Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You made the hypothesis.

     This is an example ... of agnosticim. Nobody is obliged to give his real beliefs in a hypothetical example ... moreover about something else. It doesn't matter whether you believe in the aliens 35% or 0.1% - in order to 'eliminate them from the equation' you will have to prove:
     1) That there is nothing in-between the Infinite Temperature and Us (the Humans) especially no intermediate ILF - we are the first ILF in the Universe ... and still the best.
     2) That our Intelligence can be inferred directly from the Singularity and from the Infinite Temperature/Gravity or whatever it has been there?
     3) Designing DNA by any intelligence is impossible, etc.
     In-between you will have to prove that you know something on the issues that you are talking about - like for example to explain the difference between 'dead DNA' (of a mammoth) and 'living DNA' or What is the colour of the flu virus? ... etc. ... where do you have anything of the kind proved so far.

FBM wrote:

You claim it's as plausible as real science.

First the 'real science' (true representation of the world) is proven truth - it is not plausible (which suggets probability) ... This is only one more of your straw-men (along the other ones) ... and how do you distinguish 'real science' from 'pseudo-real science' - can you give an example that is different from your favourite broken record straw-man of the aliens?

FBM wrote:

So, show us some evidence for your 40/35/25% teleporting alien/ILF/god-science creator

The pieces of evidence you are looking for are in the public space - search and you will find. Why should I give you whatever. This example concerns my agnosticism and nothing else. I am not obliged to give justification of my beliefs ... especially when you are lying all the time and hiding your personal beliefs.
Moreover, my claim is that these things are unknowable to the present day science. Why should I give you any evidence of something that is unknowable. All I need to do in order to prove unknowability of the issue is to prove that the Big Bang 'theory' is absolutely fake - as it obviously is. What IF the Universe has always existed? What exactly has the Big Bang created in that case? If the Universe has always existed the Big Bang theory is the greatest parody of any science, by all odds, and for any age.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Because in the capacity of being (eventually) bio-robots we might have had common designer. There are still some DOS commands in the Windows OS, but this does not necessarily mean that the OS has evolved on auto-pilot from a 'common ancestor' without the interference of any Intelligence?

This is a horrible analogy. It completely ignores the branching that occurs. It would be more like as an OS grows in complexity, it branches off producing different OSes. But if you were to compare the complex OSes they are different. However continuing this process they become even more diverse. So only SOME of them contain the original OS data. This shows that it was it's origin. No intelligence needed.

https://krumple.smugmug.com/Generic/i-c528XVQ/0/S/branches-S.png

If you compare the later generations they are vastly different but the originate from a common ancestor, machine code.

If you were a god and creating everything at once, why would you put data into the "later" generations that include data from the previous generations? But at the same time leave out the data that would normally connect the two? It doesn't make any sense. However; it does make sense if these organism evolved from a common origin.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

This is a horrible analogy.

Even more horrible is that you cannot tell the difference between 'dead DNA' and 'live DNA' ... and you don't have any test to distinguish that.

Krumple wrote:

So only SOME of them contain the original OS data. This shows that it was it's origin. No intelligence needed.

Yes, if you make the same analysis on the software development you will find that there are subroutines that are branching and dating back to the dawn of the computer systems ... and that routines made for one type of data are used for processing other types today.

Krumple wrote:

If you were a god and creating everything at once, why would you put data into the "later" generations that include data from the previous generations?

I am not God, but if I were to design bio-robots 'in my image and resemblance' I might do that by a lot of reasons - because they are successful coding, as a reserve in case of disease or other emergencies, as a reference model for identification of retro-viruses, because they may have good functionality, because they are easily compoutable, because they give competitive advantage to the species in their survival, ageing, etc. I don't know, but it is not improbable and impossible.

Krumple wrote:

But at the same time leave out the data that would normally connect the two?

Unless you find out that it may be a data-driven control ... just a thought. I am not at that level to tell you anything sensible here.
May I also ask you something: Why do we (as humans) have the mania to replicate ourselves, to copy our functionality and our control structures ... and to make machines in our image and resemblance? There is not particular reason for any robot to look like a human.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
You made the hypothesis.
This is an example ... of agnosticim. Nobody is obliged to give his real beliefs in a hypothetical example ... moreover about something else. ...

I quote: "my personal are". What it's an example of is self-contradictory, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific, creationist illogic, absolutely devoid of evidence. It's not agnosticism, it's denialism. Shitloads of evidence for the claims made by scientists, nada for your 45/30/25% work of imagination. Plausible, my hairy ass. Plausible is when you have at least some evidence that points in the general direction of your hypothesis. You have zero. Nothing whatsoever, and you've made that abundantly clear.

