What Duty is there of life? Per God or others

[Oli]

basically trolling
as to state someone is 'wrong' without any reasoning is trolling (why you are branded)

Nope, I'm stating you're wrong because you fail to prove your assertions.
So who's trolling?

i don't do beliefs to govern my thought; i do the actual work and have supported each item with material to assist you (but you don't read it, other wise you would comment on why the material is not a good supporting submission)

Again wrong.
I have read it and it does NOT support your view.
Despite repeated requests you still refuse to show how (or why) you believe they do.

i posted a question on 'duty' of life and you cannot even address your debate

Keep trying.
There is no "duty" to life.

then when i go to the level of physical application, you can't or have no intent to read that material either

Wrong again.

this thread is on duty and the thread and comments leads to the reality that life could not evolve unless it 'abuses entropy'

There is no duty and life does not abuse entropy.

i have more data to backup what i say, then every teacher you ever came into contact with during your whole life.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Bishadi]

Nope, I'm stating you're wrong because you fail to prove your assertions.
So who's trolling?

you are, as i did offer material in EveRY case

Again wrong.
I have read it and it does NOT support your view.

what was my view that was wrong and specifically which frame (gibbs green, FRET)

share what it was exactle, and a link of what you read

Despite repeated requests you still refuse to show how (or why) you believe they do.

i did, the conveyance of energy covering a d/t without a loss

per 'the law' that is impossible (d/t without cost) (are you aware of how gibbs, fret, green are used?... oh yea... you said you did read it......... so then without me having to state what i am having to repeat; you would already know all this)

perhaps you can show me an example of how energy can sustain without a loss that is not 'abusing entopy' (kind of like what life does; continues by intent)

when you can show me that, then you have a case

otherwise, i have the whole world of living things as my evidence

Keep trying.
There is no "duty" to life.

just as you have no intent of being honest; you can choose what ever you want oli

There is no duty and life does not abuse entropy.

Wrong and wrong,

and the material posted on this thread alone is enough for anyone to see for themselves; all they have to do is read it and apply common sense

and P/s........... if any want to check every line i post, please do

use the internet and hammer me with material evidence

put some "duty" into it

make me the fool as then i can be educated rather than having to slap oli around just to get points across.

 

[Oli]

you are, as i did offer material in EveRY case

And failed to show how it supports your view.

share what it was exactle, and a link of what you read

The links you gave.

i did, the conveyance of energy covering a d/t without a loss

And dismissed the explanation as a "patch".

make me the fool

No need, you're doing sufficiently well on that score without my intervention.

 

[-ND-]

Duty meaning purpose. Purpose meaning reason. Reason meaning know. If you don't know than you have wasted your entire life. Maybe not entirely, but the things that actually matter.

 

[Bishadi]

And failed to show how it supports your view.

wrong, i posted material and why; you have no rebuttal against the evidence, just your opinion and whinning

The links you gave.

i didn't give links, i offered scientist names and the usage (biological; molecular exchanges of energy; across the membranes)

And dismissed the explanation as a "patch".

because i know the law and how it applies to math and that what the patch is doing is bypassing what the law says can't be done

physics/chemistry cannot be applied in standard form to biological descriptions(because 'life' breaks the law) so i know the patch is required for the math to define what is being observed in evidence.

if they want to predict, they must allow the 'law breaking' in math in order to define the data

the law is moot, so they patch is with math that allows the definition.

i thought you knew that already................ ouch!

i guess to see how "FRET" is used would probably just throw you thru a loop.

No need, you're doing sufficiently well on that score without my intervention.

do you even know what FRET is?

a few definitions to the term, perhaps let's see if you can figure out which and how it applies in the context of entropy busting or even energy conveyance as i have been pointing out (within biological descriptions at the molecular scale)


let's see your comprehension (since you already read it all)


show me something besides your shoe size

 

[Oli]

wrong, i posted material and why; you have no rebuttal against the evidence, just your opinion and whinning

Whinning?
The material does not support your contention.

i didn't give links, i offered scientist names and the usage (biological; molecular exchanges of energy; across the membranes)

You gave me links by PM.

physics/chemistry cannot be applied in standard form to biological descriptions(because 'life' breaks the law) so i know the patch is required for the math to define what is being observed in evidence.

Life does not break the law.

 

[Bishadi]

Whinning?
The material does not support your contention.


You gave me links by PM.


Life does not break the law.

OK........... i see your point; your life will equilibriate; fade to extinction!


that is good news to me too

 

[Crunchy Cat]

it is easy to see your point and difficult to believe that people do not comprehend life has purpose; to continue!

