God?

[KerrTexas]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

That's a slight exaggeration, but I have never claimed differently.

No exaggeration. The Inca did in fact construct buildings with blocks of stone that weighed over 100 tons. The seam between the blocks, even after many earthquakes and movement of the ground they stand, one can not insert a razor blade between the stones.

When I say that driving on an American interstate will not prepare you for driving down Suffolk/Norfolk country roads, I'm not kidding.

In California, Los Angeles is surrounded by mountains. Ortega Highway is one of those roads. Narrow, and twisting in extreme arc's, first to the left, then to the right. One mistake will send you plunging down a hundred foot cliff that parallels the roadway for quite some time. They have had drivers fly off the road and not be discovered for weeks. Everybody in this area has heard of Ortega Highway.

And at times one must deal with snow and ice on similar roadways. Now that takes skill, to drive on ice and snow.

The road you describe sounds like it would be a blast to drive. The Shelby 427 Cobra is a small vehicle, but with the right stuff to make that drive a tad shorter regarding time on the roadway.
Plus, or hopefully, everybody would hear it coming and get out of the way. The major drawback would be the quick consumption of fuel. They are not very economical.

There's no car that can be engineerd to get past the obstacle that is the Suffolk/Norfolk driver

Actually there is one vehicle that would have no problem...

Not very fast, but can basically go where you want to go, regardles of obstacles in your path.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Everybody in this area has heard of Ortega Highway.

A fun road indeed! They often will scrape a motorcyclist or two off the pavement every weekend in the summertime. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif In fact, I will be taking the Ortega Highway tomorrow evening on my way out to spend Thanksgiving with my folks in Hemet. I prefer that road to taking the freeways, because at least you get some nice scenery. But as you imply, it pays to keep your eyes on the road when driving Ortega.

Enjoy the holiday,
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

And shall I always assume the context of thermodynamics, as opposed to one of the other scientific definitions of "complex"?

Certainly within the confines of this thread it would make sense, would it not? Given that it has been yet another of my recurring themes from almost the very beginning of our discussions on this topic. I do not believe I have been at all vague about pointing to all these recurring themes, and how they relate to both Science and Spirituality.

Laides and Gentlemen, I give you what is practically the dictionary definition of the Strawman logical fallacy.

And this sounds like a debater trying to deflect attention away from the fact that he has just been called on what he was doing. The distinction that you are making between the two clearly related topics (ID and evolution) would require a micrometer to measure... and you know it. Again, I am not going to let you have it both ways. When I gave you those websites, I did not "miss your point" as you think I did. I was answering your point that you have absolutely no evidence to prove your assertation about snowflakes not being created by an intelligent force. THAT is the point. You stated something that you cannot prove, and it applies to more than just the snowflake example. It applies to the general concept you are trying to say is valid, of which the snowflake was your poor (and wrong) example.

then you will have to conceed that a snowflake forms without a guiding hand

No. According to your rigorous logic, I would be wrong to concede to that at all without seeing some evidence. I would like you to present your evidence that snowflakes form without a guiding hand, and then I MAY concede. Stay on the topic: You made an assertion, and I am asking for evidence to support it.

Now, whether the system that was in place needed to be created by an intelligent being is a different question.

No, it is not a different question. And be careful when you use the word system, as I know quite a bit about that topic.

The systemic process of creation of a snowflake is directly related to WHAT (or WHO) caused that creation. That is the simple process of cause and effect. I'd still like to see you back up your contention with evidence.

Now, which is it, is an individual snowflake created directly by intelligence, or is there an autonomous system by which it is created without intelligence?

No, it does not just boil down to two options that you think are the "end all" here. That is another debate tactic (and yes, I've told you before that I will call them when I see you doing them). You try to frame what I have said as a contradiction that I must choose from, and yet that is not at all the case.

You add the word "directly", and I never claimed that. I speak in general terms of an all-pervading intelligent force that creates all. I don't use words like "directly created by". I simply maintain that all systems that exhibit locally lower entropy are a result of a higher systemic cause, a force at work. At that higher systemic cause has higher systemic causes. And that each level of cause possesses measures of intelligence, in that they have the capability to manipulate energy and information (which are the same thing). More recurring themes. Intelligence could be described as the ability to exchange (balanced) information with energy. Your mind is intelligent because you can process information with it that will tell you the most efficient ways to "be at cause over Energy".

You have claimed to be able to prove the existence of God, true, but you have yet to do so.

This is only the case because you demand your proof to be in a specific form. One that adheres to your linear definition of proof. God does not submit to your demands in how proof of Him is exhibited. God does not submit to your pitiful, and arrogant idea of logic. But those of us who have the ability to integrate the beauty of science (and the continuum mathematics that have evolved over the past years) with spirituality can see the evidence, and it is clear and unadulterated. You are ignoring the evidence because someone else refuses to connect the dots for you. And as Crowley was fond of saying "you will sit in your wretched pit of Because forever" until you do the hard work yourself.

No. You have offered up evidence of intelligent systems which have come about through intelligent design. You have not offered evidence that complex systems can only come about through intelligent design.

Yes I have. You are just too dense to make the connections. It is the relationship between Energy and Information, which you consistently do not accept as Truth. Let's go step by step:

1) COMPLEX systems (still thinking thermo definition? good!) can ONLY come about through an exhibition of decreased local entropy. This is a Truth, and backed by science.
2) Decreased local entropy can ONLY come about by higher states of organization. (Again, directly relates to definition of thermodynamic complexity)
3) Higher states of organization require lower states of energy conversion.
4) Lower states of energy conversion require higher amounts of information content.
5) Intelligence is that which processes information, and increases total information content.

This is what we do as humans. We increase total information content, because that is what permits us to achieve lower states of energy conversion, which permits us to achieve higher states of organization, which permits us to achieve decreased local entropy, which is what results in complex systems, which is how Creation takes place.

