Something did not come from nothing

Ry
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Something did not come from nothing

http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=2564

The Invisible Ocean
 An Atehist's answer to philosophically based religions, Deists, and Agnostics.

Matter is eternal. The big Bang is the start of measurable time only but not existence.

Face it the world and all life on it was not created in six or seven days by a magical being. People may agree or disagree with this; some may believe in a personal god or conventional god. As for the people who literally believe in magical gardens, my words are lost on you and you need not read any further.  


          Conventional gods are easily dismissed with a little bit of history or science. After all, Gods come and go from Set and Sin to Zeus and Athena, to Apollo, to Allah, and Yahweh. Religions come, reform, and eventually die. There have been many religions made up through out the world, some are large and popular like Islam, and some are always small like the Tao.


          Organized religoins do not go very far with even a drop of skepticism or critical thinking. They must rely heavily on faith because there is no other way to convince people with reason how they could possibly be true.  One with an open mind, does not have to look far to see the inconsistencies, tragedies, mistakes, shortcomings, and often laughable absurdities in each. 


        Most people claim to be a 'such and such', but with a little questioning one discovers that they actually have a personalized god that they reformed from the religion they were brought up to believe. For example a lot of Catholics I know are actually Protestants because they don’t believe in the Pope. They merely call themselves Catholics because that’s what their parents told them they were. Apparently they didn’t give it much thought. Likewise most Protestants can not even tell you what separates their sect from another Protestant sect. Sure some can, but it is still interesting how little investigation goes into religious thought for many. 


Some people may reject specific texts but maintain that something IS out there and that religions are all just worshiping the same thing under different titles. A huge hole in this argument is that not all religions have a god(s). Plus, after enough reduction aren't you really a Deist rather than part of a particular creed? This brings us to personalized gods.


           What about the personalized gods? These gods or even forces seem to be born out of philosophies or seemingly logical deductions. These gods and their arguments are then too often kidnapped by the conventional religion promoters. These kinds of religions based on philosophy rather than on fear or dogmatism are far more respectable than the more fairytale like fantasies. It is important then to have a discussion to address these more moderate religious beliefs. So let’s look at one of the puzzles that seems to get a lot of people, even the agnostics.


          The age old question, “Where did it/we all come from?” People think, that there had to be a beginning to matter and since (they assume) it all had to come from somewhere, and there must be a kind of god that 'Made' everything. So god must be real. For the god-thing it is acceptable to not have a start b/c it is somehow magic and above that rule. I think everyone may have asked and answered this question of themselves when they were a young child. There a few things wrong with this.


          Well, "Where did it/we all come from?"  (Why would it have to come from anything) Within this question are two assumed truths, that being had to come from something rather than being that something. And that nothingness existed at some point, because anything that is not nothing is something.


        Now, why is nothingness assumed as the default setting? Is it because religious texts say 'in the beginning all was void'? Somethingness and nothingness do not have to come from each other. (in fact they logically could not) Each has equal claim to always being. In fact, because one can not come from the other, existence has always been. One can ask, where does nothingness come from? People seem to think that nothingness doesn't have to come from anything, that it just always is. But is it not equally as reasonable to ask how nothingness was made from somethingness, as it is to ask the reverse?


         What one can question is the assumption of a nothingness. An old Taoist saying goes, "Fish do not know they are in the water." Humans do not see space as a thing (out side of a fabric for motion and an area for gravity) but it is very possible that nowhere is there nothing. The words on this screen have space between them but there is still the screen. Space is like the grid we are all subject to. The Higgs field particle is on its way if predictions are correct, we are about to discover our own invisible ocean.


         For somthingness to come from a previous something, the previous something would be part of the continued existence of existence thus just as nothingness does not come from nothingness, nothingness just is, somethingness does not have to come from something it just is as well. The difference and the confusion lies in that somethingness can change. As a 'new' something comes from a previous something, this is a measure of change we call this time. Existence does not ‘come from’ existence; existence is what is, it is being. Time is a measure of change within the being but not a measure of being itself. All measurements are parts of infinity, like all numbers are parts of a possible infinity. Nothingness simply remains nothing and somethingness, though it can change, always remains not nothing i.e. somethingness. Therefore you either believe in the eternity of nothingness or somethingness or both. Unless you make up a god and say it made either the nothing or the something, but even a god can not have neither. The god idea however is not necessary, at least not for that reason. The only religion around it might be Pantheism which holds that the somethingness is god. But to be realistic my audience is mainly moderate Christians, Jews, and Muslims.


          “What about the big bang? What came ‘before’ the big bang?” This is another typical question and a reasonable question too. Again the word before implies time and we know now, in large part because of Einstein, that time is a physical thing, (much like motion is physical-esk. Motion is a movement, but there still must be a thing doing the moving.) Before this physical universe moved, our reality and time were not. (Unless there is a multiverse which is a different can of worms. Smiling To ask "what came before?" implies again the English languages obsession with location metaphores, 'going to' and 'coming from'. There is no 'Before' until there is time. There is also no coming in the coming before since this in fact would be the start. The start is the start, if you keep gong back you just get a new start, but it is still the start and there is no 'coming' before it,  there is not even a 'before'. It was also never nothing. Time does not really Exist. Capital E on exist. Time is a concept of our memories.


    The past is not real, that is, it does not exist, only our memories exist. This moment, right now, is all that is actual. The present is eternal in existence. Time does not exist outside of existence. Time is the measure of change in objects from one point in the now to another point in the now. But really, time is some concept out of the memory. Time applies to changes but not to existence. For every action there is a thing doing the act. The action cannot predate the things. There is no time until there is existence. There are no changes until there are things to be changing. So you see there is no such thing as before existence if it has always been. It's like saying what was nothing before it was nothing. The answer is simply still nothing. So the answer what was before the big bang? Well everything was. "What was everything doing?" Is a better question. When you say the word was do you mean what happend i.e. events or what existed i.e. subjects. And there can be no events without subjects. So there is no before existence.


        That’s one answer and it does not even require a bigbang. Now, folks in the M-theory camp can give you yet another explanation, the question is, is M-theory even still science or philosophy? Wait, was not science once called natural philosophy? Newton did not call what he did science, but philosophy. Is science not lead by imagination, by science fiction, by philosophies, and then later 'proven' (within a paradigm) by the most current empirical data? The history of our future is a philosophy of the past.

