
  that's easy.

 

but no!   I told you before to stay thread sensitive.  Fuch your tangents!

Quote:
 

5; Not really. Math is very limited.

  to idiots

from the population explosion of the last few hundred years to these very computers............. all because MATH and science EVOLVED; as presented in KNOWLEDGE EVOLVES

 

Quote:
 It doesn't even work unless you already have a language to work with.
  you forgot, that a quality articulation also takes integrity

Quote:

9: Education at the levels we teach now is anything but instinctive.

  i know; knowledge has been evolving

 

Quote:
 Learning to breathe is instinctive.
  atta boy (girl)
Quote:
 Learning to live is instinctive.
ooops.....  mommmy taught you where to find your first meal.

 

Quote:
 Taking care of future generations is not.
  and if that was true, you wouldnt be here. Line items like that claim, show that some people really have no clue on how dependant they are on others.

 

just ignorance!!!!!

 

Quote:
11: More projection, coupled with further evidence you know nothing about science. Entropy = chaos? ROTFlmfao.

 i didnt use the chaos...........   that is the monkey in your brain talking to you perhaps!

Quote:

 

 

12: You're the complete moron who want to throw science out the window for

  NOTHING.

punks like beliefs

 

science is the pursuit of understanding. 

 

 

One of the first rules of science is to be objective to information/evidence.  FRom gravity being a entanglement of energy to em being the causality of motion (the energy of a system), newton, einstein, feyman or even milo wolff...........  what you are reading, is what they all had sought to understand.

 

comprehending how nature works, is what i have been doing most of my life.

 

look up what a paradigm shift is, then come back and open a thread with questions.  Otherwise, this one thread, pretty much represents that science is definitely not your best subject.

 

 

You ARE closer to a crackpot who makes shit up to bolster his failing labido

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
[quote =

Bishadi wrote:



                   One of the first rules of science is to be objective to information/evidence.




 



We heard you.  Your information/evidence is lame with fanciful extrapolations and inferences of others work.  It fails for me.



 



Bishadi wrote:



                  comprehending how nature works, is what i have been doing most of my life.




 


Admirable but you are trying to fit 10 gallons of shit into a 5 gallon bucket.  I can see why you are so frustrated.



 



Bishadi wrote:



                  look up what a paradigm shift is.....






Huh?  Have you extrapolated/inferred new meaning here also?  Don't answer this.  Maybe this is how you justify putting 10 gallons of shit in a 5 gallon bucket.



 



Good luck!  with your "science" and your Trolling.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Bishadi

peto verum wrote:

Bishadi wrote:



 

                   One of the first rules of science is to be objective to information/evidence.


 



 

 



 

We heard you.  Your information/evidence is lame with fanciful extrapolations and inferences of others work.  It fails for me.

 

what did newton say:  "i stand on the shoulders of giants"

 

let me get back to you on the rest

 



 

 


Quote:

 

Bishadi wrote:



 

                  comprehending how nature works, is what i have been doing most of my life.


 



 

 


 

Admirable ...... is all that matters.

hammering over old knowledge (to you 'shit') combined with other shit (just living), is how knowledge evolves, when pursuing comprehension.

 

i articulate NEW material, from OLD material, combined with 'experience'.  I have created transmission of light.  Have you?

have you combined 'feilds' to enable 'energy' usage, to the level of calculating the winds, the coil count and flux lines created?

what is emf?

 

To you, comprehending how you can move your hands over that keyboard, must just be shit.

 

 

 



 

 


Quote:

 

Bishadi wrote:



 

                  look up what a paradigm shift is.....



 




 

Huh?  Have you extrapolated/inferred new meaning here also?

sure..... the world dont turn the way many believe.   You perhaps have no idea what the electromagnetic fields between bodies of mass, large or small does within nature.

 

for example;  if you have an iron core spinning within a magnetic field and circling through both poles of the fields, what will it generate?   What is the earth, within the suns magnetisphere?

Quote:

 

 

 

 

  Don't answer this.  Maybe this is how you justify putting 10 gallons of shit in a 5 gallon bucket.

i have the internet and can put more knowledge into my head, than any generation ever before

 

and you can you, but you just dont realize it!



 

 


Quote:

 

Good luck!  with your "science" and your Trolling.

 

I have been posting science, reason and material so anyone can see for themselves.  i dont need any credit

 

Punks troll................ (just read your posts)

 

big difference.

 

Anyone can read the thread, so unless you delete the evidence of your posts, anyone else can witness your credibility, right here.

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:Anyone can

Bishadi wrote:

Anyone can read the thread, so unless you delete the evidence of your posts, anyone else can witness your credibility, right here.

I think it's about time someone summed up your post here.  I consider myself to have decent reading comprehension even though English is not my first language.  I am relatively well educated in science and consider myself to be an informed layman as my field is technology and has very little to do with physics other then a few staples such as attenuation, ingress and SNR.  And I have a fair bit of experience with forum, crackpots, and trolls.  

Let's put this in context.  This is a rationality centric forum (see the title).  We're here to identify whether claims are rational.  The proof is directly proportional to the claim.  The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional proof you will require.  

