32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2015 11:20 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

If you don't have the math then why did you claim to have it? Lying doesn't seem to work well for you. It only shows you are talking out of your ass.

Defining variables does nothing if you don't use them in an equation. It only shows you have nothing so you simply throw stuff out hoping no one will notice you are talking out of your ass.

Let's do another meaningless math equation that makes more sense than yours.
HK is all the knowledge Herald has.
HK = 0


I'm waiting to see how he uses his advanced mathematical expertise to support his "personal 45% god/ILF a)b)c)d), perhaps 30% this, maybe 25% that" formula. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 08:00 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:
Which math you are talking about -


Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
Give us your math that shows it wasn't infinite.
     With the greatest pleasure -

http://able2know.org/topic/226001-239#post-5874145

I look forward to your math now that you know which math you are talking about.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 09:44 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Give us your math that shows it wasn't infinite.
     With the greatest pleasure -     Just a second: 1. You don't have any evidence that this is not only a rhetoric approach and nothing else.
     2. Can you tell us what is your understanding of what 'my math' should look like? Can you describe it in few words - a set of equations over this and this showing that ... ?
     3. What math do you expect on undefined variables that can have undefined values? The math is the 'cherry of the cake' and you have not planted out the cherry tree yet ... but expect (out of nowhere) a finished product on the table.
   You don't have the elementary definitions of the elementary variables. What is Time for example - not our understanding of Time, but the physical manifestation of the Time (if exists) in the physical world?
      For calculation purposes we may try to define Time as a special case of a structure: it has no material carrier (does it really) - so it is immaterial and intangible. It has no energy (that we also cannot prove for sure), but let's assume it is so. It has no matter, no dark matter, no energy no dark energy - only information as a structure - what kind of a structure is that? ... and what kind of information?
     It has a set of rules of operation: it runs only in one direction; it runs smoothly and evenly everywhere, so perhaps it is homogeneous (for us to hope); Maybe it is isotropic. It cannot be stopped - aha, this is very interesting. If it cannot be stopped how has the Big Bang apologetics guessed that it can be launched - there is no logic in all that. It is not influenced by any mass, energy, EM fields, light, gravitation (of black holes, for example) - but is that really so? What about the General Relativity theory - does a Cesium clock near the Great pyramid runs faster than a Cesium clock in open space, away from any heavy space objects - nobody has ever proved that empirically. Is the Time the fourth dimension of the 3D space - hardly. Why do the other three dimensions have two directions and the Time has only one. ... and why the other dimensions are measured by the physics in meters, and the time is measured in seconds. What is the rate of expnasion of the Time-Space Continuum - cu.m x sec / sec = cu.m ?! or what? What kind of a space is that made of heterogeneous dimensions? ... and why don't we go further with that mumbo jumbo and add for example to the Time-Space 4D the Dark Energy, thus way we will have 5D space, but what will be its physical interpretation after all?
     Conclusion: The concept of Time is so vaguely defined in physics (... and offline, in the other sciences) that no serious interpretation of any math and non-math formula can be made when time is participating ... and it is participating everywhere.
     What about Infinity - how do you define the value of infinity. In math Infinity is such a great number, that we cannot even imagine it (not to say that we will hardly ever need to make that). In math infinity is defined as sucha great number that it doesn't matter how much great number we can imagine, the infinity is greater than that. If we imagine 'ten trillion trillions', the infinity is 'ten trillion trillion times greater than' (the temperature of the core of the Sun), but this is not even close to infinity, for it is finite number (no matter how much great it might look like). So Infinity is zillions of zillions of zillions, and although it migh help us to imagine it somehow, it still remains undefined ... as a number in math, and as a value in the physical world. So, what does it mean for a physical characteristic to have indefinitely high value, or let's say it explicitly - to have absolutely undefined value ... as a physical interpretation of the claim?
     You may pay attention that we have not come up to the physical interpretation of the Temperature yet - and you want the math (the set of formal rules modeling the processes of transformation, or creation, or whatever it has been there).
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 10:20 pm
In other words, you still got nothing but more of the same old evasion, red herrings, gods/ILFs-of-the-gaps, argument from incredulity, etc, fallacies. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/bored.gif