Did you catch that complete, closed-loop logic there? At (1) We started with what a complex system is scientifically defined as, we took it all the way back to how it relates to intelligence, and then followed the action of intelligence in Creation as it reflected back to how complex systems become manifest. THIS is an example of non-linear logic. You could also call it closed-loop logic. It completes an entire circuit from "First Cause" (Intelligence) to "First Effect" (Manifest Complex Creation).

BLATANTLY: This is the aspect of science & how it confirms and validates spirituality that you do not understand. That which you are totally clueless about. You don't have to beleive me when I say I know WAY more about closed-loop system dynamics than you. But closed-loop theory is the basis for transcending linear logic.

I've told this story before, and you clearly didn't get it, and what it really means. The history of closed-loop controls theory began by trying to FORCE such systems to act linearly. We have since proven that this is a waste of energy, because by forcing linearity on inherently non-linear physical processes, we are putting more energy into it than we need to. We now know that closed-loop systems should not be forced-linear. Rather, we should exploit their non-linearities to achieve greater degress of efficiency, lower levels of energy conversion, and higher states of organization. It's happening all over the controls systems world, through the application of chaos theory and fractal mathematics. And its responsible for the continual advances in technology that we have witnessed over the past 30-40 years.

What there is abundant evidence of is that a low-entropy system cannot arise and function without an outside influence. Not intelligent influence, just outside influence. Just like the snowflake.

You are a really slow learner, aren't you? See above discussion of "complex", "entropy", "energy", "information", and "intelligence". Closed-loop, dude. Outside influence = Intelligent influence just by the fact that information is processed to decrease entropy.

then why don't you write a paper on the subject and have it published? Submit it to Nature or Science or New Scientist, or any other scientific journal. Let it be peer-reviewed and send a storm throughout the scientific world. Surely if you're right, have reason and logic behind you, and all the scientific facts, then you have nothing to lose by this, and everything to gain?

Well who's to say I won't? But I do it on my schedule, not yours. Or even more importantly, I do it by God's schedule, not yours. I have lots of other things going on. Plenty of other creations that I have cooking in my life right now. You see, as a result of figuring out how Creation works, I've figured out that we must set intent, and then simply follow the energy and information. Part of following that energy and information involves the contact and sharing I have with others of like mind (on this board and in life in general) who have other pieces of the puzzle. We correlate, corroborate, build-up, and CO-CREATE with one another. We are people who know that we must work together to reach the higher understandings, the higher levels of Being. We all know the Truth of God and how He is making himself known in our continuous advances in science and spirituality. We already "know" that they will be reconciled.

Contrast with what seems to be your "agenda" which is to deny not only that they will be reconciled, but that they can be reconciled. Again, I agree with Zerubabbel in that this shows your nihilism. You would rather expend energy showing someone that "it can't be done" than investigating ways to make it happen. Who is expending their energy in a more productive manner?

If you are going to be strict about anything, I am going to be relentless about one thing: Evidence. I want to see your evidence that snowflakes are NOT created by an intelligent force. Provide the evidence or shut up. YOU are the one who made this all about evidence of God. Now I want to see your evidence for this statement.

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

The Inca did in fact construct buildings with blocks of stone that weighed over 100 tons. The seam between the blocks, even after many earthquakes and movement of the ground they stand, one can not insert a razor blade between the stones.

Sorry, I thought you were still talking about the Egyptians there.

RainmanTime said:
Certainly within the confines of this thread it would make sense, would it not? Given that it has been yet another of my recurring themes from almost the very beginning of our discussions on this topic. I do not believe I have been at all vague about pointing to all these recurring themes, and how they relate to both Science and Spirituality.

Yeah, but another recurring theme is information, and that has a couple of different definitions, depending on the kind of information. But, okay, thermodynamics it is.

And this sounds like a debater trying to deflect attention away from the fact that he has just been called on what he was doing.

No, because I addresseed the point you made. Do you really want to get into the argument of evolution? Are you going to mark yourself out as a Creationist? It is a different discussion, and it is a huge discussion. I really do suggest that you at least attempt to continue with the discussion we are having first before getting into another huge subject. You've still not told me what the relevence of non-linear energy manipulation is to Ancient Egypt - and this was a big point of yours. If you can't even follow through on that, then what can be productively gained by going down yet more avenues while abandoining what we've started but have not even got close to finishing here?

I would like you to present your evidence that snowflakes form without a guiding hand, and then I MAY concede.

Very well.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm

You'll note there is an explaination of the physics, and no meantion of some form of intelligence individually crafting each snowflake.

No, it is not a different question.

I posted the example, I think I know what I mean, thank you. My contention is this: an individual snowflake is created by an autonomously occurring process, rather than individually crafted by an intelligence. Now do you agree with this or not?

You add the word "directly", and I never claimed that.

No, I did. It is my claim, remember, not yours. See above.

I speak in general terms of an all-pervading intelligent force that creates all.

If what you're saying here is true, then you've just invalidated your argument that all acts of creation cannot come about except through the direct application of intelligence. Unless you're saying that your argument isn't, in fact, that the act of creation itself is evidence of intelligence, rather you're simply saying that you believe there must be an intelligence, therefore there is. Basically, by saying this, you're reducing your entire argument throughout this entire thread to "God exists because I say so". Hardly scientific, is it?

Now, you say, correctly, that a low-entropy system cannot arise and fuction without an outside influence. Now, I give an example (the snowflake) of a low-entropy system that arises and functions without an outside intelligence (note, I'm not talking about the design of the system, just the actual, physical formation of the crystal itself), and you simply say "well, but if you look outside of that, there must be intelligence". In other words, you're reducing the data set that you will consider to exclude any example that don't back up your assertations. You can take any example and say "well, I'll not consider that, but if you take my example with wider paramaters, then we have a different result", but it certainly won't get you your papaer published.

At that higher systemic cause has higher systemic causes. And that each level of cause possesses measures of intelligence, in that they have the capability to manipulate energy and information (which are the same thing).