Now, if you have something to say, or a claim to make, you have to first COHERENTLY make that claim.  For example:

1.  I have knowledge that will combine process X with theory Y to extrapolate that Z is possible.
2. I believe that Z theory is wrong because X, Y and Q prove it to be that way.
3. I claim that X is possible and here is an experiment to prove it.

Those are all claims, a discussion can then ensue to judge the accuracy of your claims.

What hurts your credibility is:

1) The fact that you use extremely poor English.  While you may not care, or find it important, it makes you seem uneducated and sloppy.  If you have anything worthwhile to say take your time and present it coherently.  It will go a long way towards convincing people you have something worthwhile to say.  

2) You are not making any claims, you allude at some greater understanding but never actually put it in simple terms.  Once you have done that, you can then elaborate with scientific detail.  Until you have done so, you're just pissing in the wind and smacking your chest.  The only coherent posts in this thread where what other people trying to understand wtf you are claiming. 

3) Quit using ad hominems.  It really hurts your credibility when you call everyone an idiot.  On that note, if you come in a layman forum and claim that everyone is an idiot for not having the same level of physics education as someone that is a physicist (or someone that spends a lot of time reading physics papers that he/she may or may not understand), you are acting in a self defeating manner.  And that my friend, is the definition of an idiot.

In summation, either put up, or shut up.  I'm tired of giving you credit for what you may or not be saying, from other people's perceived understanding. 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:i will leave

Bishadi wrote:
i will leave you alone on scientific material.

So you concede, and admit you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, and that you presented an article of lies as if it were a valid hypothesis or theory. Good.

"and i could be why!"

No. You've adequately demonstrated your ignorance of science and English. You had nothing to do with it.

"but no!   I told you before to stay thread sensitive.  Fuch your tangents!"

Typical fool claims something is easy, fails to do it, then accuses me of changing the subject when the question I addressed was in the OP, and IS the subject. Rofl. I don't know if you are the dumbest person on Earth, but you're certainly in competition for the distinction.

"o idiots
from the population explosion of the last few hundred years to these very computers............. all because MATH and science EVOLVED; as presented in KNOWLEDGE EVOLVES"

None of which would have happened without English, French, German, Russian, Japanese, and a number of other...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
...languages without which

...languages without which math is useless.

Yes, you are certainly an idiot.

"you forgot, that a quality articulation also takes integrity"

I forget nothing, and again you've failed to address a point.

"ooops.....  mommmy taught you where to find your first meal."

Oops, mommy taught me nothing. She merely presented a tit. I figured out how to get food out myself, thanks to instinct.

"and if that was true, you wouldnt be here."

A lie. I gave evidence, you not so much.

" i didnt use the chaos...........   that is the monkey in your brain talking to you perhaps!"

More lies and projection.

Quote:
claiming entropy would mean you put them letters together on that keyboard by accident

Maybe it's just your inability to comprehend and use English. But I have no way of knowing considering you suck at it so badly.

"NOTHING.
punks like beliefs blah blah blah"

How about you demonstrate your claims instead of shrouding them in ad hominems and claims that we can't understand?

Oh, that's right.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You can't demonstrate shit

You can't demonstrate shit because all your claims are lies and misunderstandings based on your lack of knowledge on multiple subjects.

You ARE a crackpot who makes shit up to bolster his failing labido. Lol.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:What hurts your

Ktulu wrote:

What hurts your credibility is:

1) The fact that you use extremely poor English.  While you may not care, or find it important, it makes you seem uneducated and sloppy.  If you have anything worthwhile to say take your time and present it coherently.  It will go a long way towards convincing people you have something worthwhile to say.  

2) You are not making any claims, you allude at some greater understanding but never actually put it in simple terms.  Once you have done that, you can then elaborate with scientific detail.  Until you have done so, you're just pissing in the wind and smacking your chest.  The only coherent posts in this thread where what other people trying to understand wtf you are claiming. 

3) Quit using ad hominems.  It really hurts your credibility when you call everyone an idiot.  On that note, if you come in a layman forum and claim that everyone is an idiot for not having the same level of physics education as someone that is a physicist (or someone that spends a lot of time reading physics papers that he/she may or may not understand), you are acting in a self defeating manner.  And that my friend, is the definition of an idiot.

In summation, either put up, or shut up.  I'm tired of giving you credit for what you may or not be saying, from other people's perceived understanding. 

 

I got to agree with Ktulu on this one. Now I know this Bullsheeyaatti is going to call me an idiot (not that I really care) but I virtually have no clue what the fuck his whole point is for all this. I have yet to see him do anything but make a few presuppositions about evolution ( not very clearly defined) and then just starts throwing insults and even more obscure bullshit when answered. Probably best to just let this thread die and fall to the bottom. Unless whatever drugs he is on wears off and he decides to type something coherent.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I thought I should clarify

I thought I should clarify some aspects of evolution.

Evolution is not really  'random'. It happens due to the interaction of random processes of genetic mutation and variation of relative frequency of each gene variant, and the non-random selection of the variation most able to survive and multiply in the particular environment.

So it relies on both random and non-random processes.

Purely random 'evolution', i.e. , in the absence of significant environmental pressure, is called genetic drift, i.e. with no apparent direction.

'Evolution' does not occur at the level of the individual, only possibly taking a step at each generation, in the context of a particular inter-breeding group.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 705
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is onlineOnline
I think we may be

Bishadi wrote:

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

 

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

 

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

 

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

 

in which language? 