What you interpret as purpose objectively exists as function. You may have a genetic limitation to not be able to see that function as anything but being sapiently assigned. If so, there isn't a thing I can do to help you get beyond the limitation.

That life has purpose by how energy and mass associate.

The old ideology is energy will equilibriate; the truth is quite opposite.

What you appear to be getting at seems ambiguous. My intepretation seems to be that you are saying entropy goes in reverse.

if we 'evolved' from the weee little single cell, be certain the law is uniform accross all life.

I'm certain it's not. Trees, lichen, and grubs aren't comprehending their existence.

Consciousness is only unique in that we are the only thing in existense that can do random by choice.

Nothing we do is random. We are also not the only conscious life forms that exercise choice. Many mammals do for example.

But fact is, the instinct to continue (survive) is built in; the choice to be selfish idiots is learned!

Selfishness is built in to many mammals.

There is only ONE law of physics, that is used across the board and stupid as it was incorporated into the based qubit of energy; the second law of thermodynamics.

The first law in itself, makes the second moot!

The second is for the period of steam engines but was incorporated into planck's constant.

How does conservation of energy make entropy moot?

I see the evolution of knowledge, as a reality. Look at it: environment governs, the 'good' survives, the old antiquated becomes extinct.

Just like the living species as the newly created words either survive over time, or they do not but often a root can assist in building another.

To observe knowledge evolving is huge to a growing mind!
perhaps google (define: function)

I can understand why you see knowledge that way. The flaw in that line of thought is that the knowledge itself is not what's determining it's survival. It's people that do. If only "good" knowledge survived then we would have reached the stars tens of thousands of years ago.

or ask a math person; "conjuction junction, what's thaaaaaaaat funnnnnction'

the next line should be: "hooking up phrases and clauses"

That Schoolhouse Rock animation is about grammatical constructs. While grammar has a purpose of enabling humans to communicate effectively it also has function. While purpose and function can co-exist they are nonetheless very different.

then i view your interpretation as limiting itself.

All instinctive life has a purpose; to continue. Whether eating, breathing or just making whoooopie............... it all falls into its purpose to continue.

Once a life is born; it is purposed to continue.

Perhaps consider that; the law of nature!

There isn't a sapient life form assigning that purpose... but as I mentioned earlier... your genetics may prevent you from understanding that.

perhaps in your family

but i would consider suicide as normal as gaydom

Suicide exists as a behavior of the human species (possibly other species too). While you might not like that, it is true and no amount of defensive behavior will change it. Consequently, same-sex attraction exists in many mammals.

as instinctively, the body is born to procreate; hence male/female.......... but we already addressed the reality of our species having choice.

It is why, people can be stubborn and not think, by choice!

A person whom has a genetic defect may opt not to pass on bad genes or to create excess population. That's not stubborn... it's smart.

what changed?

Specifically?

Can you asnwer that?

Wear and tear, damage, destruction.

When you can understand a simple metabolic process at the molecular level, then you would know already; that life abuses entropy.

It takes a life form to abuse something and life itself is a phenomenon... not a life form.

But now you see why your logic is flawed; you don't know what life is upon mass.

Maybe if you try and detail what's in your mind without relying on 3rd party life forms then it will become more apparent where "my logic" is flawed.

it is the same problem across the globe!

What problem? A problem is an obstacle preventing the achievment of a goal... what goal is being prevented by what obstacle?

 

[Bishadi]

What you interpret as purpose objectively exists as function. You may have a genetic limitation to not be able to see that function as anything but being sapiently assigned. If so, there isn't a thing I can do to help you get beyond the limitation.

are you suggesting genetics will limit a mind to think?

funny stuff

What you appear to be getting at seems ambiguous. My intepretation seems to be that you are saying entropy goes in reverse.

all this time and you are just realizing that. i never said entropy goes in reverse, as that is what the math reveals in most every biological process

it is the '2LoT' is incorrectly incorporated in 'h' (planck's constant; see 1901 pub from max himself)

the point is, the physics (law) are wrong; what nature does and is true of ALL life; is that a 'progression' is the reality and the 'intent' to equilibriate is WRONG

then this below is a weird response,

i said

Originally Posted by Bishadi
if we 'evolved' from the weee little single cell, be certain the law is uniform accross all life.

and you replied

I'm certain it's not. Trees, lichen, and grubs aren't comprehending their existence.

what is that?

instinct of animals is bound in the association of mass and energy; not the choice of the critter/life

meaning the same rules of 'survival' (intent to continue) is grounded in the reality of how mass and energy associate, equally across the whole 'tree of life'......... which is saying; the law to equilibriate is the error to comprehending how life works at the scientific/math level as it is completely opposite of what we find life does, naturally

the law is wrong; not life

How does conservation of energy make entropy moot?

because the 2nd suggests an 'intent' to equilibriate without sharing the causality (why)

and since there is no closed system anywhere in existance; it was a stupid assumption to incorporate into physics

I can understand why you see knowledge that way.

why not

Ptolemy shared the math of why the roaming bodies (planets) criss-crossed the night sky; it fit the ideology of the earth being the center of existence and was mathematically defined to make sense.