And there was light...


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Lets use some occam's

Lets use some occam's razor:

P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
P2. There is only one [nothing].
C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes [something].
C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot come from [nothing].
C5. Either there was never [nothing] or [nothing] is the 1st cause.

Either the universe always existed or God is [nothing].

God had no time to create time.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Pikachu wrote: Lets use

Pikachu wrote:

Lets use some occam's razor:

P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
P2. There is only one [nothing].
C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes [something].
C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot come from [nothing].
C5. Either there was never [nothing] or [nothing] is the 1st cause.

Either the universe always existed or God is [nothing].

That is just really fucking cool.  I'm going to copy and paste that into every cosmological argument I get into.  Thanks Santa Pikachu!

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Pikachu

Tilberian wrote:
Pikachu wrote:

Lets use some occam's razor:

P1. [nothing] has no attributes.
C1. Therefore [nothing] is not constrained.
C2. Therefore [nothing] can change.
P2. There is only one [nothing].
C3. When [nothing] changes it becomes [something].
C4. There is no reason to think [something] cannot come from [nothing].
C5. Either there was never [nothing] or [nothing] is the 1st cause.

Either the universe always existed or God is [nothing].

That is just really fucking cool. I'm going to copy and paste that into every cosmological argument I get into. Thanks Santa Pikachu!

U welcome Smiling

God had no time to create time.


something (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 Bogus reasoning. If

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lol, I actually agree. It's

Lol, I actually agree. It's kind of a non sequitur, too many ambiguous terms. Unfortunately, your response contains false assertions too.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
something wrote: Bogus

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

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: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you have a problem with

If you have a problem with 'randomness', then complexity can replace it.

All one requires is to consider that the base of reality is a vast, maybe effectively infinite, 'sea' of interacting truly fundamental particles.

In such a context, even if strictly 'deterministic', and even if it started as an ordered array, the trajectory of any individual particle will quickly become ever more indistinguishable from a truly 'random' version.

So the probability of some event that requires some particular energy and/or configuration of the particles can be assigned a probability of occurrence within any given time interval.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
something wrote: Bogus

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

NO, you assume an intelligence. A blade of grass does not have a brain, it is the result of A PROCESS, not a who. Long before this planet or plants were the very elements that manifested into the CONDITIONS that lead to plants. Just like weather is not a result of a who, but conditions that lead to the weather.

Either way, nothing before, or something before DO NOT require a thought to start it. Just like a cloud doesn't think about dropping rain.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
something wrote: Bogus

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant.

The byproduct of not having attributes, is it has no constraints, and cannot be restrained (you neglect that part).

As such, with no constraints, Nothing can do anything.

 

That's the origins of the 'god'.

Theists anthropomorphise Nothing and call it god.

God is Nothing.

Nothing is god.

 

It's really that simple.

something wrote:
So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence.

That's circular reasoning.

Intelligence would indicate there is knowledge.

In the abscence of all energy and matter, what knowledge could there be?

The knowledge of Nothing.

 

Exactly....

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


melzack (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
no past?!!

Interesting stuff, but I stopped at the part where you said that the past doesn't exist. Only our memories of it. This is false, as if the past did not exist, then we could have no memory of it because there can be no record of something that does not exist, so obviously the past does exist.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The past is still sitting

The past is still sitting there right where it was, we just can't go back to it, we have moved "past" it.

 My question would be is the future already there as well and we just havent caught up to it yet.

The present is only an idea, as soon as you realize it you have passed it, if anything we are constantly living for the future.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:The past is

robj101 wrote:

The past is still sitting there right where it was, we just can't go back to it, we have moved "past" it.

 My question would be is the future already there as well and we just havent caught up to it yet.

The present is only an idea, as soon as you realize it you have passed it, if anything we are constantly living for the future.

If you assume Einstein: All information, causality has a limitation of c ( propagates at 186,282 miles per sec ). The only present is your conscious preception. Everything that you experience has already happened. You are a nexus of all past causality. That which you experience through the idea we call) the future has occurred by the time it arrives to you.  This holds true to every point in timespace. Everything (at least conscious) has its own present. The past of a thing is entailed in every present point of its existence...or Is the future already there? You (or anything else) as a nexus of past causality react to that which you encounter in your present awareness. Is there a contingency in the present moment? Is the Copenhagen or Von Neumann interpretation of quantum physics correct wherein you collapse a wave function in measuring it or observing it?  If so you participate in the development of the future. Or is that simply at the subatomic level and macroscopic events have averaged out to normal causality? David Bohm presented a model where though there were things that were not causally determined they were already embedded in a enfolded potentiality. While a does not necessarily cause B B may necessarily follow A because of its state in the implicate order as it becomes explicit.  I would not say that the present is so much an idea as it is the objectification of your present state in reaction to its encounter with incoming information( causes) as an idea and/or actuality. Apart from consciousness or experience there may be no present? 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Apart from

TGBaker wrote:

 Apart from consciousness or experience there may be no present? 

There is a present, but, it's relative to the observer.

'Presence' is an abstract.

It's the collective of 'everything' in the universe. All energy, all forces, all matter, and antimatter, all material and immaterial life, and decay/deterioration, and all ideas; that are changing position in Euclidian geometry, along with the added space/time continuum.

This is as many dimensions that we are sure of, as a current, robust, understanding of reality.

The concept of a 'fixed' point in time, becomes extremely complicated, as you would need to have infinite regress to a single instant, that cannot be subtracted from, any further, less, reality, would simply vanish.

The stream of processing of light, by the human eye, the subsequent A/D conversion of analog to digital information, the speed of neurons firing in our brain, and the processing capability of the brain, is simply too slow to be able to 'sample' a portion of space/time, that small, due to latency that's inherent to our structure. Sound is much slower than light.

So, we are forced to 'round off'.

 

Deal with it...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Due to the uncertainty

Due to the uncertainty principle,  no current, past or future state of the Universe can be be determined with infinite precision, even in principle.