 

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

 

Will the next generations want to know?  What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

 

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

 

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

 

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

evening off. I was thinking about this the other day. As I understand it, evolution is caused by environmental pressures. If that's so, getting control of our environment (indoors) may slow the process. We have air conditioning and heating so we've reduced environmental effects. Personally. I'm no longer compatible with the climatic environment, it's either to hot or to cold most of the time.

Immortality? That's a possibility but a hard one to imagine. If we acquire a peaceful planet immortality would be OK with me. The pinnacle---it would be interesting to be here to see it.

Good post.

The only possible thing the world could need saving from are those running it.


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Bishadi

Old Seer wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

every breath, every drink, even my poop are of nature itself; our everything.

Mankind became capable of conscious awareness of itself and words/symbols/articulation was born to natures body.

 

Mankind could identify itself as an "I" to represent an opinion.

Words are mankinds creations, agreed?

 

math, being the universal language............. yes no?!?

 

mankind is describing itself, yes?

and to perfectly 'name' existence itself would be to define it, perhaps?  Ie.... to articulate 'its' processes, a label?  a name?

 

in which language? 

 

If you 'are' it and have that universal 'want', is it to know, to understand?

How about every conscious life ever born, do ya tink dey wanted to know at some point in their life?

 

Will the next generations want to know?  What is our duty as capable human beings, NOW; to the next generations?

 

 

If you were to identify the pinnacle of evolution, could you comprehend the reality of a life, knowing itself, within its environment, capable of creating and enabling life, by choice and not only know it is doing it, but live in them contributions to existence/nature by choice?

 

Meaning; if you were given the magic wand of enabling life ever lasting, would you want to know how it works?  (fuch the magic, cuz to comprehend then you can teach your children and theirs the same)

 

what's the pinnacle of evolution?

 

evening off. I was thinking about this the other day. As I understand it, evolution is caused by environmental pressures.

 

which means, the environment is a cause.

 

that fact is what is cracking me up about reading the posts from this forums locals.   ie.... hot dont go cold, just becuase the law said so.

Quote:

 

Immortality? That's a possibility but a hard one to imagine.

  did you create that post?

 

did it ever exist, anywhere within the universe, before you showed up?

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I thought I

BobSpence wrote:

I thought I should clarify some aspects of evolution.

Evolution is not really  'random'.

   finally!  a sentence that i can ascertain as intelligent.

Quote:

 

 It happens due to the interaction of random processes of genetic mutation and variation of relative frequency of each gene variant, and the non-random selection of the variation most able to survive and multiply in the particular environment.

  is it random, because the cause it not known or random as an operator?

 

Quote:

Purely random 'evolution', i.e. , in the absence of significant environmental pressure, is called genetic drift, i.e. with no apparent direction.

now you are talking on 'species', not on the living process with focus on cause, just the description as accepted in the biological circles as to 'their' current description?

 

what you wrote is about what wiki published, right?

 

but to real man, to find out what is causing them to diviate at mitosis would be real science right?

 

For example; if yu could show that a gamma ray burst, actually damaged cells during mitosis, then rendering that variations can come from gamma could be a cool depth to comprehend the mutations, right?

Quote:
'Evolution' does not occur at the level of the individual, only possibly taking a step at each generation, in the context of a particular inter-breeding group.

 

each cell, is an individual in a sense.

 

the organism as you are rendering of a species, dont change as quick as most.

 

think in the sense of converting an auto from gasoline to solar power.  Both are still cars, but what makes em work is completely different.

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Bishadi

Ktulu wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

Anyone can read the thread, so unless you delete the evidence of your posts, anyone else can witness your credibility, right here.

I think it's about time someone summed up your post here.  I consider myself to have decent reading comprehension even though English is not my first language.  I am relatively well educated in science and consider myself to be an informed layman as my field is technology and has very little to do with physics other then a few staples such as attenuation, ingress and SNR.  And I have a fair bit of experience with forum, crackpots, and trolls.  

if you had an education and could read, perhaps the thread would make sense, versus having you here just trolling.

 

for example:  you comment below................... wow!

Quote:

 

Let's put this in context.  This is a rationality centric forum (see the title).  We're here to identify whether claims are rational.  The proof is directly proportional to the claim.  The more exceptional the claim, the more exceptional proof you will require.  

  so the claim, represents that the pinnacle of evolution is existence (which we are a part of) comprehending its existence.

 

what is so difficult about that?

 

screw all you trolling, just focus on that opening concept

 

Quote:

Now, if you have something to say, or a claim to make, you have to first COHERENTLY make that claim.  For example:

1.  I have knowledge that will combine process X with theory Y to extrapolate that Z is possible.
2. I believe that Z theory is wrong because X, Y and Q prove it to be that way.
3. I claim that X is possible and here is an experiment to prove it.

 

you be the I posting that lure....

 

in most every concept of information, it aint that I have it, but that anyone can see it the evidence for themselves.

 

i am just here mentioning, that i have done the work decades back and anyone can see for themselves.  That is the beauty of 'knowledge' being the evolved part of the conversation; anyone can evolve too!

 

Quote:

In summation, either put up, or shut up.

  i did put up.   I say, LIFE: abuses entropy and that YOU are also alive, doing it right now!!!!!!!!