That's a very odd definition of "intelligence". A definition which excludes the possibility of anything not being intelligent - excludes all possibility of natural laws and essentially flys in the fact of all established science and pooh-poohs scientific method. By this definition, my alarm clock is intelligent because it takes chemical energy, changes it into electrical energy, then into kinetic energy or sound energy (which is also kinetic energy, really). A sandslide is intelligent because it is converting potential energy into kinetic energy. And so on. Absolutely everything, no matter how small must be intelligent, by this definition. As such, it's hardly a useful definition.

Your mind is intelligent because you can process information with it that will tell you the most efficient ways to "be at cause over Energy".

Now, this is a different definition, which involves will. That's more how I would define it (although any definition of intelligence will eventually be problematical, I think I can accept and work with this one). But this, once again, leads me to conclude that the formation of an individual ice crystal is not an act of intelligence, as it is an autonomous process.

This is only the case because you demand your proof to be in a specific form.

Well, I'm sorry that I believe in scientific method. If you feel unable to stick to it, then you'll have to retract yourt claim to be able to prove the existence of God, and to retract your claim that your views are based on scientific method. And you'll definately not get that paper published.

Yes I have. You are just too dense to make the connections.

You know, on the whole, I am enjoying this post immensely. We're getting to the nitty-gritty, and you're really making me have to work and think to support my position. You're presenting ideas that I have to mull around a bit and seriously consider before I can say whether they're right or wrong. This is great, and exactly what I like about good debates. It's just a shame that you have to ruin it with petty insults like this. Seriously, when you come to write your scientific paper on Intelligent Design, will you litter the text with phrases about how dense everyone who doesn't believe what you are saying is? Please, cut out the ad hominems. They're extremely unbecoming, and do nothing but detract from what is, at heart, a fascinating, enlightening and highly enjoyable debate. They are nothing but counter-productive, and I do not believe that you actually do think that I am stupid. As such, all it does is annoy me and make me a lot less receptive to your ideas. This statement very nearly just made me hit "delete" on everything I've just written and say "to hell with it" and think that it's simply not worth the effort to talk to you.

Please, please, please, can we just have a civilised discussion?

1) COMPLEX systems (still thinking thermo definition? good!) can ONLY come about through an exhibition of decreased local entropy. This is a Truth, and backed by science.

Agreed.

2) Decreased local entropy can ONLY come about by higher states of organization. (Again, directly relates to definition of thermodynamic complexity)

Okay. Although it must be said that Entropy is not the same thing as "disorganisation". but I'll buy this for now.

3) Higher states of organization require lower states of energy conversion.

Can you clarify this for me, please? I've spent the last hour or so just looking at this statement and trying to understand what you mean, and haven't got very far. So, I asked my dad (who, you may remeber is a research physicist). And he has no idea what you mean by this, either.

Incidentally, there is no definition of "dense" which would apply to my father, so don't even think about going there, okay?

4) Lower states of energy conversion require higher amounts of information content.

Again, ditto for this. I've spent a lot less time on this one, as step 3 isn't clear, but still it's hard to tell what you actually mean by this.

5) Intelligence is that which processes information, and increases total information content.

As above, I do not accept this definition of intelligence, as it would apply to any and everything.

This is the aspect of science & how it confirms and validates spirituality that you do not understand.

Well, you're right that I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. But I'm in good company, at least.

Outside influence = Intelligent influence just by the fact that information is processed to decrease entropy.

Yeah, I think this may be where we differ greatly. You define intelligence in such broad terms that it cannot possibly not be applied to anything, therefore everything is the product of intelligence. If you wish to define it in such terms then, yes, the fact that the universe contains energy (which is the same as information) which changes from one form to another means that information is being processed, ergo there is intelligence at work. But, as this preculdes anything from not being included, it is meaningless and has no relevence to any concept of a God. For my money, and definition of "intelligence" that would apply to any deity would have to include reason and will.

Well who's to say I won't?

I'd lay money on it.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Yes, perhaps we are getting to the crux of the matter. As fun as it may be to respond to some of your points, I think you'll not be offended if I skip some of them, as they are really just idle banter between our egos (yes, that topic again!).

Very well.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm

You'll note there is an explaination of the physics, and no meantion of some form of intelligence individually crafting each snowflake.

Interesting. So now it does seem you wish to try to attack the insurmountable problem of proving a negative! Yet you didn't want to try this with God. And oh, by the way, nothing in here is evidence for your statement being true, as I have explained ad nausem before. Just because you can describe the physical vehicle that makes something possible does not mean you can prove that all of the elements behind it were not set in place by an intelligent force. So stop trying to pretend you can prove a negative!

Although it must be said that Entropy is not the same thing as "disorganisation".

True, but it is a measurement of disorganization, or rather disorder. Check the definition.

Can you clarify this for me, please? I've spent the last hour or so just looking at this statement and trying to understand what you mean, and haven't got very far. So, I asked my dad (who, you may remeber is a research physicist). And he has no idea what you mean by this, either.

Sorry, I don't claim to be able to explain things sufficiently the first time around. What I am really pointing at are the general precepts of efficiency as they relate to systemic organization for a fixed amount of input power. So when I say "Higher states of organization require lower states of energy conversion", another way to state it would be "for a fixed amount of available (input) energy to create a local decrease in entropy for a close system, achieving higher levels of organization can only be achieved by reducing energy conversion losses." Did that help? A physical example would be: For any two closed electrical systems that have the same input power limit, the system that achieves the greater level of local entropy reduction would be the one that minimizes dissipated heat, which is a direct result of its energy conversion process.

Again, ditto for this. I've spent a lot less time on this one, as step 3 isn't clear, but still it's hard to tell what you actually mean by this.