Even within that limitation, what we perceive as the 'present' applies only to the viewpoint from our location in n-dimensional reality, which includes the 4-dimensions of space time. From the perspective of another point separated in space from ours, even the perceived sequence of  events at our location can vary from ours, for events in different states of motion, according to Special Relativity.

Uncertainty means that even at one location in space-time, reality incorporates an continuum of possible states, with associated probability described by wave-functions which sum to 100%. For points further along the time-dimension, the less likely states will make up a diminishing proportion of the total wave-function, so this version of 'many worlds' does not imply an infinitely growing reality of possible worlds. I suspect that Uncertainty means that as the probability of a given state drops toward zero, it effectively dissipates into the fuzziness of the ground state of reality.

"Something from nothing" is meaningless from the multi-dimensional perspective, where time is just one dimension.

Total reality obviously exists. 'Nothing' doesn't. That is IT.

Any 'God' would still by definition be part of what IS, and it is meaningless to even propose that a part of what IS could have 'created' what IS.

The relationships between the states of 'points' and regions of n-dimensional reality will be constrained by what are effectively the ultimate 'Laws of Physics', which may be based on some n-dimensional 'geometry', like the way ordinary geometry constrains how collections of different shaped objects can be packed together, or the way a given number of electrons can be arranged around a nucleus, which in turn determines the way that atom can combine with other atoms, which determine the properties and possible structures of molecules built from those atoms, and so on, all the way up to highly organized structure like living organisms.

Just a few 'random' thoughts....

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:"Something

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Something from nothing" is meaningless from the multi-dimensional perspective, where time is just one dimension.

Exactly.

It's simply equivocating.

Rhetoric and hyperbole.

All indications are that our universe originated from a singularity.

We don't have anything to observe outside of that.

Yet.

The Large Hadron Collider will demonstrate if there is reason to suspect that there are other dimensions outside of our 'universe', by seeing if energy can leave these 4 dimensions, and transport into some other dimension, or space/time continuum.

There are still many unanswered questions on the origins and laws centering around gravity, electro magnetic force, and energy/matter/antimatter/dark matter, symmetry/supersymmetry.

The jury is still out.

Deal with it...

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Total reality obviously exists. 'Nothing' doesn't. That is IT.

Ya, so, 'Relax, there probably is no god!' 

That should be a bumper sticker.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Any 'God' would still by definition be part of what IS, and it is meaningless to even propose that a part of what IS could have 'created' what IS.

The concept of a monotheistic prime mover is not only impractical, but it is a self negating, and self refuting concept.

It arbitrarily places an impetus, for an impetus, (for space/time) outside of space/time.

A purely circular argument, that is self refuting.

 

By that definition, there is NOTHING that a theist could say, logically, that could refute the notion that each individual is their 'own' creator, that would not refute their own claim of a monotheistic god, at the same time.

 

Deal with it...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Apart from consciousness or experience there may be no present? 

There is a present, but, it's relative to the observer.

'Presence' is an abstract.

It's the collective of 'everything' in the universe. All energy, all forces, all matter, and antimatter, all material and immaterial life, and decay/deterioration, and all ideas; that are changing position in Euclidian geometry, along with the added space/time continuum.

This is as many dimensions that we are sure of, as a current, robust, understanding of reality.

The concept of a 'fixed' point in time, becomes extremely complicated, as you would need to have infinite regress to a single instant, that cannot be subtracted from, any further, less, reality, would simply vanish.

The stream of processing of light, by the human eye, the subsequent A/D conversion of analog to digital information, the speed of neurons firing in our brain, and the processing capability of the brain, is simply too slow to be able to 'sample' a portion of space/time, that small, due to latency that's inherent to our structure. Sound is much slower than light.

So, we are forced to 'round off'.

 

Deal with it...

Pretty much what i was trying to say that apart from conscious expereince it is not relevant. The present is relative to the observer. You can posit a present somehwhere else and work with that but it is still a conscious entity that does it. And I agree with an infinite regress or Decartes Demon you could posit a non-relative present of everything.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hey rednef

Hey rednef, Hawkings equivocated on the idea of a singularity that he described in the seventies to no singularity in the 80's. He co-erote with different physicists. I'd have to look it up to see who they were.

 

I could say that from which all things came was not a thing therefore it was no-thing, nothing and be real New Agey.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Due to the

BobSpence1 wrote:

Due to the uncertainty principle,  no current, past or future state of the Universe can be be determined with infinite precision, even in principle.

Even within that limitation, what we perceive as the 'present' applies only to the viewpoint from our location in n-dimensional reality, which includes the 4-dimensions of space time. From the perspective of another point separated in space from ours, even the perceived sequence of  events at our location can vary from ours, for events in different states of motion, according to Special Relativity.

Uncertainty means that even at one location in space-time, reality incorporates an continuum of possible states, with associated probability described by wave-functions which sum to 100%. For points further along the time-dimension, the less likely states will make up a diminishing proportion of the total wave-function, so this version of 'many worlds' does not imply an infinitely growing reality of possible worlds. I suspect that Uncertainty means that as the probability of a given state drops toward zero, it effectively dissipates into the fuzziness of the ground state of reality.

"Something from nothing" is meaningless from the multi-dimensional perspective, where time is just one dimension.

Total reality obviously exists. 'Nothing' doesn't. That is IT.

Any 'God' would still by definition be part of what IS, and it is meaningless to even propose that a part of what IS could have 'created' what IS.

The relationships between the states of 'points' and regions of n-dimensional reality will be constrained by what are effectively the ultimate 'Laws of Physics', which may be based on some n-dimensional 'geometry', like the way ordinary geometry constrains how collections of different shaped objects can be packed together, or the way a given number of electrons can be arranged around a nucleus, which in turn determines the way that atom can combine with other atoms, which determine the properties and possible structures of molecules built from those atoms, and so on, all the way up to highly organized structure like living organisms.

Just a few 'random' thoughts....

Yea I agree. Also with the idea of god as part of what IS. If you are gonna throw around a god concept panentheism moves that direction better but you still are faced with all the same problems. I like the idea of an eternal big bang machine creating multiverses eternally but that is still purely speculative.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
From what I've read on

From what I've read on Hawkings, he seems to be fixated a lot on gravity. I think he thinks that the majority of answers will be derived from that.