 

 

Quote:
  I'm tired of giving you credit for what you may or not be saying,
  i have said it for longer than perhaps anyone you've ever even thought of.............

 

i know that i break the law(s), capable, aware and not a fuching thing you can do to change that either.

 

the idiots just dont realize they are capable too!!!

 

 

Quote:
from other people's perceived understanding. 
  nope.....

 

i realized it as a child!

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Enjoy your acid trip Please

Enjoy your acid trip Smiling Please post a new thread when you pass grade four grammar, and you may be able to communicate.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Genetic mutation is best

Genetic mutation is best considered as random. In this case it is because the specific result is incidental to whatever affected the transcription process so as to cause an error. It could have a cosmic ray, or an overly energetic molecule in the surrounding fluid which hit at such an angle and velocity as to affect the process. Such effects would be extremely unlikely to cause mutations with any consistent functional effect or direction. 

IOW if an event is triggered by a sufficiently complex combination or chain of prior events and states of the environment, it approximates a conceptually 'random' process so closely as to be justifiably treated as such, mathematically at least.

IE, it can only be 'predicted' statistically, probabilistically.

The specific path of an individual molecule in a volume of gas or liquid is as close to random as really matters, even though the mechanics of each collision with other molecules and/or surrounding solid surfaces obey very deterministic laws. It is sometimes proposed that apparently 'truly' random processes such as quantum scale events are 'caused' by some deeper 'reality' of interacting particles, like the molecules in a gas.

Genetic drift occurs when there is no consistent selection pressure acting, leaving just the undirected effects of occasional transcription errors. I made no reference to Wiki, but I am sure it would be described there - it is a long recognised aspect of evolution. The things that can lead to such errors are indeed the subject of scientific study. We don't anything on the scale of a gamma ray burst to explain the basic 'background' level of mutation. A single gamma ray photon would be enough to cause an error. And we are not really talking about damaging cells in any meaningful way.

 

Evolution can only be said to have occurred when some change in the genomes of the individuals making up an inter-breeding group becomes widespread thru the group and so is passed on to future generations.

You still seem to be somewhat misunderstanding the processes involved.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Genetic mutation is best

Genetic mutation is best considered as random. In this case it is because the specific result is incidental to whatever affected the transcription process so as to cause an error. It could have a cosmic ray, or an overly energetic molecule in the surrounding fluid which hit at such an angle and velocity as to affect the process. Such effects would be extremely unlikely to cause mutations with any consistent functional effect or direction. 

IOW if an event is triggered by a sufficiently complex combination or chain of prior events and states of the environment, it approximates a conceptually 'random' process so closely as to be justifiably treated as such, mathematically at least.

IE, it can only be 'predicted' statistically, probabilistically.

The specific path of an individual molecule in a volume of gas or liquid is as close to random as really matters, even though the mechanics of each collision with other molecules and/or surrounding solid surfaces obey very deterministic laws. It is sometimes proposed that apparently 'truly' random processes such as quantum scale events are 'caused' by some deeper 'reality' of interacting particles, like the molecules in a gas.

Genetic drift occurs when there is no consistent selection pressure acting, leaving just the undirected effects of occasional transcription errors. I made no reference to Wiki, but I am sure it would be described there - it is a long recognised aspect of evolution. The things that can lead to such errors are indeed the subject of scientific study. We don't anything on the scale of a gamma ray burst to explain the basic 'background' level of mutation. A single gamma ray photon would be enough to cause an error. And we are not really talking about damaging cells in any meaningful way.

 

Evolution can only be said to have occurred when some change in the genomes of the individuals making up an inter-breeding group becomes widespread thru the group and so is passed on to future generations.

You still seem to be somewhat misunderstanding the processes involved.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Genetic

BobSpence wrote:

Genetic mutation is best considered as random.

I can see both of us comprehend the reasoning but keep that 'what if', ok?

Quote:

 

In this case it is because the specific result is incidental to whatever affected the transcription process so as to cause an error. It could have a cosmic ray, or an overly energetic molecule in the surrounding fluid which hit at such an angle and velocity as to affect the process. Such effects would be extremely unlikely to cause mutations with any consistent functional effect or direction. 

 

perfect.  I couldnt agree more.  It seems random unless you know, which angle, which wavelength caused which change at the exact time, within the same environment, to duplicate it, for any consistancy to be measured..... i am with you on that.

it is almost like asking 'whatcha thinking?'  *toooooo many variables.

 

so random makes a bunch of sense with a gazillion atoms and wavelengths to measure of one single system.

random; "it's not a law, it's a sort of guideline"

 

(of the pirates code)

 

Quote:

IOW if an event is triggered by a sufficiently complex combination or chain of prior events and states of the environment, it approximates a conceptually 'random' process so closely as to be justifiably treated as such, mathematically at least.

 

 

IE, it can only be 'predicted' statistically, probabilistically.

The specific path of an individual molecule in a volume of gas or liquid is as close to random as really matters, even though the mechanics of each collision with other molecules and/or surrounding solid surfaces obey very deterministic laws. It is sometimes proposed that apparently 'truly' random processes such as quantum scale events are 'caused' by some deeper 'reality' of interacting particles, like the molecules in a gas.

  i comprehend the probabilities.