What good is your "personal 45%" hypothesis, Herald? What does it predict? What does it have to offer that the Standard Model doesn't?
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 11:40 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
In other words, you still got nothing but more of the same old evasion, red herrings, gods/ILFs-of-the-gaps, argument from incredulity, etc, fallacies.http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/bored.gif
     Undefined variables are not a joke. As a result of undefined variables some people lost Voyager-1 in the 1970s. Even if you don't come up to loose a whole satellite you can always stay trapped into your personal misunderstanding of the world. You don't even know what you are missing with the fake explanation of the Big Bang 'theory' - you are missing the point, which is to find the truth, not to find something more convenient to the status quo, where we would feel even more comfortable.
FBM wrote:
What good is your "personal 45%" hypothesis, Herald?
     The keyword here is 'personal' - it is not for the purposes of misinterpretation and misuse in a discussion, for example. With or without my 45% you don't have the vaguest idea of what the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' may look like, do you? With or without my 45% you cannot explain what is the physical interpretation for a 'physical characteristic' of something that has never been proved to be possible to exist in the physical world, to have infinite value ... let alone having it 'out of nowhere'. My 45% are not the cryptographic key of your missing knowledge, as you are trying to present it, for with or without my 45% you are mssing 96% of your own explanation ... as a minimum.
FBM wrote:
What does it predict?
     It predicts that you don't have the vaguest idea from where all that information about the cosmological structures (incl. life on out planet) has come from, how and why? Stochastics cannot create arranged structures and Information for their operation - you will need something more than that, you will need some kind of an ID as a minimum ... and even Einstein has believed in that.
FBM wrote:
What does it have to offer that the Standard Model doesn't?
     Standard model - are you some special sense of humor or what? You don't have any model. You have never had any model. You may think that you may have some model, but all you have is nothing but some set of not entirely well interpreted math formulas and a set of texts, full of contradictions of any kind, presented as claims. What kind of a scientific claim could be the 'explanation' of the infinity (in the math formula) as 'ten trillion trillion times greater than the temperature of the Sun' (which is a finite number), and the fables about launching the Time as 'all of a sudden and out of nowhere'? If you have the habits to collect some fables for idiots and assign to them axiomatic believes of a standard model - this is not exactly my problem.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2015 11:46 pm
@Herald,
How about you identify a single variable related to your "personal 45% god/ILF-of-the-gaps"? Anything. Just one. http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/teaemoticonbygmintyfresxa4.gif
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 12:50 am
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/9148130.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 08:23 am
@Herald,
Quote:
With the greatest pleasure - Just a second:

And then you post a long diatribe that has no math in it at all.
Where is YOUR MATH?

Until you present the math you said you were going to you are nothing but a lying shyte. Everything you post is just an attempt to prove you are a lying shyte because you never had any math.

Quote:
The math is the 'cherry of the cake' and you have not planted out the cherry tree yet
ROFLMAO. So you can't present your math because I haven't done it for you? What a lying shyte you are.

Quote:
What about the General Relativity theory
What about it? You claimed you had math to disprove it? Prove you aren't a lying shyte and present us with your math.

Quote:
What about Infinity - how do you define the value of infinity. In math Infinity is such a great number, that we cannot even imagine it
Actually in math infinity is not a real number. It is certainly not a number so great it can't be imagined. But what can we expect from a lying shyte like you that promised to post their math and now evades posting it?

WHERE IS YOUR MATH?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2015 10:26 pm
Starting with a preferred conclusion, then cherry-picking and manipulating facts to support it:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/absolutely-maybe/2013/10/14/motivated-reasoning-fuel-for-controversies-conspiracy-theories-and-science-denialism-alike/

Quote:
Motivated reasoning: Fuel for controversies, conspiracy theories and science denialism alike
By Hilda Bastian | October 14, 2013


...
Cultural or political world view and conspiracist thinking may be close relatives. They could both be seen as motivated reasoning, according to Lewandowsky: “Motivated reasoning refers to the discounting of information or evidence that challenges one’s prior beliefs accompanied by uncritical acceptance of anything that is attitude-consonant.”
...
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 12:50 am
@FBM,
that is NOT PROOF mate!!!