But, I'm not sure everyone would agree with him. Because of that, I don't know that gravity will be the most telling thing.

Gravity is a very, very, very weak force, compared to other forces.

 

I'm not sure if he thinks that as a black hole keeps getting denser, that it will eventually create it's own singularity...with another Big Bang, then being an imminent possibility/probability.

But, that's a cool thought, that has occurred to me since I was a kid.

A 'universe' inside another universe.

 

Way cool...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Is the present an

Is the present an abstraction or brain event that regresses on the abstraction of perception (conscious experience)? I'm talking phenomenologically....

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Possibly...

Possibly...


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:From what I've

redneF wrote:

From what I've read on Hawkings, he seems to be fixated a lot on gravity. I think he thinks that the majority of answers will be derived from that.

But, I'm not sure everyone would agree with him. Because of that, I don't know that gravity will be the most telling thing.

Gravity is a very, very, very weak force, compared to other forces.

 

I'm not sure if he thinks that as a black hole keeps getting denser, that it will eventually create it's own singularity...with another Big Bang, then being an imminent possibility/probability.

But, that's a cool thought, that has occurred to me since I was a kid.

A 'universe' inside another universe.

 

Way cool...

 

Remember me quoting a Lenny Suskind. His encounter with Hawkings at a party resulted in Susskind being instrumental with string theory. Hawkings idea of gravity and blackholes that "evaporate" ran counter to thermodynamics in that the blinking out would take information with it (1981). Susskind developed the Holographic Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The event Horizon of the entire universe is supposed to be 2 dimensional projecting our 3 dimensional universe!!! It is widely accepted today!!! I'm not sure where hawkings stands today on the subject.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Possibly...Is

redneF wrote:

Possibly...

Is that a modal logic possibly????

If it is the regression then the present that we point to is simply our consciousness.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: Remember me

TGBaker wrote:

 Remember me quoting a Lenny Suskind. His encounter with Hawkings at a party resulted in Susskind being instrumental with string theory. Hawkings idea of gravity and blackholes that "evaporate" ran counter to thermodynamics in that the blinking out would take information with it (1981). Susskind developed the Holographic Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The event Horizon of the entire universe is supposed to be 2 dimensional projecting our 3 dimensional universe!!! It is widely accepted today!!! I'm not sure where hawkings stands today on the subject.

 

Yes, I remember. I like Leonard a lot.

I like the fact that someone is capable of keeping others on their toes, and intellectually honest.

Here's Leonard talking about Hawkins, and their first meeting, and lifelong friendship and rivalry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkwt2jlvHqM&playnext=1&list=PLED6DB383F259552E

 

I've worked as an engineer with PhD's for a long, long time. The one thing that constantly emerges from that, is the absolute, uniquivocal, realisation, that, 2 heads can be better than 1.

Even if one is much 'dumber' than the other.

From there, when we see more 'minds' combining, we see 'new life' emerge, as ideas.

 

Those ideas, are the impetus for creation, evolution, of both, non living and living intelligent things.

 

Add a few billion years of 'primordial soup', physics, chemistry, and random mutation by natural selection, and it's very simple to see how life, and complexity could have emerged from that.

 

I believe this is universally true, and is 'reality'.

 

We didn't come from no stinking 'Immaterial Stork' in the sky...

 

How fcuking retarded is the idea, that we were brought into this world , from such a thing?

 

I believe they will locate the gaps in the brain, or misfiring neurons, that allow for such delusions to be possible in some humans.

We now know that human brains have the capacity to generate new brain cells, and to rewire themselves.

You just wait and see...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

 Remember me quoting a Lenny Suskind. His encounter with Hawkings at a party resulted in Susskind being instrumental with string theory. Hawkings idea of gravity and blackholes that "evaporate" ran counter to thermodynamics in that the blinking out would take information with it (1981). Susskind developed the Holographic Principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

The event Horizon of the entire universe is supposed to be 2 dimensional projecting our 3 dimensional universe!!! It is widely accepted today!!! I'm not sure where hawkings stands today on the subject.

 

Yes, I remember. I like Leonard a lot.

I like the fact that someone is capable of keeping others on their toes, and intellectually honest.

Here's Leonard talking about Hawkins, and their first meeting, and lifelong friendship and rivalry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkwt2jlvHqM&playnext=1&list=PLED6DB383F259552E

 

I've worked as an engineer with PhD's for a long, long time. The one thing that constantly emerges from that, is the absolute, uniquivocal, realisation, that, 2 heads can be better than 1.

Even if one is much 'dumber' than the other.

From there, when we see more 'minds' combining, we see 'new life' emerge, as ideas.

 

Those ideas, are the impetus for creation, evolution, of both, non living and living intelligent things.

 

Add a few billion years of 'primordial soup', physics, chemistry, and random mutation by natural selection, and it's very simple to see how life, and complexity could have emerged from that.

 

I believe this is universally true, and is 'reality'.

 

We didn't come from no stinking 'Immaterial Stork' in the sky...

 

How fcuking retarded is the idea, that we were brought into this world , from such a thing?

 

I believe they will locate the gaps in the brain, or misfiring neurons, that allow for such delusions to be possible in some humans.

We now know that human brains have the capacity to generate new brain cells, and to rewire themselves.

You just wait and see...

 

 

If Susskind is right then we are really occurring from that black distance 13.7 billion light years away and simply projected here????? How that song go   Lions to the left of me and clowns to the right.... Stuck in the middle with you

Oh yea you mentioned on another post Nugent. I saw him in concert with Kiss and Skid Row...took my to older sons or they took me they were really into Kiss. I wanted to see Nugent. I knew his drummer Cliff Davies. He lived near me.  He committed suicide a couple of years ago unfortunately not long after he had finished a recording studio in his home.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:If Susskind is

TGBaker wrote:

If Susskind is right then we are really occurring from that black distance 13.7 billion light years away and simply projected here?????

Hmmmm.....I don't recall that one.

That's a little too weird for me.

How would that work? Are the chemical bonds of our structure being broken to replace one particle with another, from a continuous stream?

Why fix something if it ain't broke?

It still wouldn't explain where the origins of our decay begin.

Meh....I'm not feelin' it...