 

and even einstein didnt like the dice game.

 

you are aware of it as most are not. 

Quote:

 

Genetic drift occurs when there is no consistent selection pressure acting, leaving just the undirected effects of occasional transcription errors. I made no reference to Wiki, but I am sure it would be described there - it is a long recognised aspect of evolution. The things that can lead to such errors are indeed the subject of scientific study. We don't anything on the scale of a gamma ray burst to explain the basic 'background' level of mutation. A single gamma ray photon would be enough to cause an error. And we are not really talking about damaging cells in any meaningful way.

dude i am humbled by the level of simplicity you hold to such truths.  Agreed.

 

 

 

Quote:

Evolution can only be said to have occurred when some change in the genomes of the individuals making up an inter-breeding group becomes widespread thru the group and so is passed on to future generations.

You still seem to be somewhat misunderstanding the processes involved.

 

no no..... i agree with you.

 

the difference is, there is a way to comprehend the 'evolution' and still not lose all that common sense.

 

it aint a reduction.  The life with change as mutations occur, all the while the 'survival' of the life, is the measure of what is good for what environment.  The life itself is what is progressing, with the evolutions that assist in living longer.

 

kind of like the guy with the fire at camp, stays warm longer (learned smarts do enable longer life, too)

 

we aint so different in seeing that causality could be as simple as being detailed, to the letter

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Enjoy your acid

Ktulu wrote:

Enjoy your acid trip Smiling Please post a new thread when you pass grade four grammar, and you may be able to communicate.

 

May being the operative term. ROTF

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:BobSpence

Bishadi wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Genetic mutation is best considered as random.

I can see both of us comprehend the reasoning but keep that 'what if', ok?

Quote:

 

In this case it is because the specific result is incidental to whatever affected the transcription process so as to cause an error. It could have a cosmic ray, or an overly energetic molecule in the surrounding fluid which hit at such an angle and velocity as to affect the process. Such effects would be extremely unlikely to cause mutations with any consistent functional effect or direction. 

 

perfect.  I couldnt agree more.  It seems random unless you know, which angle, which wavelength caused which change at the exact time, within the same environment, to duplicate it, for any consistancy to be measured..... i am with you on that.

it is almost like asking 'whatcha thinking?'  *toooooo many variables.

It really doesn't make sense to talk about which 'wavelength' caused something.  Which 'photon' is more meaningful, and its energy.

Quote:

so random makes a bunch of sense with a gazillion atoms and wavelengths to measure of one single system.

random; "it's not a law, it's a sort of guideline"

Quantum events do seem to have an irreducible level of randomness in just when and how they manifest. 

IOW if an event is triggered by a sufficiently complex combination or chain of prior events and states of the environment, it approximates a conceptually 'random' process so closely as to be justifiably treated as such, mathematically at least. 

IE, it can only be 'predicted' statistically, probabilistically.

The specific path of an individual molecule in a volume of gas or liquid is as close to random as really matters, even though the mechanics of each collision with other molecules and/or surrounding solid surfaces obey very deterministic laws. It is sometimes proposed that apparently 'truly' random processes such as quantum scale events are 'caused' by some deeper 'reality' of interacting particles, like the molecules in a gas.

Quote:

I comprehend the probabilities.

 

and even einstein didnt like the dice game.

 

you are aware of it as most are not. 

Quote:

 

Genetic drift occurs when there is no consistent selection pressure acting, leaving just the undirected effects of occasional transcription errors. I made no reference to Wiki, but I am sure it would be described there - it is a long recognised aspect of evolution. The things that can lead to such errors are indeed the subject of scientific study. We don't anything on the scale of a gamma ray burst to explain the basic 'background' level of mutation. A single gamma ray photon would be enough to cause an error. And we are not really talking about damaging cells in any meaningful way.

dude i am humbled by the level of simplicity you hold to such truths.  Agreed.

 

 

 

Quote:

Evolution can only be said to have occurred when some change in the genomes of the individuals making up an inter-breeding group becomes widespread thru the group and so is passed on to future generations.

You still seem to be somewhat misunderstanding the processes involved.

 

no no..... i agree with you.

 

the difference is, there is a way to comprehend the 'evolution' and still not lose all that common sense.

Not sure what 'common sense' you are referring to. 'Common sense' can be quite misleading and worse than useless in many situations.

Quote:

 

it aint a reduction.  The life with change as mutations occur, all the while the 'survival' of the life, is the measure of what is good for what environment.  The life itself is what is progressing, with the evolutions that assist in living longer.

Not 'evolutions', just mutations. Only become 'evolution' if those changes are passed on and become common across the group.

Quote:

kind of like the guy with the fire at camp, stays warm longer (learned smarts do enable longer life, too)

 

we aint so different in seeing that causality could be as simple as being detailed, to the letter

That example is better considered part of 'cultural' evolution, not genetic. A bit nit-picky, but not unimportant. Learned behaviour is only affected by species evolution in that the enhanced ability to learn from experience can 'evolve', but not specific learning.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
peto verum wrote:Evolution

peto verum wrote:

Evolution is RANDOM. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!   Evolution isn't random.

Mutations are random but natural selection favoring or disfavoring those random mutations is anything but random.