Jezus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 07:11 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Where is YOUR MATH?
     I may show (the keyword here is 'may') my math if you succeed to state out what is your understanding of my math.
parados wrote:
You claimed you had math to disprove it?
     No, sorry, I have never said anything of the kind - can you cite the post.
parados wrote:
Actually in math infinity is not a real number.
     ... and in physics it is not even a value, for it is undefined variable impossible to exist in the physical world - which part of the sentence is not clear to you: impossible value that cannot exist in the physical world ... no matter with or without a material carrier (that I doubt that you will ever be able to find out and show).
parados wrote:
It is certainly not a number so great it can't be imagined.
     You don't even know whether it is a number at all ... or something else. It may mean for example that the constraints of the math model do not allow for this variable to be taken into consideration in the physical interpretation of the results.
parados wrote:
But what can we expect from a lying shyte like you that promised to post their math and now evades posting it?
     When and if you succeed to specify the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory' (with convincing verification and validation tests) I may give you some other of my hypotheses, but only after and not before.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 07:27 am
Wooooooo!!!

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Feb, 2015 09:50 am
@Herald,
I can't begin to state how well I understand your math until you present your math.

WHERE IS YOUR MATH?


Quote:
No, sorry, I have never said anything of the kind - can you cite the post.

I have given a link to the post several times. Your refusal to remember points to you being nothing but a lying shyte.

WHERE IS YOUR MATH?


Quote:
You don't even know whether it is a number at all ... or something else.

Actually, I do know that infinity is not a real number. It's simple math.
http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/infinity.html

Quote:
When and if you succeed to specify the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory'
Last time you set a requirement before you would reveal your math, I did so and you didn't reveal your math. You expect me to believe a lying shyte like you when you tell me you will give me an answer if I do something first? Sorry, I won't fall for that again.


WHERE IS YOUR MATH?

Or don't give us your math and be known forever as the lying shyte you are.
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 01:21 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
I can't begin to state how well I understand your math until you present your math.
     I am not asking that - I was asking you to tell us how you imagine 'my math', how it looks like in your understanding of my understanding of the world ... in general terms - a set of equations, a formal model, a computer simulation or how?
     If you want a formal model - no problems. Let's have a description of the Universe onto the present day:
Unow : tuple (KM, KE, DM, DE, STR)
and the Universe at 1 Planck time after the Big Bang (this is the most distant point of time where we can go to without 'throwing into music' the fundamental sciences) to be U1pt: tuple (UDS1, UDS2, ... UDSn, ~T). We define P as the space of the processes, where pi - is any process as an element of that space.
     After that we define F as a set of functions, where F = {Fp: p ε P} and Fp: UDSi → KM; Fp: UDSi → KE; Fp: UDSi → DM; Fp: UDSi → DE; Fp: UDSi → STR; in other words for each of the present day components of the Universe there exist a process (or a set of processes) that can convert the unknown variable(s) of the Big Bang 'theory' into the present day physical realities - [Known Matter], [Known Energy], [Dark Matter], [Dark Energy], [Structures]. Just don't ask me how you are going to define functions over undefined variables ... and with unknown results.
     Besides that, having in mind that STR = STR[Inf] (a structure is a function of Information) you will have to find the source(s) of Information into the U1pt (1 Planck time after the Big Bang has been set in operation). This is the first hypothesis of the BB assumptions.
     The second hypothesis may be when the tuple U1pt (UDS1, UDS2, ... UDSn, ~T) = [[],[],...[],[]] () is an empty list of non-existing elements (just don't ask me to make a physical interpretation of that). In that case the best thing one can do is to prove that all of the UDS1, UDS2, ... UDSn, ~T(non-existence of time) can appear out of nowhere and out of nothing (it is exactly what the BBT is claiming) - simply by converting the non-existing elements of the empty list into one another.
     The third case is when the Universe has always existed (or at least it is so much back in time, that it is impossible for us to check anything for sure) , and the Big Bang (if has ever happened) has not created too much (or at least not anything special).
     In that case we assign: Unow : tuple (KM, KE, DM, DE, STR) = U1pt : tuple (KM, KE, DM, DE, STR) - that the Universe at 1 Planck time has not been too much different (in terms of components & structures) from the present-day Universe, and which is the most important the Time has always existed (no matter whether we have tools to measure that now or not - here we assume that so far we can go back in time, there always has been Time & Something (different from absolute Nothing)).
     Depending on the assumptions one may have different solution paths, and even different solution spaces to make the search.
     Without the assumptions (that IMV are unknowable) one can not have any collateral math, like inferences on the grounds of some red shifts and CMBs, unless it is proved that everything in the Universe can be traced back down to its primary form from that red shifts and CMBs, incl. the creation of Time.
     Your Singularity with its Infinite Temperature & Infinite Gravity does not in any way explain how can the particles and the chemical elements come into existence ... and without the Information about their properties and structure. The particles and the chemical elements cannot exist in the present-day Universe without having properties and structure (without relying on Information), let alone having been created without an ID. Some may argue the the chemical elements (and the chemical compounds) are formed on the grounds of minimizing the energy of the system - but who/what has postulated/set that rule(s)? Where have you proved the abilities of the Big Bang to issue any regulations?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 01:25 am
While we're looking, let's have a look at a fun new English word to strengthen our vocabulary:

Quote:
plagiarize
verb pla·gia·rize \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
: to use the words or ideas of another person as if they were your own words or ideas

pla·gia·rizedpla·gia·riz·ing
Full Definition of PLAGIARIZE

transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun
See plagiarize defined for English-language learners
See plagiarize defined for kids
Examples of PLAGIARIZE

He plagiarized a classmate's report.
She plagiarized from an article she read on the Internet.
Origin of PLAGIARIZE

plagiary
First Known Use: 1716
Other Literature Terms

apophasis, bathos, bildungsroman, bowdlerize, caesura, coda, doggerel, euphemism, poesy, prosody
Rhymes with PLAGIARIZE

advertise, agonize, alchemize, analyze, anglicize, anodize, anywise, aphorize, arborize, atomize, authorize, autolyze, balkanize, barbariz...
[+]more
Learn More About PLAGIARIZE

Spanish Central: Spanish translation of "plagiarize"
SCRABBLE®: Playable words you can make from "plagiarize"


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize
Herald
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 04:36 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
While we're looking, let's have a look at a fun new English word to strengthen our vocabulary: plagiarize
     ... and what exactly is plagiarized here. This is 1:1 in math terms what the Big Bang 'theory' is claiming (or is supposed to claim), and it is a public knowledge, in the public domain for free use in public discussions et. al.
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 06:12 am
@Herald,
You're pretending that it's yours and you didn't cite the source. Plagiarism.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 10:31 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
I can't begin to state how well I understand your math until you present your math.
     I am not asking that - I was asking you to tell us how you imagine 'my math', how it looks like in your understanding of my understanding of the world ... in general terms - a set of equations, a formal model, a computer simulation or how?

How I imagine your math is nonexistent, which is something you seem to only confirm with ever post.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 12:18 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:
You're pretending that it's yours and you didn't cite the source. Plagiarism.
     When you claim something - perhaps you will have to prove it. Why don't you find out the source from where it is supposed to have been plagiarized. You simply can't bare the fact there may exist people that might have their own streaming of reasoning and are not citing all the time unprocessed, irrelevant, and inappropriate quotes, made on some other occasions, irrelevant to the discussion.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Feb, 2015 12:32 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
How I imagine your math is nonexistent ...
     Perhaps you are right, and are you curious to get knowing why? It is because it becomes obvious even at the stage of the assumptions that the Big Bang 'theory' is inconsistent ... and perhaps it doesn't worth the efforts to make any serious math over that. Until one defines what does Out of Time (~T) mean, how can Something exist Out of Time, how can the absolute Nothing launch the Time from the ~T, out of Nowhere, by Reason Unknown, and without having any vaguest Idea how and why should it be doing that, the math is our least problem.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 06:08:02