 

TGBaker wrote:
Oh yea you mentioned on another post Nugent.  

Ya, he's the Motor City Madman, dude.

A great hedonist.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:TGBaker

redneF wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

If Susskind is right then we are really occurring from that black distance 13.7 billion light years away and simply projected here?????

Hmmmm.....I don't recall that one.

That's a little too weird for me.

How would that work? Are the chemical bonds of our structure being broken to replace one particle with another, from a continuous stream?

Why fix something if it ain't broke?

It still wouldn't explain where the origins of our decay begin.

Meh....I'm not feelin' it...

 

TGBaker wrote:
Oh yea you mentioned on another post Nugent.  

Ya, he's the Motor City Madman, dude.

A great hedonist.

I think the way it works is that we are only a holhgraph of interacting fields or waves . Wave and particle problems are only from our measurements???? Bobspence may know that one. I gonna look it up. we're mostly space with a little interference we call matter which really does not matter

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I'm thinking of a really

I'm thinking of a really cool thread, for us to contribute to.

I'm going to do it in the Freethinking Anonymous forum, to keep ir free from derailing by theists.

I think it'll be a really fun exercise.

 

I'll link to it, so you and everyone will be able to see it.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Ry wrote:Something did not

Ry wrote:
Something did not come from nothing

'Nothing' has no rules. If it has rules, then it's a something.

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:something

BobSpence1 wrote:

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

 

the flaw in your argument is, that just energy alone cannot create information. Information is always created by a mind. DNA is coded , complex and specified information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3688
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:that just

angelobrazil wrote:
that just energy alone cannot create information.

Define "information." Justify this.

angelobrazil wrote:
Information is always created by a mind.

And this.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

 

 

angelobrazil wrote:
that just energy alone cannot create information.

Define "information." Justify this.

angelobrazil wrote:
Information is always created by a mind.

And this.

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator#997

What Is Information?

There are several definitions of information currently in use; however, each of these definitions are generally too broad. For example, one definition of information includes symbols with or without meaning, and another includes everything in its definition of information. Imagine sending random symbols as smoke signals to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother on her birthday? Imagine sending a bunch of smoke signal dots in the air to your friend—would Happy Birthday ever get sent to your mother? In July 2006, a team of scientists representing various scientific disciplines met to evaluate a definition of information proposed by information scientist Dr. Werner Gitt,4 which is precise and corresponds very well to human languages and machine languages. The team proposed that this definition be called Universal Definition of Information (UDI) and agreed that there are four essential attributes that define it:

Code (syntax): Information within all communications systems contains a code. A code contains a set of symbols and rules for using letters, words, phrases, or symbols to represent something else. One reason for coding is to enable communication. Examples of codes would be the English alphabet, words, and syntax; hieroglyphics; or codes used in computers (for example, C, Fortran, or Cobol).

Meaning (semantics): Meaning enables communication by representing real objects or concepts with specific symbols, words, or phrases. For example, the word chair is not the physical chair but represents it. Likewise, the name “Bob” is not the physical person but represents the real person. When words are associated with real objects or concepts, it gives the word meaning. For example, aichr and Bbo do not have meaning because they do not represent any real object or concept. However, if in the future one of these character strings were to represent a real object or concept, it would have meaning. Prior to the computer Internet age, the word blog had no meaning; today it is associated with a web page that serves as a personal log (derived from web log) of thoughts or activities. It can also mean a discussion community about personal issues. Another new word with meaning is simplistic. New words are continually being designated with meaning.

Expected Action (pragmatics): Expected action conveys an implicit or explicit request or command to perform a given task. For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the expected action is that someone will go to the store. This does not mean the action will actually happen, but it is expected to happen.

Intended Purpose (apobetics): Intended purpose is the anticipated goal that can be achieved by the performance of the expected action(s). For example, in the statement, “Go to the grocery store and buy some chocolate chips,” the intended purpose might be to bake and eat chocolate chip cookies. These four essential attributes specify the definition domain for information.

 

First Law of Information (LI1) Information cannot originate in statistical processes. (Chance plus time cannot create information no matter how many chances or how much time is available.) There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.7 Second Law of Information (LI2) Information can only originate from an intelligent sender All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient. We observe daily a continual input of new information from an intelligent source (human beings). At present, on earth, the only new information we have detected being created is from human beings. Careful examination of other systems will determine if there are any other intelligent sources of new UDI.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
*skims, scrolls*

So, a bunch of theistard crap, eh?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
 If its crap, defy it with

 If its crap, defy it with rational arguments. 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

 

the flaw in your argument is, that just energy alone cannot create information. Information is always created by a mind. DNA is coded , complex and specified information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. 

Information is created by any structural formation whereby that structure is causal rather than it's constituents. The universe is an infinite communication of information. This does not require mind. You might call it mind. But minds do specific things like intend, plan, decide, etc.;


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Information theory is a

Physical information
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (ie. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles.

Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another"[citation needed]. The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language. We might even consider the sum total of the information in a thing to be the ideal essence of the thing itself, i.e. its form in the sense of Plato's eidos (The Forms).

 

Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon to find fundamental limits on signal processing operations such as compressing data and on reliably storing and communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography generally, networks other than communication networks \u2014 as in neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection[4] in ecology, thermal physics,[5] quantum computing, plagiarism detection[6] and other forms of data analysis.[7]

A key measure of information is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication. Entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved in predicting the value of a random variable. For example, specifying the outcome of a fair coin flip (two equally likely outcomes) provides less information (lower entropy) than specifying the outcome from a roll of a die (six equally likely outcomes).

Applications of fundamental topics of information theory include lossless data compression (e.g. ZIP files), lossy data compression (e.g. MP3s), and channel coding (e.g. for DSL lines). The field is at the intersection of mathematics, statistics, computer science, physics, neurobiology, and electrical engineering. Its impact has been crucial to the success of the Voyager missions to deep space, the invention of the compact disc, the feasibility of mobile phones, the development of the Internet, the study of linguistics and of human perception, the understanding of black holes, and numerous other fields[citation needed]. Important sub-fields of information theory are source coding, channel coding, algorithmic complexity theory, algorithmic information theory, information-theoretic security, and measures of information.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:angelobrazil

TGBaker wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

 

the flaw in your argument is, that just energy alone cannot create information. Information is always created by a mind. DNA is coded , complex and specified information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. 