Evolution is too complex to say that it is simply random or not random.   It's both.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


peto verum
atheist
Posts: 46
Joined: 2011-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:peto verum

Watcher wrote:

peto verum wrote:

Evolution is RANDOM. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!   Evolution isn't random.

Mutations are random but natural selection favoring or disfavoring those random mutations is anything but random.

Evolution is too complex to say that it is simply random or not random.   It's both.

 

Fair enough but to qualify and keep it in context.  Our DNA is composed of base paired Nucleotides.  There are only four DNA nucleotides; adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine;  adenine only bonds with thymine and quanine with cytosine.  The combinations, in long chains, of these four nucleotides are genes.  The DNA of these genes "unzips" and those nucleotides are read like a recipe and turn into proteins which are what living things are made of .  Everytime they unzip they produce the same protein.  They will never produce anything other than what the recipe calls for UNLESS one of those nucleotides is damaged, removed or something is added to the original recipe(mutation).  This is the 'random' of evolution.  If the mutation didn't occur then natural selection and other mechanism would have nothing to "work with", if you'll allow me, and evolution wouldn't be what we refer to it as.

KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Bishadi

BobSpence wrote:

Bishadi wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

Genetic mutation is best considered as random.

I can see both of us comprehend the reasoning but keep that 'what if', ok?

Quote:

 

In this case it is because the specific result is incidental to whatever affected the transcription process so as to cause an error. It could have a cosmic ray, or an overly energetic molecule in the surrounding fluid which hit at such an angle and velocity as to affect the process. Such effects would be extremely unlikely to cause mutations with any consistent functional effect or direction. 

 

perfect.  I couldnt agree more.  It seems random unless you know, which angle, which wavelength caused which change at the exact time, within the same environment, to duplicate it, for any consistancy to be measured..... i am with you on that.

it is almost like asking 'whatcha thinking?'  *toooooo many variables.

It really doesn't make sense to talk about which 'wavelength' caused something.  Which 'photon' is more meaningful, and its energy.

 

that is funny, dude. 

What photon combines the p680 structure of photosythesis?

 

You just hit is on the head of where the ignorance is of the field.

Quote:

Not sure what 'common sense' you are referring to. 'Common sense' can be quite misleading and worse than useless in many situations.

  i can see that.  Apparently you have discipline crossed and in your common sense, have lost the comprehension of the cause. 

 

ie... photons aint particles, they are wavelengths of energy (see spectrum) and then that means, they are fields, not 'particles' (all cases) 

 

so the commmon sense you may be missing, is what is causing your failed post to stand out.

 

 

 

Quote:

That example is better considered part of 'cultural' evolution, not genetic.

  kind of like the 'evolution of knowledge' is a wee different 

 

random is based on misunderstanding, not nature

 

and the more knowledge a mind is exposed too, enables the evolution of the required change to develop

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:peto verum

Watcher wrote:

peto verum wrote:

Evolution is RANDOM. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!   Evolution isn't random.

Mutations are random but natural selection favoring or disfavoring those random mutations is anything but random.

Evolution is too complex to say that it is simply random or not random.   It's both.

 

that's a contributing post.....

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Bishadi,I've read through

 Bishadi,

I've read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say, you appear to be one of these people who considers themself extremely intelligent, but can't really back it up with anything of substance. You make general allusions to how you studied Physics as a child, toured the US's universities, publishing a scientific paper, but yet you can't seem to hold onto scientific or rational language for long enough to even make one salient point on this board. 

You apparently don't understand the concept of Evolution, evident from your OP where you reference the 'pinnacle of evolution' - in itself a nonsensical concept; there is no absolute pinnacle - all lifeforms on earth are adapted to enable them to propagate their genes in an as effective way as they can, given the construct (environment and current genetic traits) they find themselves in - Humans are not the pinnacle of all life forms, as you'd very quickly find if you were left naked in the Serengeti, or dumped 2 miles out at sea. Something else would probably end up eating you, while you consider why your bigger brain isn't too much use to you in this particular environment.

You also ridicule the postulated heat death of the universe - now I am not a physicist, but I have read up enough to know that this is a current theory about how the universe (and time) ends that has potential merit, and so stands as a possible conclusion to everything within our current understanding. If you ridicule this, you better have some darned good maths to back up your alternative supposition (whatever that is.. you don't seem able to propose anything yourself of any gravitas).

So here's the rub. If you do consider yourself an intelligent person, you need to prove you have the ability to reason through your arguments in a logical, and understandable way. Contrary to your beliefs, writing confusing half-sentences does not make you sound intelligent on this board, though it may to those of little education where you can blind them with 'wizard of Oz' occlusion; quite the opposite, as many others have stated, it only serves to reduce any respect that others on this board may hold (a default amount is generally given till proved unwarranted) for you. You may not care about this; it depends why you're here, but if you're here to try and work through a rational supposition rather than merely trying to hit everyone over the head with your brilliance (which really isn't working for you) then I would implore you to try being as intelligent as you claim, and use language and reasoned argument to state and  defend your positions.. start with the stating, as after nearly 100 posts I would bet most readers of this thread still don't know what these are. This is not because these readers are stupid, it is because you don't appear to be able to make a case. Ktulu's post above can help you with this. Some of the most intelligent humans are able to take complex ideas and make them understandable to laypeople - you seem to be doing the opposite.