But is was wrong! And as knowledge evolved, folks like you never even know the 'evolution' occurred, because it is fading

The flaw in that line of thought is that the knowledge itself is not what's determining it's survival.

did i say it did?

It's people that do. If only "good" knowledge survived then we would have reached the stars tens of thousands of years ago.

but it is the ignorant that suppress, oppress and contest; without having the depth to understand.

'we could all be vacationing on the moon by now, if it wasn't for religions'

There isn't a sapient life form assigning that purpose...

i know that

as one the wave (life) begins, it is kind of on its own survival mission

that is why i say the 'laws' governing mass and energy are wrong

as they offer the venues allowing the implication that an outside force is keeping the life alive; rather than the energy upon the mass, doing it naturally; consuming to continue; intent on living.

now you can see what i mean: life: purposed to continue (an entropy buster)

It takes a life form to abuse something and life itself is a phenomenon... not a life form.

ah........... the phenomenon of life!

see what i mean; the globe is not aware of 'how it works'

that is what you are learning NOW!

life, abuses entropy!

Maybe if you try and detail what's in your mind without relying on 3rd party life forms then it will become more apparent where "my logic" is flawed.

been pointing out why (2LoT, incorporated into 'h')

the energy is the specimen, not the mass

try this idea; when energy combines it often will have a total power greater than the addition of the 2 individual units maxiums just added.

eg..... measure the maximum lifting of 2 men individually; then measure what they can pick up together; which is greater? the addition of the 2 individual amounts or what they can lift together. (basic common sense)

What problem? A problem is an obstacle preventing the achievment of a goal... what goal is being prevented by what obstacle?

adherance to a law incorporated into physics

it is like a bible thumper holding a bible saying 'god is within'

the same psychosis applies to today's scientist when it comes to the 2LoT

to them it is infallible


and i beg to differ

as anyone using common sense can plainly see, the bible aint the last word and life abuses the pants off of entropy

it is what brings in the dichotomy of all time;

the religious don't believe in evolution as they follow 'their laws'

and the scientific don't follow creation as they have theirs

funny part is, the religious can use the math of physics to prove that in a 'chaotic' (uncertain) frame to physics; evolution could not occur!

that is the dichotomy of ALL TIME: the religious using the math of science to prove that life could not evolve.

do your own research on that one; it is a fact!

 

[swarm]

kind of funny, that 3.5 billion years of life 'continuing by intent' (instinct) and with barely 100 yrs of planck; and the scientific community tells people, it was all random chance.

As usual you are barely comprehensible, but only creationists ever say it was random chance.

not the reality of how nature performs.

How would you know?

 

[Bishadi]

As usual you are barely comprehensible, but only creationists ever say it was random chance.

nope

chemistry says it is random

the uncertainty principle says its random

the reductionary constraint of 2LoT (entropy) imposes to math; it is all random (the direction is set to equilibriate)

the basic 'laws of physics' are bound to chaos

How would you know?

because this is all i do!

life: abuses entropy

this is a concept that is non debatable, as to even comprehend evolution, then entropy in principle could not exist in the law representing any living thing

life continues by intent and abuses the pants off of entropy, just by living!

 

[Oli]

because this is all i do!

Get things wrong?

life: abuses entropy

No, you're wrong (again).

this is a concept that is non debatable

Only to you.

life continues by intent

No.

and abuses the pants off of entropy, just by living!

No.

 

[Bishadi]

Get things wrong?


No, you're wrong (again).


Only to you.


No.


No.

we all can read from the quack; anytime we want.


you play hangman better than most, perhaps go back to that thread

the reason i say that is because trolls do not have any way of confirming what they say; they troll for their own fun!

 

[Oli]

we all can read from the quack; anytime we want.

Speaking of quacks, have you supported (let alone proved) any of your contentions yet?
Or are you content to merely state rubbish as fact and leave it at that?

you play hangman better than most, perhaps go back to that thread

I do a lot of things better than most.