Information is created by any structural formation whereby that structure is causal rather than it's constituents. The universe is an infinite communication of information. This does not require mind. You might call it mind. But minds do specific things like intend, plan, decide, etc.;

 

 

 

bullshit. Show coded, specified and complex  information, that was created spontaneously, and has not a mind as origin. Your nobel prize is assured to you.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Where does the mind come

 Where does the mind come from Angelo? The mind is dependent on a physical body (brain) that without it does not exist. Which means the information for that mind had to arise some form of natural structure. Unless of course your going to argue that this mind that you speak of always existed and is some how beyond our comprehension and does not require any proper explanation as to how this mind arose. Since DNA/RNA can be shown to have formed by a chemical reaction, which arose naturally, and you have no evidence or proper data to prove that this always existing mind actually created DNA.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

 

the flaw in your argument is, that just energy alone cannot create information. Information is always created by a mind. DNA is coded , complex and specified information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. 

No, any collection of particles within a volume of space represents information, in their position and momentum. Mind is not involved at all.

You are confusing that scientific, physical definition of 'information' with particular configurations or patterns which we have assigned meaning to.

The correspondence between particular sequences of nucleotides and particular amino acids is not arbitrary, it arises from the match between the physical structure of the sequences of nucleotides and that of the corresponding amino acids, which therefore have a tendency, an affinity, to bind to that part of the DNA.  This physical match, like between a particular pairs in a collection of random jigsaw pieces, is all that is needed for the protein synthesis mechanism to evolve and function naturally. A consciously 'specified' code would require a conscious mind to intervene in the decoding process as well, but we can see that each amino acid is a more natural, physical fit to certain sequences of nucleotides than others, thus no other factor needed.

Given this natural, physical mechanism, DNA 'coding' no more requires a 'designer' than any other aspect of living creatures. The many gross imperfections and kludges in the structure of animals and plants,  persist since they are not actually fatal, even though obvious alternative configurations would be far more efficient. We know why they persist, because evolution is blind, and to 'correct' them would require extremely unlikely multiple mutations to occur in one step, or going through a sequence of intermediate forms which would be unlikely to be viable. Whereas even a third-rate conscious designer would not arrange many structures they way they are in actual life-forms, let alone an omniscient one.

As to "Show coded, specified and complex  information, that was created spontaneously, and has not a mind as origin." DNA is precisely such an example. Nucleotides and amino acids are known to arise spontaneously in appropriate physical and chemical environments, and the fact that there is no neat one-to-one match between DNA sequences and amino acids is evidence against a 'designer'. For many amino acids several alternative sequences are roughly equally usable, and in some cases, the sequence is not quite specific enough, so there is a real possibility of grabbing the wrong amino acid, leading to a potentially defective protein = another strike against the idea of a conscious designer being involved

A human code that was anything like the DNA code would be one where the code symbols were selected by how well they matched the symbols they were coding for, like selecting a a symbol which reminded you in some way of an 'A' to code for the letter 'A'. This is not they way human designed codes are typically set up.

I never heard of that "First Law of Information Theory" which is strange, since I did a semester in Information Theory as part of my Engineering degree.

In fact, a maximally efficiently coded sequence will have the same statistical properties as random noise. Any discernible pattern represents repetition which can be further compressed.

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


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Where

latincanuck wrote:

 Where does the mind come from Angelo? The mind is dependent on a physical body (brain) that without it does not exist. Which means the information for that mind had to arise some form of natural structure. Unless of course your going to argue that this mind that you speak of always existed and is some how beyond our comprehension and does not require any proper explanation as to how this mind arose. Since DNA/RNA can be shown to have formed by a chemical reaction, which arose naturally, and you have no evidence or proper data to prove that this always existing mind actually created DNA.

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

Fundamental Law 2 (FL2)

Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
The information recorded on a CD is nonmaterial. If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight.
The same information can be transmitted on a CD, a book, a whiteboard, or using smoke signals. This means the information is independent of the material source. A material object is required to store information, but the information is not part of the material object. Much like people in an airplane are being stored and transferred in the plane, they are not part of the physical plane.
The first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that mass and energy (matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. All mass and energy in the universe is being conserved (the total sum is constant). However, someone can write a new complicated formula on a whiteboard and then erase the formula. This is a case of creating and destroying information.

Since the first law of thermodynamics states that mass and energy (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and information can be created and destroyed, information must be nonmaterial.
The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter and energy.5

Indeed, Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 HAHAHAHAHA it's still

 HAHAHAHAHA it's still information on a physical medium that is recorded on to a physical medium, which does not exist without that physical medium which requires what again? Energy to record it to that physical medium. Please show me where it exists without a material medium then. As for your airplane analogy, yeah they are now part of that plane, what happens to that plan, it's weight, is affected by those passengers. If that plane crashes those people are affected by that. However the CD information, is recorded by having the laser make marks on the dye on CD-R's for example. However the information is still being stored on the physcial medium, which itself would not exist if there was no physical medium to store this information. So again, where does information exist without a physical medium? 

Information must be non-material because it can be destroyed? ummmm we can destroy physical structures we can obliterate them to nothing, evaporate them per se with nuclear weapons, so with your logic those structures are immaterial?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Physical information in the

Physical information in the form of the position and momentum of the fundamental particles in a given volume of space-time is also fixed, which is why black-holes have represented a theoretical problem in cosmology, since it appears that particles disappearing into a black hole represent information lost to our universe.

Of course anything which which is merely a property of a particular configuration of matter is itself not matter, but it is totally dependent on matter for its actualization in any instance.

Just as God is immaterial, ie just an idea within human brains, and totally dependent on the existence of such minds for its actual instantiation at any time.

You are conflating 'information' as defined in Physics and Information Theory with specific encoding of mental constructs and concepts.

Information of the conceptual kind is still totally dependent on the existence of some physical substrate, but not on any one kind, since it is just a particular pattern or sequence of distinguishable entities, whether bumps or pits on a CD, arrangements of ink on a page, even a sequence of photons of different wavelengths, or the different intervals of timing between identical photons.