PS, can you provide this scientific paper you allegedly wrote? I would love to read something by you that has full sentences in it. Was it published?

 

 

 


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Bishadi,

I've read through this thread from start to finish, and I have to say, you appear to be one of these people who considers themself extremely intelligent, but can't really back it up with anything of substance. You make general allusions to how you studied Physics as a child, toured the US's universities, publishing a scientific paper, but yet you can't seem to hold onto scientific or rational language for long enough to even make one salient point on this board. 

 

sure i have......  many items on this one thread that most perhaps didnt realize before.

 

Heck to just render that "knowledge evolves" is a unique combination to many. 

Quote:

You apparently don't understand the concept of Evolution, evident from your OP where you reference the 'pinnacle of evolution' - in itself a nonsensical concept; there is no absolute pinnacle - all lifeforms on earth are adapted to enable them to propagate their genes in an as effective way as they can, given the construct (environment and current genetic traits) they find themselves in

sorry old timer.

 

Evolution and how energy combines mass within the nature of living things, is what the current PARADIGM has failed in.  ie... why do lives even procreate?

 

life is not a reduction of chemical process.    And that FACT (statement) is something even you dont comprehend just by your above claim on 'to propagate their genes' is just STUPID!

Quote:

- Humans are not the pinnacle of all life forms,

  i didnt say they were.

I said, EXISTENCE comprehending itself, is the pinnacle of evolution. 

 

We are all just 'rocks that can roll' (life).  The pinnacle is when 'life' can ascertain what is real.

 

Quote:

 

 as you'd very quickly find if you were left naked in the Serengeti, or dumped 2 miles out at sea. Something else would probably end up eating you, while you consider why your bigger brain isn't too much use to you in this particular environment.

heck, you are on a forum, getting eaten up, right now!
Quote:

 

You also ridicule the postulated heat death of the universe - now I am not a physicist, but I have read up enough to know that this is a current theory about how the universe (and time) ends that has potential merit, and so stands as a possible conclusion to everything within our current understanding. If you ridicule this, you better have some darned good maths to back up your alternative supposition (whatever that is.. you don't seem able to propose anything yourself of any gravitas).

 

heat is not a force of nature.   (do you see heat within the gravity, strong, weak, electromagnetic?)  So no matter how you skin it, heat is not a force of nature.

 

The EXISTING paradigm is incorrect on most every front you an comprehend.

 

Quote:

So here's the rub. If you do consider yourself an intelligent person, you need to prove you have the ability to reason through your arguments in a logical, and understandable way.

 

 

  no i dont.

If i want something, i would have to follow the protocol.

 

I did follow it, back in 82' and it didnt work.   ie... it wasnt that the work was wrong, just like this thread(s)/posts, it is the morons who read the material dont have the level of commitment to actually do the homework.

 

Quote:

 

This is not because these readers are stupid, it is because you don't appear to be able to make a case.

  this forum is a skeptic corner...........  I actually LOVE it, in that regards

but just like in a physics form, there are those idiots that actually believe, that they must be sold before anyone gets by them.

 

That is where i laugh, as the release has already been underway and it is their failed participation within the sciences, that many do not realize the changes are already underway

 

i dont care about me being granted cudos or appreciation.  What i do, is already circling this earth a few times over.

 

 

Quote:

 

 Ktulu's post above can help you with this.

  kt is a goof

 

Quote:

 

Some of the most intelligent humans are able to take complex ideas and make them understandable to laypeople - you seem to be doing the opposite.

  telling people that gravity is a property of em (entanglement), puts many of the lay, thru a spin.

 

telling people that "life: abuses entropy" brings a whole bunch of morons out, so your premise, albeit makes sense, but a 'paradigm shift' is underway and it will flip the methodology, upside-down.     ie... the world wasnt flat either

Quote:

PS, can you provide this scientific paper you allegedly wrote? I would love to read something by you that has full sentences in it. Was it published?

 

 

 

no and no

 

it was submitted into peer review and as soon as I read the first response, "a photon cannot be slowed per relativity'..... and i went to my professor and said, im done!

So now, i do what i want, when i want, with who i want and I will not publish the transition of mass/energy/time mathematically ever again.

 

what is important, is the 'life', the understanding and living longer by choice

 

not being vindicated!

 

the changes are already in the works, i just so happen to be the idiot stirring up the globe and few know i am even walking around

 

 

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote:What photon

Bishadi wrote:

What photon combines the p680 structure of photosythesis?

Any photon whose wavelength is sufficiently close to the peak absorption wavelength of p680 (680nm) will be absorbed efficiently by the pigment and so contribute its energy to the process.Your question as expressed doesn't quite make sense. "Combines the structure"??? WTF?

Photons are particles , each possessing a specific amount of energy, but they also can behave like waves, ie, they exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. Its energy is equal to Planck's constant multiplied by its frequency.

As for 'random', the trajectory of an individual molecule in a volume of gas, or the time at which a particular radio-active atom will decay, are best understood as random, only definable by a statistical function, although they are two different categories of 'random' . No 'misunderstanding' involved, except perhaps on your part. although it is speculated that there may be something like a 'sea' of interacting particles (analogous to gas molecules) which we have yet to detect underlying the random aspects of Quantum Mechanics.

