the universe and space....?

0 Replies

ican (9th August 2003, 12:58);

i'm afraid i place 'directed chance', an oxymoron by the way, in the realm of utter nonsense (chance is by definition NOT directed!); however only some1 at the foot of the 'fool' ladder (and i hope i'm a few rungs up) would discard u're comments re: the joined affect of human, and other animal intelligence over the entire planet as not worthy of mention.
i also agree (what is happening 2 me?) that the next step in 'evolution' will b directed (by humans) & will b the maufacturing of a.i., prefaced by discovering a better understanding of biological intelligence, and how 2 manipulate same.

re: evolution/timeframe
evidence of the result of evolution over the last few billion (U.S.) years is, all around us (perhaps it is like the bumble bee which i understand has been proven incapable of flight, but does) u prove it impossible, but it 'is', step out & have a look some time.

0 Replies

cavfancier, re your post of Aug 10, 6:12
"Living in the moment"

Those who have constructed elaborate mythologies purporting to explain human existence may have (wittingly-unwittingly) seriously impeded humanities reach for knowledge.
These impediments take the form of Creators, Big Bangs, Extra Dimensions and the like.

IF it can be shown that there exists Something Additional To Our Observable Universe (SATOOU in Ican's parlance) Then a Creator, Prime Mover, Intelligent Designer, or Big Bang becomes unnecessary to explain our existence. (should we exist Confused

)

The very IDEA that one of those aforementioned entities or occurrences may have occurred or existed has been responsible for many of the obstacles to mankinds progress through out the ages. (Assuming of course that the "quest for the stars (knowledge) is a valid one.

If we can determine that infinity and eternity may be "true bills" with respect to a description of The Cosmos, or Whatam, or SATOOU then humans may be able to discuss the problems that have been inherent in their existence ever since they were "kicked out of the Garden so as to speak".

The Big Bang has been jumped on by Jewish, Moslem, and Christian theologists as a "scientific proof" of the existence of a "Creation" and thence a Creator who "chooses" certain people(s) to know the truth. Naturally the truth shows that His people-race-nation-idea are superior to all others.

The "Big Bangers" can clearly show that their view of The Universe is superior simply because there are no other alternatives. ("I am a jealous God and thou shall have no other Gods before me"). Rolling Eyes

If I (we) can show that there may well have been NO BEGINNING then the arguements that have most often been used to justify most of mankinds various sins against one anothers ideas become ridiculous.

If there was no beginning (a difficult concept) then why are we wasting time argueing about inconsequential things.

I BELIEVE that the expansion of knowledge is worthwhile. Apparently so do most of the others here. This trait does not seem to be universally expressed in humans though. Not true for many.

0 Replies

& yes Frank, decidedly forgiven; while ican & i rarely c i2i on virtually anything, i seriously respect his erudition, and indefatigable effort 2 sort things out (albeit erroneously Shocked

), and add the content of his wallet 2 the current wealth of knowledge Laughing

& Cav; what can i say, the earthiness of 'hands on endeavour' brings as usual a wealth of buoying sanity 2 any discussion of 'what is' (a little over the top, but hey it's me!)

0 Replies

Is it August 10th already Mechsmith? Laughing

And yes, why are we arguing about inconsequential things?

In case I wasn't clear, these questions are fascinating, but essentially circular, for the moment. Time will tell. Just for once, I would like see a thread regarding the beauty of life, without difficult questions.

0 Replies

I'm with Frank on the "Assumption" thing ... I gotta point out that it seems to me Ican's postulate calculates out only if given the initial assumption, augmented by further assumptions that crop up as necessary to make the math work. In other words, Ican provides a proof valid only for the conditions he has established. Now while that does not per se render his "Proof" invalid (obviously, it is valid within the universe of sets and conditions he has built for it - call that Ican's Imaginary Universe, or IIU Twisted Evil

), it certainly does not establish it as a "Universal Truth". The flaw is that it need not, in fact does not, work if particular other, equally plausible sets and conditions are applied. In such regard, it resembles Aquinas' Summa Theologica , which "Proves" God exists by way of proceeding from the assumption that a god must exist. Plausibility rests in the mind of the beholder. It has been observed, only half-facetiously, that if an error in a proof of hypothesis exists, that error will be found either immediately preceeding or following the words "It is therefore obvious that ... ".
Lynd's hypothesis aside, or more correctly, illustratively and causally, it is not a given we understand the nature of time, nor is it a given we understand the nature of "stuff". The best for which we can hope is to establish plausibilities based on experiential reference ... "Given that we know X, we must conclude Y, because Z. Now, while it is not an absolute, it should be borne in mind that much of what we KNOW is at variance from what we once knew, and from what we may in future conclude by as yet undiscovered evidence. There is no valid reason to assume all the cards have been dealt. Any "Bet" placed at this time can be based only on probabilities determined from an incomplete and undefined sample set. It may be an unsatisfying answer, but the only logically valid answer is "Insufficient Data at this time".