DNA coding is totally dependent on its environment, since it relies on a physical affinity, not a symbolic one, between individual varieties within two classes of molecules. nucleotides, and amino acids.

Just as anything 'immaterial' is totally dependent on, ultimately an aspect of, some structure or arrangement of matter, interacting via energy exchanges.

A purely immaterial entity can have no effect, cannot act, except in an indirect sense when modelled or imagined in a mind or a computer, both of which are totally dependent on a complex material structure.

God exists, immaterially, ie as an idea, a concept, within physically based minds, or as encoded in text or recorded speech in some physical media.

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:TGBaker

angelobrazil wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

angelobrazil wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

something wrote:

 Bogus reasoning. If nothing has no attributes, then the attribute of being able to change is also non-existant. So you just made something (the universe) come from something (the ability to change) which actually demands an intelligence. For that which cannot change, cannot decide to change, and cannot care to change, will not change.

Positing a mind does absolutely nothing to address the problem, since an intelligence is also part of Reality. If the intelligence always existed, then there was never truly "nothing".

The existence of the ability to change is indeed a basic requirement, so there must at least be some basic set of 'Laws', even if there is nothing we would recognize as matter or energy.

So it is true that there could never have been truly nothing, since we exist. So all we need is that there is a certain structure to ultimate reality, which requires that there be something that embraces and implies energy at a basic level. And energy IS the drive for any change, any movement, by definition.

Science shows that at the fundamental level, 'change' itself is always present, there is no constancy. That is a prime consequence of Quantum Theory. Which also shows that there is a basic randomness, an 'uncertainty', which means that even if something is capable of some change from the moment it came into existence, it may not actually change for a billion years. This is what we see most clearly in radioactive decay. All we can say is that, on average, any given unstable atom has a defined probability of decaying in any specified time interval. No mind required.

The capacity to change, the drive to 'movement', is what energy IS, and energy is the primary 'substance' of reality.

This means that any 'prime mover' arguments, and any assumption that for something to change at an arbitrary or random point in existence could not happen without something capable of making a conscious decision, no longer work, since movement, random change itself, is primary.

 

the flaw in your argument is, that just energy alone cannot create information. Information is always created by a mind. DNA is coded , complex and specified information. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. 

Information is created by any structural formation whereby that structure is causal rather than it's constituents. The universe is an infinite communication of information. This does not require mind. You might call it mind. But minds do specific things like intend, plan, decide, etc.;

 

 

 

bullshit. Show coded, specified and complex  information, that was created spontaneously, and has not a mind as origin. Your nobel prize is assured to you.

DNA     You obscene theist. You kiss ya mam with that mouth. David Chalmers  posits information as common to anything.. Shannon the father of information theory does the same. Oh course they did not get their degrees from Sunday school. The basic discussion in string theory is about information loss in a black hole. Lenny Susskind's holographic principle is about information conservation..  DUHH

 

 

Black hole information paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Artist's representation of a black hole

The black hole information paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to evolve into the same state. This is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time.[1] A postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function, an abstract concept not present in classical physics. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense.

There are two main principles at work: quantum determinism, and reversibility. Quantum determinism means that given a present wave function, its future changes are uniquely determined by the evolution operator. Reversibility refers to the fact that the evolution operator has an inverse, meaning that the past wave functions are similarly unique. With quantum determinism, reversibility, and a conserved Liouville measure, the von Neumann entropy ought to be conserved, if coarse graining is ignored.

Stephen Hawking presented rigorous theoretical arguments based on general relativity and thermodynamics which threatened to undermine these ideas about information conservation in the quantum realm. Several proposals have been put forth to resolve this paradox.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 BobSpence1 wrote:Physical

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Physical information in the form of the position and momentum of the fundamental particles in a given volume of space-time is also fixed, which is why black-holes have represented a theoretical problem in cosmology, since it appears that particles disappearing into a black hole represent information lost to our universe.

 

That one may be fixed BobSpence1. I have not quite internalized it personally but apparently there is an argument where lost information requires the temperature of the universe to be infinite. As this is observably not so, then information loss can't be real.

 

It is on the cutting edge of physics and one of the things that the LHC is supposed to be capable of confirming (shortly after they succeed in making black holes).

 

I am not wanting to get on board with unproven things but the idea is that the information content of the universe is both inside the universe and on the event horizon. Pretty much the holographic principal. That being said, the reservation here is that if it is wrong, then we are going to have to redo general relativity. Depending on what the LHC tells us, possibly we will have no choice. But it seems unlikely.

 

That much being said, the airplane analogy is fucked. Part of the information on the airplane is the amount of fuel. Since you need more fuel for an airplane with 10,000kg of passegers, then you need different information for a full plane to reach it's destination.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil

angelobrazil wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 Where does the mind come from Angelo? The mind is dependent on a physical body (brain) that without it does not exist. Which means the information for that mind had to arise some form of natural structure. Unless of course your going to argue that this mind that you speak of always existed and is some how beyond our comprehension and does not require any proper explanation as to how this mind arose. Since DNA/RNA can be shown to have formed by a chemical reaction, which arose naturally, and you have no evidence or proper data to prove that this always existing mind actually created DNA.

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator Fundamental Law 2 (FL2) Information is a nonmaterial fundamental entity and not a property of matter. The information recorded on a CD is nonmaterial. If you weigh a modern blank CD, fill it with information, and weigh it again, the two weights will be the same. Likewise, erasing the information on the CD has no effect on the weight. The same information can be transmitted on a CD, a book, a whiteboard, or using smoke signals. This means the information is independent of the material source. A material object is required to store information, but the information is not part of the material object. Much like people in an airplane are being stored and transferred in the plane, they are not part of the physical plane. The first law of thermodynamics makes it clear that mass and energy (matter) can neither be created nor destroyed. All mass and energy in the universe is being conserved (the total sum is constant). However, someone can write a new complicated formula on a whiteboard and then erase the formula. This is a case of creating and destroying information. Since the first law of thermodynamics states that mass and energy (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, and information can be created and destroyed, information must be nonmaterial. The genetic information system is the software of life and, like the symbols in a computer, is purely symbolic and independent of its environment. Of course, the genetic message, when expressed as a sequence of symbols, is nonmaterial but must be recorded in matter and energy.5 Indeed, Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy.