This one should be a lot easier if you can follow the logical train of thought here, and I have sufficiently explained the last one to you. However, when I say "Lower states of energy conversion require higher amounts of information content", I am again pointing at one of my other recurring themes that relate to the fact that closed-loop systems implement information (about observable states) as a means to reduce their energy conversion losses. By making the system smarter, it wastes less energy. And again, the examples are numerous from the improvements seen in aviation efficiency to the improvements in cell phone signal reception. They alll have achieved improvements as a result of applying closed-loop information techniques.

Incidentally, this is a fact I have presented over and over again, and which you have yet to admit is true. Yet it is one of the primary aspects of all closed-loop control systems. Such systems employ closed-loop feedback (i.e. information) as the means to improve system efficiency (and thus achieve lower entropy). You have not yet admitted that every closed-loop system out there in the world is evidence for the fact that information and energy are intimately linked. Now, I know you don't like to admit facts that eat into your appearance of winning this debate, but you really should clean up some of your own issues that you've left lying by the roadside before you start pointing fingers at me.

As above, I do not accept this definition of intelligence, as it would apply to any and everything.

And this is where we are, again, getting close to the real crux of our disagreements in this whole thread. So let's focus on this, as by refusing to accept this you are setting up a condition by which the entire premise of a God could NEVER be proven. In other words, you are specifying a priori conditions that are in direct contrast to what one would need in order to approach a proof of an "all encompassing, Being."

You define intelligence in such broad terms that it cannot possibly not be applied to anything, therefore everything is the product of intelligence.

Would you not agree that one of the foundational aspects of the concept of a God is that this God encompasses EVERYTHING? Is that not the veritable premise of a deity? But before you answer, let me continue, as this is the most problematic issue with your approach to trying to deny God...

If you wish to define it in such terms then, yes, the fact that the universe contains energy (which is the same as information) which changes from one form to another means that information is being processed, ergo there is intelligence at work.

OK, well at least I can finally hang my hat on a place where you admit that energy is the same as information. Gee, it only took me how many months, and how many posts to get you to admit that??? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I consider this a major victory for my cause, given how obstinate you can be in not admiting when something that is scientifically demonstrated is actually true.

But, as this preculdes anything from not being included, it is meaningless and has no relevence to any concept of a God.

And this then, is the "bottom line" issue for why your approach denys even the possibility of being able to provide "linear evidence" for the existence of God. By your rules, anything that includes everything is not relevant to any concept of God. And yet, as I have stated above, the entire premise of the concept of a God is that S/He is all-encompassing! How can you ever hope for someone to provide evidence of a God if the rules that YOU setup at the outset prohibit the very concept upon which God is based? That is a logical discontinuity, and is not at all valid if you honestly and truly wish to be shown the evidence of God. It is precisely tantamount to something like "I want you to show me what the color blue looks like" while you are covering your eyes! I know you understand the point I am making, and I would like you to address it: How can anyone penetrate your "logic" to prove the existence of God when you demand that someone prove God's existence outside the basic concept that makes God God?

In point of fact, this is precisely what a "Grand Unified Theory" is out to accomplish. Its intent to to specify overriding principles that apply to, and include, everything. So are you then saying there is no possible way, if we ever classify a reasonable GUT, that it could ever have anything to do with God? It would be interesting if this is what you are asserting, because "everything" is one of the basic ways we DO describe God.

For my money, and definition of "intelligence" that would apply to any deity would have to include reason and will.

And so there we go. Crystal clear. You wish to impose restrictions on God. Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. This man's ego is such that HE is going to define what can, and cannot, constitute God. By laying down such conditions, you are, in essence, elevating yourself above God (even though you do not admit God exists). For you are defining a priori conditions for what YOU would consider God to be. Ya know, God doesn't like it when puny little mortals attempt to limit Him!

And let me reiterate my own feelings, and back up your thoughts on this discussion: I am also enjoying it immensely. And none of my "digs" at you are personal in nature, nor do I think any less of you as a human being. It is just my sarcastic nature for how I express my frustration with your intransigence. You have a much more indirect way of assailing me, and mine is more direct. But we both do it. I don't expect to change you (but I hope to enlighten you), and I would hope that you don't expect to change me. Nor do I wish to change things about myself that allow me to deal with frustration.

So, as I have said before: Either let it go, like water off a duck's back, or get some digs in of your own! Just as with you, I may not like it, but I will deal with it. It really is not a big deal to me as long as I know, in the end, you respect me as a person and mean me no harm... which is exactly what I think of you. I don't agree with you on all things, but I do enjoy interacting with you. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother with you. So why not just try having some fun, loosening a bit of the stereotypical British attitude, and throw a few tomatoes at this California wacko? :D

Too bad you folks don't have Thanksgiving.... but I'll wish you a happy one anyway!

RMT

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

I'll get back to this to address more, but I simply don't have the energy at the moment. I'm far too full of dinner and Kung-Fu movie. Just one thing I have to address straight away, though.

By your rules, anything that includes everything is not relevant to any concept of God. And yet, as I have stated above, the entire premise of the concept of a God is that S/He is all-encompassing!

Okay, I should have used the qualifier "useful" when I said meaning of God.

What you have said in your last few posts is this:

- Intelligence is defined as: Everything.

- Therefore, there is an intelligence in everything.

Can you see how this is circular logic? And how it isn't actually useful to any discussion? I could define everything as "toast", if I so wished. It wouldn't make the entire universe composed of heated bread, though, would it?

Despite what the phrase has come to mean, you are indulging in the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (AKA "circular reasoning" AKA "Petitio Principii"). You are putting the assumption of the correctness of your conclusion in your premise, and then claiming that that premise therefore proves the conclusion to be true. You can say what you will about "non-linear reasoning", but logical fallacies are logical fallacies.

Actually, one more thing, while we're on the subject of logical fallacies...