 

[Bishadi]

Speaking of quacks, have you supported (let alone proved) any of your contentions yet?

sure....

just stating 'life: abuses entropy' offers any of real depth to know; that a real one already knows that!

Or are you content to merely state rubbish as fact and leave it at that?

does life evolve? yes or no!

if yes, then you should know the 'fact' as it stands (life continues beyond the guise of equilibrium; life is evolving (law of nature)

if no, then you just talkin' and ranting like most of the uneducated (trolls)

I do a lot of things better than most.

and trolling is the best adjective to describe your intent!

 

[Oli]

sure.... just stating 'life: abuses entropy' offers any of real depth to know

False statement.

does life evolve? yes or no!

Yes.
Which is nothing to do with "abuse" of entropy.

and trolling is the best adjective to describe your intent!

I think you also misunderstand the concept of "trolling" it generally involves making ridiculous (or unsupportable) statements and non-sequiturs.
But that's okay since you seem to consistently misunderstand everything else.

 

[Bishadi]

False statement.

define each of the three words and you can comprehend the statement.

Yes.
Which is nothing to do with "abuse" of entropy.

because you do not know how entropy is bound into planck's constant (the physics)

evolution is not definable at the molecular scale because of this (physics)

I think you also misunderstand the concept of "trolling" it generally involves making ridiculous (or unsupportable) statements and non-sequiturs.

that is what you do all day long.

as not a one of your comments is supported

at least i share what to look at (like defining the words so you can comprehend what they mean)

eg............. look at this thread alone; to you life has no intent and people have no duty.

we have argued for months, you and i, all because your are not capable of reasoning thru a conversation; you just say everything is wrong and never back up a damn thing (you troll; making ridiculous (or unsupportable) statements and non-sequiturs)

(eg... perhaps go into the science section of the forum and see what an introvert i am there too)

i at least am actually working thru issues and questions at the level of comprehending the physics, the evidence and conveying into words that are capable of sharing 'understanding' .....

you like a religious person; too biased to even care!

 

[Oli]

define each of the three words and you can comprehend the statement.

I already comprehend the statement, and it's incorrect.

because you do not know how entropy is bound into planck's constant (the physics)

Oh great master please explain it me.
/sarcasm.

as not a one of your comments is supported

Incorrect: it's still you who fail to substantiate your comments.

at least i share what to look at (like defining the words so you can comprehend what they mean)

Also wrong: you make fatuous statements and fail to back them up.
That is not "sharing" it's trolling.

eg............. look at this thread alone; to you life has no intent and people have no duty.

Life has no intent, true.
People have duty, you misread.

we have argued for months, you and i, all because your are not capable of reasoning thru a conversation; you just say everything is wrong and never back up a damn thing (you troll; making ridiculous (or unsupportable) statements and non-sequiturs)

Argue?
How can I argue with an idiot who consistently fails to support his own fallacious suppositions?

(eg... perhaps go into the science section of the forum and see what an introvert i am there too)

Introvert?
You mean woo woo.
You're wrong in the science sections too.

i at least am actually working thru issues and questions at the level of comprehending the physics, the evidence and conveying into words that are capable of sharing 'understanding' .....

No, you're making blind suppositions and your "sharing" consists of "X is true because I said so, here's something I found on the Internet, read it and try to find something that supports my view".

you like a religious person; too biased to even care!

And that is a typical comment from you: it amounts to "I can't prove my point but you disagree with it, so you must be biased"

 

[swarm]

chemistry says it is random -nope
the uncertainty principle says its random - nope
the reductionary constraint of 2LoT (entropy) imposes to math; it is all random (the direction is set to equilibriate) - nope
the basic 'laws of physics' are bound to chaos - nope
life: abuses entropy - nope

...

 

[Bishadi]

I already comprehend the statement, and it's incorrect.


Oh great master please explain it me.
/sarcasm.


Incorrect: it's still you who fail to substantiate your comments.


Also wrong: you make fatuous statements and fail to back them up.
That is not "sharing" it's trolling.


Life has no intent, true.
People have duty, you misread.


Argue?
How can I argue with an idiot who consistently fails to support his own fallacious suppositions?


Introvert?
You mean woo woo.
You're wrong in the science sections too.


No, you're making blind suppositions and your "sharing" consists of "X is true because I said so, here's something I found on the Internet, read it and try to find something that supports my view".


And that is a typical comment from you: it amounts to "I can't prove my point but you disagree with it, so you must be biased"

and ass ussuall; not a once do you back up a thing

you just rant