4:0

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

May I also ask you something: Why do we (as humans) have the mania to replicate ourselves, to copy our functionality and our control structures ... and to make machines in our image and resemblance? There is not particular reason for any robot to look like a human.

You are right. If you look at a lot of development of inventions a lot of time we tried to mimic what we saw. For example, flying. If you look at all the early inventions that were attempts to fly, they failed. A lot of them tried to mimic birds and we couldn't figure out why they didn't work.

I am almost certain that future robots will not be human like at all. Currently we just assume that the human shape is more "acceptable" of an appearance for a robot. So we can relate with it. But it's not the best design and it has a lot of limitations.

Also humans are tool makers. That's it. This is how we developed. We are animals who figured out how to make "tools", even if that tool was a stick that we could shove into a hole to get some honey out of a bee hive. We thrived because we could over come problems that nature threw at us. We are driven to create more and more tools to solve problems. Every tool made is an attempt to make life easier. It doesn't always work and some times the tool is insane. But that is all we are.

Every species on the planet specializes in a niche environment, however humans are the only animal that have crossed niches in multiple environments. The only reason we were able to do it was tool making.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I am almost certain that future robots will not be human like at all.

The robot trends in Japan show otherwise. For further details see Aiko, for example.

Krumple wrote:

Currently we just assume that the human shape is more "acceptable" of an appearance for a robot.

I am not sure that it is only that and hardly it is that simple. IMV this striving and mania to replicate is set up into our genetics - to find the truth of ourselves and to replicate ourselves (just don't ask me for what... perhaps to continue somehow the existence of the intelligence in the Universe, but it may be something else). You were complaining herein above that we have too much genes in our genome - but they may not be so redundant and unnecessary after all. We have nothing redundant and unnecessary in our body - there is no logic to have redundant & unnecessary genes in the genome.

Krumple wrote:

Also humans are tool makers. That's it. This is how we developed.

We all have read the ABC books in Evolution - how the Monkey became so heavy that it could not jump on the trees any more and got down to the ground to start performing various measures - sowing wheat (with copyrighted GMO component and terminated germ, subsequently), but what is not written there is how we all will end up some day ... perhaps sooner than expected, as a result of the exhausting the energy capacity of the planet.
When going on foot from point A to point B a human uses power of 3 kW for the purpose. When going by SUV - the power consumption is over 250 kW - this is mind-blowing waste of energy. In the theory of the survival of the species survive only the species that succeed to minimise their energy consumption - like the habitat of a swamp, for example. We don't look like minimising any energy, and neither we know what we are doing, nor why. The temperature outside today here was 40 deg. C (temporary time zone) ... and this is just the beginning of the CO2 end-spiel and the Venerisation of the Earth - rien ne va plus & game over. Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Krumple wrote:
I am almost certain that future robots will not be human like at all.
     The robot trends in Japan show otherwise. For further details see Aiko, for example.

Krumple wrote:
Currently we just assume that the human shape is more "acceptable" of an appearance for a robot.
     I am not sure that it is only that and hardly it is that simple. IMV this striving and mania to replicate is set up into our genetics - to find the truth of ourselves and to replicate ourselves (just don't ask me for what... perhaps to continue somehow the existence of the intelligence in the Universe, but it may be something else). You were complaining herein above that we have too much genes in our genome - but they may not be so redundant and unnecessary after all. We have nothing redundant and unnecessary in our body - there is no logic to have redundant & unnecessary genes in the genome.

Krumple wrote:
Also humans are tool makers. That's it. This is how we developed.
      We all have read the ABC books in Evolution - how the Monkey became so heavy that it could not jump on the trees any more and got down to the ground to start performing various measures - sowing wheat (with copyrighted GMO component and terminated germ, subsequently), but what is not written there is how we all will end up some day ... perhaps sooner than expected, as a result of the exhausting the energy capacity of the planet.
     When going on foot from point A to point B a human uses power of 3 kW for the purpose. When going by SUV - the power consumption is over 250 kW - this is mind-blowing waste of energy. In the theory of the survival of the species survive only the species that succeed to minimise their energy consumption - like the habitat of a swamp, for example. We don't look like minimising any energy, and neither we know what we are doing, nor why. The temperature outside today here was 40 deg. C (temporary time zone) ... and this is just the beginning of the CO2 end-spiel and the Venerisation of the Earth - rien ne va plus & game over. Anyway.