So now it does seem you wish to try to attack the insurmountable problem of proving a negative! Yet you didn't want to try this with God. And oh, by the way, nothing in here is evidence for your statement being true, as I have explained ad nausem before. Just because you can describe the physical vehicle that makes something possible does not mean you can prove that all of the elements behind it were not set in place by an intelligent force. So stop trying to pretend you can prove a negative

I will get back to this, as you've not yet addressed the very specific issue I have pointedly stated twice now, and I don't have the heart to do it a third time in a row on a full stomach while men balletically kicking each other is still in my mind...BUT, you are right, you know. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims something exists, not the person who claims something doesn't exist. Ergo by the rules of logic (again, linear or non-linear, these rules remain the same) it it not up to me to prove to you that Jack Frost does not exist, you have to prove to me that he does.

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

One more quick thought - if you don't believe that God has a will or reason, then what could it possibly matter if He existed or not? If Him existsing is utterly indistiguishable from Him not existsing, then why should anyone care?

 

[CAT]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Trollie, Confusious say: Man who throw dirt is losing ground! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

A snow flake is a marvelous thing when you look at it closely. They are made perfectly from a random assortment of water droplets attaching to particles of dust. How this chaos is turned into order is in not a mystery, it clearly shows intelligent design!

Water is formed from oxygen and hydrogen. The atoms in these molecules react according to laws of nature. A magnet attracts iron in some cases and in others it repels it. There is positive and negative terminals on a battery. The electricity always flows from positive to negative. Oil does not mix with water. Slippery things dont stay together. Sticky things stick to each other but they may not stick to a certain slippery thing. Oxygen reacts with Hydrogen differently depending on the temperature. You may read the directions for a certain paint that tells you for instance to not use it below 50 degrees. This is because the chemical reactions change and the paint might not stick to the wall or to itself at the lower temperature. If it freezes completely then it may be ruined because you have altered the arrangement of molecules and it just will never be the same.

Water isnt quite that sensitive because as we all know we can freeze it and thaw it hundreds of times and it is still water. When it is frozen though, the atoms in oxygen react with the atoms in hydrogen according to know laws. Some particles are attracted to each other and some repel. The attractions are not strong at higher temperatures but at freezing temperatures they form into a hexagonal shape. If you look at this with the help of an electron microscope you will see the atoms themselves in a definite 6 sided order. They have no other choice anymore than we have a choice to be attracted to the earth by gravity. The forces of nature contained in atoms simply obey laws. They always do it and they cannot disregard the laws.

DNA is formed by a series of chemical reactions. Unlike some chemicals that breakdown when life ceases or like some paint that breaks down when it freezes, DNA retains its shape and information. The famous Neanderthal man was examined and the DNA in long dead bone was also examined. DNA is not a living thing like a cell or an internal organ. It is like a chemical ladder that forms itself according to laws just like the snow flake does. A rock for instance forms according to law and lasts for thousands of years. In that sense DNA is similar to a rock or a salt crystal. Of course when DNA is actually being used in a cell of an animal or plant it is doing far more than just sitting their like a rock or acting like a snow flake.

Each cell in the body knows which instructions to read from the DNA in order to perform its specific function. One cell may make more parts of a kidney according to precise instructions. Another cell may provide more energy according to the portion of the DNA recipe book that it is reading. Each cell reads and interprets the code and follows the instructions that it is given. Each cell knows which part of the instructions apply to it. Like a team of construction workers building a skyscraper, each worker reads the part of the plans that apply to his specific project. One worker may read the instructions on how to install windows, another may read the instructions on how to operate the elevator or crane, another may read the instructions on how to install the plumbing system and another follows instructions that pertain to the electrical wiring. In the end the entire building fits together perfectly according to the master set of instructions that are called DNA in a living organism.

Where did these minutely detailed precise instructions come from? How does each cell know what portion of the book to open to at any given time? It does no good for the glass maker to read about making an elevator. The crane operator needs to read about the weight loads he will be carrying but he could not care less about how you make steel. The information in DNA and how it is used specifically and at the precise times necessary cannot be explained by the laws of thermodynamics alone. We need another law before we can even hope to understand the origin of information like this.

The foundation of all life is the written word!

That written word is in the cell of every plant, animal and human being on this planet. That word upholds all of life. Without the word all life perishes in an instant. There is not one process in the cell that will sustain life without the written word that is contained within it. All of life as we now know it is utterly impossible without the written word - utterly, completely, absolutely and finally impossible! It would seem then because these words are vital that there would be a great deal of study in this area from those interested in proving that life evolved from nothing and without direction from an intelligent source. There has in fact been quite a bit of study in this area but the conclusion is always the same. After wading through complicated mathematical formulas and listening to philosophers and computer programmers and various theorists and artificial intelligence proponents it became clear that the solution is really quite simple and I will tell you what it is so you can save yourself a headache.

The type of instructions that are found in DNA cannot come into being without intelligent input!

Computers have the ability under established maxim to sort, copy, multiply, and otherwise manipulate information, but behind it all is a human programmer. He/she decides what is good and what is bad. That person decides what is to be multiplied or what is to be eliminated. That intelligent life decides how the system that he is designing will build itself, and multiply itself. All paths eventually lead to intelligent life. Regardless of how a computer talks to another one or how one programs another one or any other scenario that you can think of, the beginning of the road is always intelligent life. I am not talking about the actual construction of the computer here. We are assuming that the computer is working and plugged in. The information that is contained or will be contained in it has at its source a human being with the ability to make value judgments. In other words, someone who can tell the computer what is better than something else...

Now let me show you how this works. Lets say there is a pile of plastic letters laying around outside. The wind blows these millions of letters around for millions of years and eventually we come on the scene and look the situation over. After searching through the confusion we eventually find a complete sentence spelled out that says, Give this information to the DNA. Now imagine, we are a distant observer looking at things like they were in the beginning before there was life. What would we do with that information? There is no information there because there is no instructions that can be read and interpreted. No one knows what any of that means. That sentence may as well be any other random jumble of letters. So the question is, who makes sense of it? And how can anyone or anything follow these so called instructions?