EDIT:
"Random' is a very good and useful model for events which are ultimately caused by a long sequence of interactions, such as the collisions of molecules in a gas, which have no specific collective direction. Treating them this way allows us to describe aspects of their collective behaviour by precise mathematical 'laws', such as the gas laws relating the pressure , volume, and temperature of a defined quantity of gas, or the 'half-life' of a radio-active isotope of an element.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok, now I 'think' I

Ok, now I 'think' I understand your question, and how you are defining Evolution..

 

Your question, if I'm not mistaken, is this:

 

Would a complete understanding of the 'real' workings of the universe be a satisfactory criterion for any conscious entity that understands these universal laws to be deemed the pinnacle of evolution?

 

or: "If someone really understands how the whole universe works, is that as complex as that being needs to get"?

 

In this context you are not using 'Evolution' in the darwinian sense, but in a more general context  - if you think we are just rocks that roll, then by your supposition there is no difference between a man and a sentient machine-gun-wielding robot, except one is more 'evolved' because that rock that rolls can also shoot things. so perhaps you are including technology in your evolution paradigm.. I'm not clear on this. What I would say is that there's a high probability that if your 'pinnacle of evolution' can exist, there's a distinct possibility it would have an artificial Intelligence heritage.

 

Regardless, as Vastet has already stated, The arrow of time, Entropy and the heat death of the universe would eventually render this omniscient entity defunct when heat and time finally run out of steam. (Unless that being works out how to reverse entropy - Asimov's "The last question" springs to mind..)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Bishadi wrote: Think of

Bishadi wrote:

 

Think of finally realizing the world aint flat.   Well, likewise 'life; abuses entropy'.    You can reproduce by choice!

 

 

Ok, so you don't know what entropy is. This post confirms it if you think that life creating other complex life 'abuses' entropy. I have to assume you think that increasing complexity in a particular part of the universe reverses entropy in some way. This is absolute nonsense. Increased complexity in a particular part of the universe is only possible at the expense of increased randomness in other parts - with an overall decrease in complexity.

 

Or in So Cal speak, "Dude, it's all like, second law of thermodynamics, man"...

 Vastet is correct when he says "Life accelerates Entropy", and if you dispute this, which from several of your posts you clearly do, you have to back this up with some solid evidence. Please go for your life, because as it stands you are trying to tell us that all great physicists of the 20th century are wrong. (Or just show me your perpetual motion machine..)

 

 


Bishadi
Troll
Posts: 76
Joined: 2012-07-24
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Ok, now I 'think' I understand your question, and how you are defining Evolution..

 

Your question, if I'm not mistaken, is this:

 

Would a complete understanding of the 'real' workings of the universe be a satisfactory criterion for any conscious entity that understands these universal laws to be deemed the pinnacle of evolution?

 

I didnt ask a question about evolution.  I comprehend the context of evolution and its implications on a huge front, just like you do.

How about, if "YOU" wanted to comprehend the absolute, would it be 'what?' YOU are and comprehend, not necessarily everything, but uniformly, "how it works"..... and it be 'fact'?

Quote:

or: "If someone really understands how the whole universe works, is that as complex as that being needs to get"?

 

what more is there to want?  The capability of living longer and know it is real; the pinnacle of every 'life'.

 

have you ever felt the security of a full refrigerator?  What about without?

Ever been on a death bed?  What do each want to know?

It's stupid easy!

 

Quote:

In this context you are not using 'Evolution' in the darwinian sense,

  not a once is the word 'evolution' used in darwins first edition............  "HE" didnt mean anything about 'evolution'. It was people afterwards that combined the VARIOUS usages to the word.

 

Quote:
 but in a more general context  - if you think we are just rocks that roll, then by your supposition there is no difference between a man and a sentient machine-gun-wielding robot, except one is more 'evolved' because that rock that rolls can also shoot things.
  sorry....,  Choice, purpose and conscious empathy are quite different than a 'rock that is rolling' versus a 'rock that can roll', by choice...............
Quote:
 so perhaps you include Evolution to include technology in your evolution paradigm..
  the auto has evolved?  Yes know...

Quote:

 I'm not clear on this.

 

 

 

What I would say is that there's a high probability that if your 'pinnacle of evolution' can exist,

 

 

there's a distinct possibility it would have an artificial Intelligence heritage.

 

the artificial dont have an innert intent to survive, like we do.....

 

we build them machines, they assist us in repairing many a 'lives' by our choice

science is seeking a coherance of understanding

 

Do you think that 1 day, it may happen?

Quote:
 

 

Regardless, as Vastet has already stated,

is an idiot

 

Quote:
 The arrow of time, Entropy and the heat death of the universe would eventually render this omniscient entity defunct when heat and time finally run out of steam. (Unless that being works out how to reverse entropy - Asimov's "The last question" springs to mind..)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now that is the old paradigm of thinking.

 

what is conservation?  does that law, exist?

 

now if i tap the surface of a pond, we both can imagine that the 'energy' (wave) will equilibrate over the body of the pond and that ideology is what the 'heat death' is all about 

 

but with intellect, remember that energy (wave), is still there, entangling more mass over time.

 

the whole other half of why the energy is coveying and where it goes, is the missing link.   Kind of like the questions left open in theology.

 

funny aint it?

 

 

If Existence only operates one way, is the math the name to know?