0 Replies

BoGoWo,
Yes, I generally agree that "Time" may be mostly a human construction, meaningless in an infinity.

But we are still left with the problem of Causality in any view larger than the quantum one. Once you leave the world of Quantum Mechanics things generally have to happen in some sort of order.

There was once an arguement that "God Trancends Time". I pointed out that even God first had to have a place to put Adam and Eve therefore even a God had to be aware of time. (could not transcend time)

Other things like entrophy and distance seem to imply that time may actually exist apart from our imaginations. (is a true concept)

Yes, I think that the "red shift" as used in the Big Bang-Expanding Universe Theory is merely an optical illusion. No more real than a rainbow.

The math that is necessary to "PROVE" the red shift other than an optical illusion is so far impossible to do although there are those who may claim to have done it.

So far I place equal credence to "Our Lady of Fatima" or poltergists.

0 Replies

Mech;
nicely put, but a big part of me recognizes in the 'light' of cav's post that if the name of Mechsmith were to assume its proper place along side Newton, and Einstein, and Hawkings, etc., due to his having demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction (including ican & frank) that there is definitely NO beginning nor end; it would mean diddly squat to the idiots wantonly killing themselves, and others in the name of 1 deity or the other, in almost all parts of the world, as if they r not bright enough 2 realize that there is no rationalization 4 what they do in any set of handed down rules and regulations from on high, regardless of what they 'believe' 2b explicit, they r hardly going to understand u're proofs, and the implications upon human ethics!

& cav; great idea; don't just sit there on your big clowney duffus;
go start one (and do invite me! Laughing

)

0 Replies

cavfancier,
You'll have to head for the "religious threads". Reality is beautiful IMO and it is no less beautiful for our feeble attempts to understand it without our imaginations running overtime.

0 Replies

Done Bo, in a sec...I shall leave it ambiguous.

0 Replies

mech (10th August 2003, 09:28), et al;

the problem we r laboring under, is that of 'apples & oranges';
the very nature of the various gods ascribed 2 across this planet, is that they owe no loyalty 2 anything.
they r omnipotent, or NOT; they r loving, or NOT; they are everlasting, or NOT;
that is they bend to the idiosyncracies not of space/time physics, and logic, but 2 the whims of the ephemeral beliefs and concepts of their ubiquitous adherents. because they r NOT real; they cannot be properly defined; they are ever moving targets; flavour of the minute!

so attempting to use logical analysis 2 bring down this 'house of cards' will lead only to hardening the shell of intellectual imperviousness that the whole mindset produces.

But inspite of all that timber points out, none of which do i disagree with, it still makes sense 2 me 2 continue 2 'attempt the impossible', and seek 2 describe the actual nature of reality!

[it's kind of a 'religious' thing! Twisted Evil

]

0 Replies

Bogowo,

No such thing as directed chance? It's an oxymoron? Shocked

I guess you are unfamiliar with the card games called draw-poker and bridge.

Because an intelligent person like yourself would likely comprehend that over time the more able draw-poker and bridge players win more than the less able players. Now I know this is a giant leap for mankind, but stick with me a moment more. It may be that what makes the better players better is their ability to do a better job of directing chance. Yes, directing how many cards, if any, they shall draw by chance, directing how they shall bet using whatever information they can glean from their own cards dealt by chance and from the behavior of the other players, or directing how they shall bid the cards they were dealt by chance. :wink:

An infinite OOU? What data are you aware of that supports that conclusion? Isn't it merely based on your own desires?

An infinite SATOOU?

Sure why not? How about:
an infinite SATOOU with zero stuff?
an infinite SATOOU with finite stuff?
But an infinite SATOOU with infinite stuff is as mythical as any God of the Greeks or Romans. I have encountered zero data to suggest that is even possible, much less probable. Well on the other hand it's possible (Frank might say there's a 50% probability) Zeus existed or exists! Laughing

=============

At the risk of causing Frank a mental hernia, I shall now deal with the following subject:

[Define <God>.

Then you decide.

I think IOU is NOT God, at least NOT God as I define God.]

My definition of God is borrowed from some of the written testimony of others (e.g., The Bible).

God is defined (check your dictionary for the meanings of the following words) to be that which is infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnifarious. Well if that is a correct definition of God, then I have insufficient valid data to warrant me even venturing a guess whether or not such a God exists. Not only do I not know, I have no idea what the probability is one way or the other.