Who says that a G means one thing and a U means another? Who or what decides that letters lined up to form "Give" mean anything at all? Please step back now. These questions are not for you. They are for the mindless matter and energy to figure out. What good are the letters anyway? Are they of any use at all without a mind? Why would one mindless - wonder read the order put down by another mindless - wonder? It is confusion to both. What seems so plain to us is utter confusion to that which has no mind. The DNA code came from somewhere. Where? Who decided that a T should attract an A? Who or what decided that it should be translated and interpreted one way and not another? What possible good could it do if the code was not understood and translated correctly? How could even one letter in the DNA code have any significance whatsoever without a value judgment being made?

Lets say that all the chemicals formed magically out of stuff laying around the earth and a string of DNA formed. Now what? Is there any instructions there? What is that string of DNA except a disordered mass of confusion of no use whatsoever in telling anything or any one what to do. It can be a string of DNA a mile long that formed itself out of the earth but it is absolutely useless. Now if you had known the code ahead of time then you could have made some real DNA that gave sensible instructions. Play this game however you like but you will find that all roads lead to intelligent life as the source of information...

You can probably make an interesting language out of snow flakes. Taking 26 different ones and start out with an alphabet and assign different sounds to each one. Then you could devise some type of grammatical rules so that they can be formed into words and sentences. Before you know it you have a language, all from snow flakes. The Hebrew letters are such a language - the universal primordial language from which everything came into being! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Happy day!

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Just because you can describe the physical vehicle that makes something possible does not mean you can prove that all of the elements behind it were not set in place by an intelligent force.

I'm not attempting to prove anything about anything "behind" anything. I am, very specifically saying that an individual snowflake forms by a process, rather than that particular pattern of an individual snowflake being created by an intelligence.

If I pour milk into my tea and don't stir it, then Brownian motion will ensure that eventually I'm left with an even distribution of milk throughout my tea. My highschool biology teacher used to do this in a see-through cup, and it'd take about 5 minutes for there to be an even distribution. Now, although I initiated the process of the mixing of the fluids, it was Brownian motion that actually mixed them. The mixing of the fluids is not an intelligent act on my part, although setting the process into motion may have been. You are asking me to prove that the puorer doesn't exists - which is something that I have not claimed to be able to prove. What I have claimed to be able to prove - and have proven - is that the mixing itself is not an intelligent process, rather is a natural one which obeys simple, observable laws. And before you jump on me, I'm not pretending that the metaphor is perfect, but hopefully it illustrates my point sufficiently.

Now, for the third, and hopefully last time, do you agree that an individual snowflake comes into being via a process that observes simple, observable laws, or do you contest that each individual snowflake is crafted by an act of intelligence?

True, but it is a measurement of disorganization, or rather disorder. Check the definition.

That's the dictionary definition, not the scientific definition. The word has entered the common vernacular, but that does not make the common application correct in a scientific context. Entropy change, in scientific terms, is

, with dq being the heat intake over any infinitesimal part of the change, T being the corresponding abolute temperature and rev indicating that it is reversable. In short, entropy measures how much energy is dispersed in a particular process at a particular temperature.

Statistical mechanics has a few slight variations of that definition (which are more commonly known as "entropy analogues"), but they are not correct in thermodynamic terms. There is no quantative definition of "disorganisation" or "disorder" in scientific terms, certainly not on a par with thermodynamics. If you wish to use the context of thermodynamics, you must use the terminology of thermodynamics. You cannot use an alternate definition of "entropy" and claim that it is exactly equivalent to the specific thermodynamic definition and therefore directly applicable to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, because it is not.

For any two closed electrical systems that have the same input power limit, the system that achieves the greater level of local entropy reduction would be the one that minimizes dissipated heat, which is a direct result of its energy conversion process.

Okay, if we put aside the "entropy" question, you are saying that there is less heat dissipation in the more efficient system. Ergo, it can do more work with equivalent energy.

By making the system smarter, it wastes less energy.

Okay, I'll agree that that is one way to make a certain systems more efficient, but it is not the only way to make all systems smarter.

One example. You have an old-fashioned paddle steamer with a big wheel at the back - you know the type. The wheel at the back, however, only has the one paddle on it. Because of this, 50% of the time the paddle is out of the water. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. If you add another paddle at 180 degrees you get a more efficient system, and if you add another two at 180 degrees to each other and 90 degrees to the first two you get an even more efficient system. And none of these systems have any information feedback.

You have not yet admitted that every closed-loop system out there in the world is evidence for the fact that information and energy are intimately linked.

I think that information, for a certain definition of "information" can affect energy, for sure. That doesn't mean that I accpet that all information is intrinsicly linked to all forms of evergy in all situations. I have said this before.

So let's focus on this, as by refusing to accept this you are setting up a condition by which the entire premise of a God could NEVER be proven.

No, I am saying that your particular definition of intelligence is one I reject because of the circular logic described above. I am not saying that any proof of God would be rejected by me.

Would you not agree that one of the foundational aspects of the concept of a God is that this God encompasses EVERYTHING?

Not necessarily. In the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths, sure. Buddhism? Not so much. There are many ideas of God that don't fit into that mould.

OK, well at least I can finally hang my hat on a place where you admit that energy is the same as information.

Actually, I didn't. Re-read the beginning of the sentence - I was using your definitions. I do not beleive the two are interchangeable terms, no.

By your rules, anything that includes everything is not relevant to any concept of God.

I phrased it badly, and have addressed this point in my posts above.

Ya know, God doesn't like it when puny little mortals attempt to limit Him!

If God has no reason, then he cannot like or dislike anything. If God has no will, then I can have no fear of Him, as He is incapable of doing anything.

I don't agree with you on all things, but I do enjoy interacting with you. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother with you.

And I am telling you that ad hominem attacks annoy me and make this whole process a lot less fun, and even arduous sometimes. I have stopped interacting with you before I took my work-indiced break, and I'd rather not have to do it again. Unlike CAT, I think you'd be a loss to me.

