New Book - The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

James R said:
Jack_:



I don't want wikipedia's definition. I want yours.



There are many areas of science where we don't know the "starting point". Science often discovers parts of the solution to a mystery and not the whole mystery. Gradually, scientists chip away at the frontiers of knowledge. That's how science works.



One minute you're talking about life and chemistry; the next you're talking about planetary motion and relativity. Try to stay on topic, please.

I asked you for the proof that life is "more than can be expressed by chemistry". I'm still waiting.


Crunchy Cat:



You and I may have an idea what he's referring to. I want to see if he knows what he's talking about. He looked like he knew something about relativity in another thread, but on further inspection it turned out that he didn't.
Click to expand...

I asked you for the proof that life is "more than can be expressed by chemistry". I'm still waiting.

OK.

The TOE claims random mutations express the diversity we see.

Now, for a species to evolve, there must be reproduction.

Yet, we intellectually evolve and learn past our environment.

Now, if we are composed merely of chemicals and random mutations, then that is all we are by the logic of axiomatic theories. We cannot be more than our foundations.

Yet, we are.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Generally, when you are interested in a topic you look at the subject matter. Does it seem likely that a hunk of lead is a subject matter for life? One of the issues with your approach is that it is not clear what you are after. Are you trying to understand how life on Earth started? The answer is nobody knows; however, there are theories based on existing evidence. The one thing that is clear is that life did start on Earth at some point as very simple organisms. The farthest tracable common ancestor to humans are virus'.



Flawed thinking (usually due to various forms of bias) is the number one obstacle to understanding.[/QUOTE]
I assume you can prove this to make an unbiased statement as you seem to claim.

Show me the proof.
Click to expand...
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Not at all. The abstraction of logic is very basic. There are many many more relationships that are not basic which is why logic is not representative of all of reality. Take the relationship of eigenstates for example. They are very real, they are detectable, and they are anything but basic. Logic is a great tool to help explore and understand them; however, logic on its own will never ever produce an eigenstate... ever. Similary, because logic is so basic it can be formulated into assertions that are logically correct except they don't match reality.
Click to expand...


This is a theory based on logic. Then you use a conclusion of this theory to refute logic.

How amusing.
 
Now, if we are composed merely of chemicals and random mutations, then that is all we are by the logic of axiomatic theories. We cannot be more than our foundations.
Click to expand...
Nope. The atmosphere is just chemistry, but it would be hard to predict all kinds of phenomenon like hurricanes, rainbows, aurora, tornados, and the like from simple chemistry. Chaos theory proves that simple rules can produce complex behavior, and this is sometimes referred to as an emergent property.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
The problem with the "no new information" stance is that if the religious fanatic who is quoting it is asked to define what they actually mean by "information" it invariably leads them to a position where numerous irrefutable biological examples of "new information" can be presented to them.

Thus they deliberately hide what is precisely meant by information and always refuse to define it - thus if examples are given prior to defining it they are able to hand-wave away the example by claiming it doesnt fit the criteria which they refuse to elaborate upon.

So Anita - would you care to give us a clear definition of what you mean by information?

Can you also give us a hypothetical example of what would be classed as new information?
Click to expand...

I can help- you.

One of your high priests Einstein developed new information called SR and GR.

In your theory, how did he do this?
 
spidergoat said:
Nope. The atmosphere is just chemistry, but it would be hard to predict all kinds of phenomenon like hurricanes, rainbows, aurora, tornados, and the like from simple chemistry. Chaos theory proves that simple rules can produce complex behavior, and this is sometimes referred to as an emergent property.
Click to expand...

I see.

So, under logic as you claim to function, if I add the number 1 to itself over and over, eventually I will get a dog and not a number?

In order to convert chaos theory to emergence or order, you will need to specify a recursive function for this convergence.

This is so typical of science.

Logic applies in so far as it doesn't.
 
It has to be a little more complex than that. Yes, it is recursive, just like the generational nature of life.
 
spidergoat said:
It has to be a little more complex than that. Yes, it is recursive, just like the generational nature of life.
Click to expand...

OK, what is the recursive function?

Guess what, we do not have it.

Here is the bottom line we face.

A math function operates such that one value cannot become more than one.

This is modus ponens in logic.

Yet, however you define creation, you must convert one piece into many.

We do not and have not ever figured out how to do this except somehow in our own minds. Life does this all the time but matter does not.


Matter is based on the primitives and yet our intelligence is not.

So, if you are beginning with BB with some "stuff" for the big bang, how are you going to evolve this into many quarks without outside arbitration?

Again, we have no method to evolve one into many.
 
What is the recursive function of life? I'm not saying life is a mathematical function, only that it's recursive nature can easily produce complex and unpredictible results. Life isn't one piece, it's a series of instructions encoded in DNA (or some precursor).

A value can easily be represented by more than one value.

11=1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
What is the recursive function of life? I'm not saying life is a mathematical function, only that it's recursive nature can easily produce complex and unpredictible results. Life isn't one piece, it's a series of instructions encoded in DNA (or some precursor).

A value can easily be represented by more than one value.

11=1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
Click to expand...

:shrug:

Ok, show me.

So, 1 has more than one value in one model?
 
I have a model where 1 = 1/2 + 1/2.
Then 1/2 = 1/4 + 1/4.

It keeps going as long as I can think of a way to increment a number. So I guess 1 has more than one value, unless I say "there is only one 1", or something.
 
I can't help but notice that neither Jack nor Anita have taken the time to answer my question:

"Do you believe that Influenza is caused by a virus"?
 
noodler said:
I have a model where 1 = 1/2 + 1/2.
Then 1/2 = 1/4 + 1/4.

It keeps going as long as I can think of a way to increment a number. So I guess 1 has more than one value, unless I say "there is only one 1", or something.
Click to expand...

I see.

So, is it the case that ½ + ½ ≠ ¼ + ¼ + ¼ + ¼ ?

If so, you are correct.

Otherwise, one has one value.
 
Trippy said:
I can't help but notice that neither Jack nor Anita have taken the time to answer my question:

"Do you believe that Influenza is caused by a virus"?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a dna snippet usually from the waste of another species.

There dna snippets serve a good purpose in the host species because they exists in the host to take over cells to reproduce and serve a purpose without the overhead of a complete cell. This way energy is not wasted on their survival.

However, at times these viruses enter another species and they do not have the natural controls to eiminate them when their purpose is served as would the controls in the host.

Other times, these viruses exists in the host from another species and they have adapted to them but they serve no useful purpose to the host.
Again, they usually escape through the feces or an animal eats them and transfers the virus as in simian HIV.
 
Jack_ said:
I assume you can prove this to make an unbiased statement as you seem to claim.

Show me the proof.
Click to expand...

Your assumption is almost correct. Just to make sure you are on the same page, "proof" cannot be provided for anything unless all variables are known (which is why it's pretty much restricted to mathematics). What can of course be provided is evidence and here is the evidence you seek:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-gambling-behaviour-by-willem-a-wagenaar.html

"In short, people search for information that will confirm their beliefs at the expense of ever finding out that they are wrong."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top