I don't see energy consumption a problem at all. The problem I see is large corporations snuffing out competition into energy creation. Especially with the oil companies. We have alternatives that would work but they get demonized by these large corporations who can trash talk the competing technologies so things like car makers are afraid to dip into them. It took us for ever to make hydrogen hybrids because of this.

All the nonsense about hydrogen being dangerous to produce and transport was ridiculous. Then fuel stations didn't want to offer hydrogen refilling because these companies made it seem as though dealing with hydrogen was so dangerous. It's not any more dangerous than messing with propane or gasoline.

Hydrogen is a great source of energy the only problem is the process in producing it requires a lot of electricity. But the only real source of a lot of electricity still comes back to burning coal. This is a problem. But if solar energy was developed I bet it could take over and produce hydrogen without the need to burn coal.

But large oil companies don't want people constructing massive solar collector fields. Because then we would jump into hydrogen consumption rather than burning oil/gasoline.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I don't see energy consumption a problem at all.

Really, don't you think that our energy consumption of carbon-based energy is highly constrained. One cannot increase the concentration of the CO2 into the air to infinity - CO2 is key component in the body metabolism (and not only of ours). The ratio of CO2 towards oxygen in the air has strong impact on the energy mechanics of our body and on the biosphere - the very moment the biosphere of this planet goes into the Dimension X we are Dead-on-Arrival, Dead-in-Bed and game-over, a Man.

Krumple wrote:

The problem I see is large corporations snuffing out competition into energy creation. Especially with the oil companies.

What about the tar sands that are the greatest nonsense both in terms of economy and in terms of ecology?

Krumple wrote:

We have alternatives that would work but they get demonized by these large corporations who can trash talk the competing technologies so things like car makers are afraid to dip into them. It took us for ever to make hydrogen hybrids because of this.

We have no choice - there are some cities in the world at present that have concentration of 990 ppm of CO2 on the street.

Krumple wrote:

All the nonsense about hydrogen being dangerous to produce and transport was ridiculous.

... but profitable. Why should one invest in something new, when one can make profits to infinity from the old dirty and lacking perspective technologies.

Krumple wrote:

Then fuel stations didn't want to offer hydrogen refilling because these companies made it seem as though dealing with hydrogen was so dangerous.

Hydrogen is not the only energy alternative - there are technologies for nuclear power plants on He3 ... that are lifted on logs on the grounds of being too dangerous to the status quo and for the easy makering of fast and easy profits.

Krumple wrote:

Hydrogen is a great source of energy the only problem is the process in producing it requires a lot of electricity.

Except for the case when for the purpose is used solar power ... that is wasted so and so at present.

Krumple wrote:

But the only real source of a lot of electricity still comes back to burning coal. This is a problem.

What is the real price of all that. What is the price of burning coal, when that activity sooner or later will trigger the Candida to go into an yeast form and to eat us up ... alive.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

One cannot increase the concentration of the CO2 into the air to infinity

Of course not, because that would be mathematically impossible. No mixture can have a component whose concentration approaches infinity. The highest concentration would 100%, which is a long way from infinity.

1 Reply

I feel a "stochastic" or five coming on...

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Of course not, because that would be mathematically impossible.

Why don't you take a look at the CO2 exponent ... and hardly after that and not before comment what is mathematically possible and what is impossible. BTW you don't need infinity - 1-2 % of CO2 would be enough to sent the biosphere in the Dimension X.

parados wrote:

No mixture can have a component whose concentration approaches infinity.

If you drive along an exponent tending to infinity ... when will you reach any concentration ... and sooner than expected.

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/200.gif

0 Replies

@Herald,

I guess facts don't matter much to you, do they? It must be your infinite*wisdom that provides all your smarts.

* 1 or 2 out of 100.

0 Replies

Herald says: Why don't you take a look at the CO2 exponent ... and hardly after that and not before comment what is mathematically possible and what is impossible. BTW you don't need infinity - 1-2 % of CO2 would be enough to sent the biosphere in the Dimension X

This is absolute rot, Herald. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 40%, not 2-3%, over pre-industrial levels NOW. and we are not in any Dimension X, nor are we about to be. There are some serious consequences presently and in the offing, true, but your figures bear no resemblance to reality.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

This is absolute rot, Herald. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 40%, not 2-3%, over pre-industrial levels NOW. and we are not in any Dimension X, nor are we about to be.

1-2 % of CO2 in the air is used as a herbicide in the green-houses. The issue is not 250 ppm to be increased by 40%, which is 350 ppm ... that was the CO2 in the air around 2010. The issue is for the CO2 to increase in the air from 0,44 % to 1 % - this is 220%.
You don't know how the exponent works, do you? Suppose at 11 o'clock you have an absolutely empty bottle with one single bacteria. Every minute the bacteria is doubled and exactly in one hour at 12.00 the bottle will be absolutely full. The question is: at what time the bottle will be half full?