So why not just try having some fun, loosening a bit of the stereotypical British attitude, and throw a few tomatoes at this California wacko?

Sorry, I wouldn't consider that fun. It's unecessary and is counter-productive.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Out the door for a few days, but I will be back to address that which is worth addressing. In the meantime

No, I am saying that your particular definition of intelligence is one I reject because of the circular logic described above.

Exactly. It is your inability to expand (evolve) beyond linear logic, and understand not only what circular logic means, but how much more powerful it is in its self-reference.

In a nutshell, your problem in comprehension can best be described by one of my most favorite philosophers:

"That is why you fail."

There's a turkey out there with my name on it!
RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

... And none of these systems have any information feedback.

It does if you define the information as energy. By increasing the number of paddles on the wheel, the feedback that is being returned to the steamer would be greater forward motion. ( provided the gear shift is in drive )

an individual snowflake forms by a process, rather than that particular pattern of an individual snowflake being created by an intelligence.

I agree that God isnt carving each snow flake by hand with a hammer and chisel. The dynamics of the formation were started by intelligent design, and is a continuing process, set in motion at the time of creation.

Can you think of anything that is NOT a closed-loop system ( other than my wifes spending habits )?
Everything is connected via some process. There is nothing that is radically different than anything else.

In the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths, sure. Buddhism? Not so much. There are many ideas of God that don't fit into that mould.

God encompasing everything provides for any particular definition to apply, but does not confine God within a specific definition of terms. Classification of God doesn't work, so we are left to see the clues that are all around us. Once we recognize the essence of God in everything, it is as though a door is opened, allowing greater understanding of God and our connection with all that God created.

Once we remove all the veils of comlexity and view the essences, the basic components of creation, it isnt that difficult to realize that a creator is probable. The 0 and 1 concept is infutable. nothing exists beyond the combination of 1 and it's reflection.

How hard is it to agree that it is possible that an interaction between 1 and 0 results with motion, a vibration eminating outward across the expanse of non-existence?

No matter which road you try to take and explain away the principles as laid down in Qabbalah, the roadway always comes back, full circle ( closed-looped system ) to the basic concepts again.

They are as they are and no matter how often or how far you ascend or descend into complex mathematical formulas or concepts, the basic principles still remain, just the same as before they were hidden in complexity.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

When we started speaking of hidden messages or information intentionally being encoded within ancient texts, some of you seemed opposed to this being done by the authors. Well, for some time now, I have been encoding hidden information within my posts.

Nobody has had the slightest idea I have been doing so, and the information now has been well hidden amongst hundreds of postings, to perhaps one day be unlocked by a future culture.

Perhaps I will become the subject of debate in the future. Did I purposely encode hidden data in the text?

If there is a Trollface debating on whether I intentionally encoded information within my text, well, Mr. future Trollface....

... Yes, I did !

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Exactly. It is your inability to expand (evolve) beyond linear logic, and understand not only what circular logic means, but how much more powerful it is in its self-reference.

Well, okay, you've just admitted that your entire philosohpy is based around a flaw in your reasoning. As I say, you can call it what you want and invoke linear trousers as much as you want, but the fact remains that you are begging the question and therefore your entire line of reasoning is invalid.

To give maybe a more classic religious example of exactly what you're doing:

God exists.

We know this because the Bible tells us that this is true.

We know the Bible is true because God wrote it.

If you start from a position of faith, then maybe this is convincing, but what it ultimately comes down to is faith. You can use this to demonstrate your faith, if you so desire, but what you cannot do is lay any claim to this kind of reasoning being at all logical (no matter how you wish to define logic), and certainly not to have any scientific foundations whatsoever.

Good luck getting that paper published.

It does if you define the information as energy.

Which I don't. And despite what Rainman may claim, Shannon doesn't either. He defines information very specifically as a decrease in the uncertanty of a reciever in going from a before state to an after state. You cannot apply the common vernacular of "information" to that and say that it is exactly equivalent, any more than you can with "entropy" or "massive".

Shannon's theory is applicable to the transmission of information through electronic channels, and that is it. It's a branch of mathematics, and not a model of the real world (and, even if it were, it should be noted that a model of reality is not the same as actually being reality).

I will agree that information can be contained within energy - I believe that the brain is nothing more than energy - but that doesn't mean that all energy is information. Or, to put it another way, if I have a box of sand and draw the number "2" in it with a stick, the number "2" is contained within that sand. This does not make the sand actually become the number 2.

By increasing the number of paddles on the wheel, the feedback that is being returned to the steamer would be greater forward motion.

For feedback to be feedback, the one has to be reliant on the other. If the steamer is stuck against a wall and is not going forwards, the paddles can still turn - they will merely move the water behind them, rather than the steamer. For the forwards motion to be feedback, the paddles turning would have to be reliant (partially or fully) on that motion.

I agree that God isnt carving each snow flake by hand with a hammer and chisel.

Thank you. Ergo, the act of creation in and of itself is not an intelligent act.

Can you think of anything that is NOT a closed-loop system ( other than my wifes spending habits )?

Well, my alarm clock, to bring that example to the fore again. There is no feedback - it merely mechanically moves some parts round in a circle. There's tonnes and tonnes of things that do not depend on feedback. You can ask Rainman, he has talked many times about how closed-loop systems have recently been aplied to advance technology.

Once we recognize the essence of God in everything, it is as though a door is opened, allowing greater understanding of God and our connection with all that God created.

So, once more, we come back to the message that you must simply have faith in order to be convinced, and that it is actually impossible to prove the existence of God.

When we started speaking of hidden messages or information intentionally being encoded within ancient texts, some of you seemed opposed to this being done by the authors.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said that just because a message could be interpreted didn't mean that it was put there intentionally.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

For feedback to be feedback, the one has to be reliant on the other. If the steamer is stuck against a wall and is not going forwards, the paddles can still turn - they will merely move the water behind them, rather than the steamer. For the forwards motion to be feedback, the paddles turning would have to be reliant (partially or fully) on that motion.