At best you get an emergent type dualism with top down causality.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course information,

Of course information, either that represented by the specific position and momentum of all the fundamental particles in a system, or that represented by ideas, concepts, narratives that we hold within our individual or collective minds, is in a different category of 'reality' than matter and energy . D' UHH.

That doesn't mean they are independent of materiality as such. This has already been explained.

If all material copies, in books, tapes, etc, of a great work of fiction were destroyed, and the last person who recalled any of it died, it would no longer exist in any sense. IOW it is dependent on the existence of its embodiment in physically measureable form in at least one material object for its existence. Therefore that form of information, though not material in itself, is totally dependent on the existence of matter, which is a necessity for any persistent structure  or pattern. An immaterial mind is an oxymoron, with the emphasis on moron.

Our emergent minds are what bestow meaning on particular symbols or patterns. Those meanings have no reality beyond the context of our own thought processes, often not even beyond our own culture/societal context.

You seem to have fallen for the Platonic Idealism crap.

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
angelobrazil wrote:bullshit.

angelobrazil wrote:

bullshit. Show coded, specified and complex  information, that was created spontaneously, and has not a mind as origin. Your nobel prize is assured to you.

See:

1- Snowflake

2-  Fullerene

3- Carbon Nanotube

4- Fractal

Open a science book next time, before your pubescent hormone spikes cause you to openly demonstrate your stupidity, again.

 

Your Nobel Prize awaits you, to demonstrate your idea that a 'mind' is responsible for these mechanics.

 

Good luck...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

 HAHAHAHAHA it's still information on a physical medium that is recorded on to a physical medium, which does not exist without that physical medium which requires what again? Energy to record it to that physical medium. Please show me where it exists without a material medium then. As for your airplane analogy, yeah they are now part of that plane, what happens to that plan, it's weight, is affected by those passengers. If that plane crashes those people are affected by that. However the CD information, is recorded by having the laser make marks on the dye on CD-R's for example. However the information is still being stored on the physcial medium, which itself would not exist if there was no physical medium to store this information. So again, where does information exist without a physical medium? 

Information must be non-material because it can be destroyed? ummmm we can destroy physical structures we can obliterate them to nothing, evaporate them per se with nuclear weapons, so with your logic those structures are immaterial?

 

 

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t287-information-evidence-for-a-creator

Law of Matter about Machines (LM1)

When information is utilized in a material domain, it always requires a machine.
Definition of a machine: A machine is a material device that uses energy to perform a specific task.

Information is required for the design and construction of machines.
What does this mean? Both information and matter are necessary for the development of a machine. It is the information that determines and directs the assembly of the material system into the necessary configuration, thereby creating a machine. This means that tracing backward to the manufacture and design of any machine capable of performing useful work will lead to the discovery or necessity of information and ultimately to its intelligent source.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Physical

BobSpence1 wrote:

Physical information in the form of the position and momentum of the fundamental particles in a given volume of space-time is also fixed, which is why black-holes have represented a theoretical problem in cosmology, since it appears that particles disappearing into a black hole represent information lost to our universe.

Of course anything which which is merely a property of a particular configuration of matter is itself not matter, but it is totally dependent on matter for its actualization in any instance.

Just as God is immaterial, ie just an idea within human brains, and totally dependent on the existence of such minds for its actual instantiation at any time.

You are conflating 'information' as defined in Physics and Information Theory with specific encoding of mental constructs and concepts.

Information of the conceptual kind is still totally dependent on the existence of some physical substrate, but not on any one kind, since it is just a particular pattern or sequence of distinguishable entities, whether bumps or pits on a CD, arrangements of ink on a page, even a sequence of photons of different wavelengths, or the different intervals of timing between identical photons.

DNA coding is totally dependent on its environment, since it relies on a physical affinity, not a symbolic one, between individual varieties within two classes of molecules. nucleotides, and amino acids.

Just as anything 'immaterial' is totally dependent on, ultimately an aspect of, some structure or arrangement of matter, interacting via energy exchanges.

A purely immaterial entity can have no effect, cannot act, except in an indirect sense when modelled or imagined in a mind or a computer, both of which are totally dependent on a complex material structure.

God exists, immaterially, ie as an idea, a concept, within physically based minds, or as encoded in text or recorded speech in some physical media.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code.

even Dawkins admits the DNA code is not simbolic, but indeed a code:

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/t288-the-genetic-code

Richard Dawkins at his book The Blind Watchmaker:

"Every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/dna/a/replication/dna.html

DNA contains a coded representation of all the proteins in the cell. Other molecules such as sugars and fats are synthesised by proteins (enzymes) so their structures are indirectly coded by DNA. DNA also contains all the information required to make the correct amount of protein at the correct time, thus controlling all biological processes from those of day to day life such as metabolic activity to those of embryogenesis and fetal development. The human genome contains 3x109 base pairs of DNA divided into 23 chromosomes which if linked together would form a thread of 1 meter with a diameter of 2 nm. This DNA codes for about 105 different proteins. In fact only about 2-4 % of the total coding capacity in the human DNA is used for coding of different genes, the rest of it probably has other more structural and organizational functions.

http://nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/how.html

Every living organism contains within itself the information it needs to build a new organism. This information, you could think of it as a blueprint of life, is stored in the organism's genome.

When an organism needs to use the data stored in the genome, e.g. to build components of a new cell, a copy of the required DNA part is made.

The alphabet in the RNA molecule contains 4 letters, i.e. A, U, C, G as previously mentioned. To construct a word in the RNA language, three of these letters are grouped together. This three-letter word are often referred to as a triplet or a codon. An example of such a codon is ACG. The letters don't have to be of different kinds, so UUU is also a valid codon. These codons are placed after each other in the RNA molecule, to construct a message, a RNA sequence. This message will later be read by the protein producing machinery in the body.


angelobrazil
Theist
Posts: 275
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:   You

TGBaker wrote:

   You obscene theist. You kiss ya mam with that mouth. 

 

 

i don't debate with atheists, that are not strong enough to debate my arguments. instead they think they need to attack me......