MontereyJack wrote:

There are some serious consequences presently and in the offing, true, but your figures bear no resemblance to reality.

Why don't you tell me something about the reality: how much is the concentration of the CO2 right now, on the floor of your room?

1 Reply

@Herald,

1%..... Don't you mean infinity like you said earlier?

Quote:

You don't know how the exponent works, do you? Suppose at 11 o'clock you have an absolutely empty bottle with one single bacteria. Every minute the bacteria is doubled and exactly in one hour at 12.00 the bottle will be absolutely full. The question is: at what time the bottle will be half full?

I think it's you that doesn't understand how it works. CO2 doesn't grow like bacteria. Nor does the atmosphere act like an "empty" bottle where the air just moves out of it when it fills with bacteria. (I am unclear how you are growing bacteria without food but that's another story all together.)

Quote:

1-2 % of CO2 in the air is used as a herbicide in the green-houses.

Really? Do you have a source to back that up? I think you may be confused as to the meaning of herbicide. Increased CO2 acts as fertilizer, not herbicide.

http://www.ecomagination.com/ge-powers-first-co2-capturing-greenhouse-in-us

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

1%..... Don't you mean infinity like you said earlier?

     The exponent is going to Infinity, and what I said is that you don't have the vaguest idea of how such exponent works. The experience in the past of that exponent does not give any idea of what might happen in the future with the new values. The past experience may be used only for function approximation for the purposes of forecast.
     So and so you will not be able to solve for life the problem with the bottle and the bacteria, may I show you the real exponent of the CO2 emissions - increase at average by 30% each year & what does that mean:
     (Year 2015 CO2 440 ppm) 0.044 -- 0.057 -- 0.075 -- 0.097 -- 0.126 -- 0.163 -- 0.213 -- 0.276 -- 0.359 -- 0.466 -- 0.606 -- 0.78 -- 1.025 (2027)
At that rate in 12 years the CO2 in the air will start exceeding 1 %.
Now follow this one:
     .... (2027) 1.025 -- 1.332 -- 1.732 -- 2.252 -- 2.927 -- 3.805 (2032)
     In the next five years the concentration of CO2 in the air will start exceeding 3.5% ... and in the following years with every year and in any way it will become worse and worse. Pay attention that this is the best case scenario.
What does 1 or 3 % of CO2 in the air mean?

Let's have a look at the Hazards Specification in the MSDS of the CO2:
     CONCENTRATION & EFFECT
     1% - Slight increase in breathing rate
     2% - Breathing rate increases to 50% above normal. Prolonged exposure can cause headache and tiredness.
     3% - Breathing increases to twice the normal rate and becomes labored. Weak narcotic effect. Impaired hearing, headache, increase in blood pressure and pulse rate.
     4-5% - Breathing increases to approximately four times the normal rate, symptoms of intoxication become evident and slight choking may be felt.
     5-10% - Characteristic sharp odor noticeable. Very labored breathing, headache, visual impairment and ringing in the ears. Judgment may be impaired, followed within minutes by loss of consciousness.
     50-100% - Unconsciousness occurs more rapidly above 10% level. Prolonged exposure to high concentrations may eventually result in death from asphyxiation.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Do you have even 1% of the amount of evidence that the scientists have for the Standard Model that you can show for your teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingies? Laughing

1 Reply

@Herald,

CO2 can't increase 30% a year to infinity.The earth is pretty much a closed system. It is restricted by the amount of Carbon and Oxygen in that system. Your 30% a year increase quickly runs into a ceiling of how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere by natural and man made sources.

But your 30% per year increase is a made up number that in no way reflects reality. The Mauna Loa numbers show that CO2 is not at 440ppm and based on the increase we won't see that number for 20 years or more. From 1958 to today, the annual increase has been about 2ppm with 3ppm only on rare occassions. There has not been an annual increase of 30% at any time. The annual increase per year as a percentage has actually gone down over that time period as the ppm has increased which is what would happen in a closed system.
http://co2now.org/images/stories/data/co2-mlo-monthly-noaa-esrl.pdf

As to your MSDS sheet. You claimed that CO2 was a herbicide. Now you are presenting an MSDS which gives the danger to humans of a product. Are you arguing that humans are plants? Or is it just you?

3 Replies

@parados,

I'm thinking that somebody has to water him once a week.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know