How would the steamer be stuck against an obstacle? Forward motion via the feedback of transmitted energy from the paddles moving against the waters is stilll in effect. The only way to stop the forward motion is by A. Turning the drive system off. B. Reversing the direction of the paddles.



In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that God isnt carving each snow flake by hand with a hammer and chisel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. Ergo, the act of creation in and of itself is not an intelligent act.

Thank-You for what? I believe there was a second part to my statement. Or did you conviently leave that part out in an attempt to twist the statement to your own viewpoint?

To give maybe a more classic religious example of exactly what you're doing:

God exists.

We know this because the Bible tells us that this is true.

We know the Bible is true because God wrote it.

Absolutely not! Our knowledge is based on far more than "A" bible. This remark leaves out a massive amount of material posted through-out this thread.

This does not make the sand actually become the number 2.

Of course not, however, other forms of energy are certainly involved. Everything perceived is some aspect of energy.

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said that just because a message could be interpreted didn't mean that it was put there intentionally.

In this case the hidden information was placed there intentionally. Nothing will change that. You can waffle back and forth on that point as much as you want, doesnt change the Truth !

 

[trollface]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

How would the steamer be stuck against an obstacle? Forward motion via the feedback of transmitted energy from the paddles moving against the waters is stilll in effect. The only way to stop the forward motion is by A. Turning the drive system off. B. Reversing the direction of the paddles.

Are you serious? You've never heard of ships being grounded?

Okay, imagine it's a model steamer, measuring 2 inches. I could hold it in place with my hand, while the paddles turned. The paddles would lose no efficiency because they would still be moving water backwards - still doing the same amount of work, however that work would not be being translated into forwards motion of the steamer because my hand would be preventing it.

I believe there was a second part to my statement. Or did you conviently leave that part out in an attempt to twist the statement to your own viewpoint?

Creating the snowflake is the act of creation. This is an autonomous system, ergo the act of creation is not proof of intelligence. If I programme my computer to randomly assign notes to 15 bars, and then save that off as a song, then leave it doing that while I go out, I cannot claim to have composed those songs. I did not create them, my computer did. If I set my alarm-clock to go off at 5 in the morning, when it sounds, I am not creating the sound, my alarm clock is. Creation is not necessarily an act of intelligence.

Our knowledge is based on far more than "A" bible.

It was an example of the same type of logical fallacy, not what I was directly claiming Rainman was saying. I outlined his reasoning quite clearly.

However, as you object to this line of reasoning, I hope you will agree that begging the question is not a useful line of reasoning. It doesn't matter if it's called "circular logic" or not, it's still a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument, as you can see from the example that you objected to.

Of course not, however, other forms of energy are certainly involved.

I don't understand what you mean here. My point is that just because something contains information does not make it sysnonymous with that information. So, just because energy can contain information, it doesn't mean that the terms "energy" and "information" are therefore interchangable.

In this case the hidden information was placed there intentionally. Nothing will change that. You can waffle back and forth on that point as much as you want, doesnt change the Truth !

Yes, in your case, the hidden information was put there intentionally. That still doesn't mean that any messages found in religious texts were.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

Been reading in the news that you all have been having a little terrorist trouble out your way.What's goin on?

All hell broke loose when Theo van Gogh (a filmproducer and colomnist) was shot by a muslim extremist. People have the tendency to start overreacting. Lately a couple of christian as well as islamic schools and churches have been set on fire. Some politicians are being threathened and the latest news is that a Dutch Imam stated on national television that he wouldn't mind seeing a certain Dutch politician dead.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

12617 views, I think its larger than the John Titor threads...

You could almost say that there is more doubt about god than there is about JT

I love harassing him! As its obvious he also thrives and lives for it too! Besides, I think it brings out the best in him...

I guess that's why we're all here actually. If people have an opinion they might as well share it and defend it when necessary

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

God does not submit to your pitiful, and arrogant idea of logic.

And I think I speak for both Aidy and myself that we do not submit to the pitiful manmade illusion that some like to call "god".

Ya know, God doesn't like it when puny little mortals attempt to limit Him!

We'll see who's puny and little here. I do place myself above god, simply for the fact that I exist and his existence is yet to be proven. That's not arrogance. Arrogance is trying to prove something by saying that people are too "dense" to make the connection.

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

I'd lay money on it.

Heh, heh. What's your current, total net worth? I might have that much laying around that I could throw at such a bet.

Dude, you have no idea what I am up to, and what I might be on the verge of doing. You already know I'm a professor in aerospace engineering. You can conclude that I have a boss who is the chairman of the department. He has given me the reigns to develop a systems engineering center of excellence in our department. And... I have presented to him most of the concepts I have been talking about with you (that you can't seem to grasp in their relevance to science and engineering). In fact, just last week he was trying to coax me into publishing (under the Cal Poly Aerospace Engineering banner, of course) the maths that I have reviewed with him.

If you are really serious about wanting to lay money on it, all I can say is that you had better do a lot more homework on who I am, what I have done, and what my capabilities are. Because if I work this deal with the university into my PhD thesis, it might be big enough to place Cal Poly Pomona on the map. Certainly, even if it didn't result in that kind of attention, it would win the bet with you.

How much you willing to risk on what you don't know?
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Geometry and G-d...

To give maybe a more classic religious example of exactly what you're doing:

God exists.

We know this because the Bible tells us that this is true.

We know the Bible is true because God wrote it.

I ask that you not twist, or otherwise spin, the words I do state into this kind of trash that you seem to THINK I said, but did not. In other words, let me use the words of a wise man to explain myself more clearly:

"Laides and Gentlemen, I give you what is practically the dictionary definition of the Strawman logical fallacy.

Once more, I find the need to ask you to stick to addressing the points that I do make, not the ones that I don't. "

I want you to address the words I do state, not the re-interpretations you come up with that you think I said. Capiche?

RMT