Oh, my god! Shocked

I guess that makes me agnostic on the subject of whether God exists or not. Confused

Not to worry folks, I'm merely a plain ol' agnostic like that defined in the dictionary. I am not an activist agnostic, not an agnostic activist, not a fundamentalist agnostic, and not a fanatical agnostic on the subject. Just a plain everyday agnostic on the subject. :wink: Or to say it more plainly, it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists! Crying or Very sad

From Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com
[ Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god ]

NOW PAY ATTENTION FRANK
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

....

it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

0 Replies

Come join us:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10395&highlight=

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

ok, Frank and ican;

I AM BEGGING!!!; could u both please stop quoting every1 else's posts, & parts of u're own posts + some1 elses, ad infinitum (i find it hard 2 accept that neither of u will admit to the existence of infinity, when u r both trying to display same by wiping out pages, & pages here simply with 'quotes')

do neither of u have 'BACK' buttons, u have no memories??
what is it?

please!

Bo, just disregard the quotes -- as I am trying desperately to disregard this science fiction phonetic spelling project of yours that is annoying as hell. They happen to be helpful to me -- and I would much rather someone actually quote what they are commenting on than paraphrasing -- so we are 180 out of synch on the quoting issue.

To suppose for one second that I cannot acknowledge the possibility of inifinity is wrong. (I will not "admit to the existence of infinity" since I do not know if infinity exists, although I find the concept of infinity much, much, much easier to accept than finite in this case.)

0 Replies

Ican, As I have said before , I generally agree with your math.
Without an "Intelligence" it is extremely unlikely that I would be here talking to you. But in an infinite Universe not particulary remarkable.

So, as your friendly mechanic, may I ask "What is it that this thing is supposed to do"?

You tell me that this machine is supposed to fly but it won't. I say "give me enough time and money and I can make this machine fly".

You tell me that this piano is supposed to make a sound corresponding to the vibrations that we hear as 10,000 cycles per second then with enough time and money I will fix you a machine that emits vibrations of 10,000 cps.

So Ican, What is it that this Intelligence is supposed to do? If it is not impossible than I am reasonably sure that we can get it to do it.

But so far, I am unable to understand what this Intelligence is supposed to do.
I am also unable to understand how it may work, even in the broadest sense.
I am also unable to understand why it would ever work.
Consequently I do not think that "Intelligence" as an explanation of "What, When,Where, and Why is ever going to fly.

I would like to see another arguement for "Intelligence as Directed Chance" with which I may be able to understand enough in order to "fix your machine" for you.

Or you may not actually have a machine at all. Sad

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Sure why not? How about:
an infinite SATOOU with zero stuff?
an infinite SATOOU with finite stuff?
But an infinite SATOOU with infinite stuff is as mythical as any God of the Greeks or Romans. I have encountered zero data to suggest that is even possible, much less probable. Well on the other hand it's possible (Frank might say there's a 50% probability) Zeus existed or exists!

Then again, I might not -- and any reasonable person who has conversed with me for a few years (as you have) would KNOW GODDAM WELL that Frank would not say there is a 50% probability that Zeus existed or exists.

My agnosticism, if I have not mentioned this before, takes this form:

I do not know if God exists; I do not know if there are no gods; and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which I can make a meaningful guess in either direction.

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess as to whether or not the Greek gods exist. My guess is they did not exist - and do not exist - and I think the probability of that is much, much greater than 50/50.

Quote:

At the risk of causing Frank a mental hernia, I shall now deal with the following subject:

[Define <God>.

Then you decide.

I think IOU is NOT God, at least NOT God as I define God.]

My definition of God is borrowed from some of the written testimony of others (e.g., The Bible).

God is defined (check your dictionary for the meanings of the following words) to be that which is infallible, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnifarious. Well if that is a correct definition of God, then I have insufficient valid data to warrant me even venturing a guess whether or not such a God exists. Not only do I not know, I have no idea what the probability is one way or the other.

Oh, my god! I guess that makes me agnostic on the subject of whether God exists or not.

Not to worry folks, I'm merely a plain ol' agnostic like that defined in the dictionary. I am not an activist agnostic, not an agnostic activist, not a fundamentalist agnostic, and not a fanatical agnostic on the subject. Just a plain everyday agnostic on the subject. :wink: Or to say it more plainly, it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

No mental hernia - not even close.

Since this is such a recent revision of what you have said in the past -- and since in the past you have defined yourself as a theist with a "belief in God" -- and since you have identified with the "Creator" that the Declaration of Independence claims "endows" us with certain unalienable (or inalienable) rights -- and since that identification and self-definition has caused problems for you in the past...

...I am assuming this new thing is just one more of your "I will say anything to these yokels and mock them if they do not agree with it and pretend I am not trying to influence them and am only trying to convince myself of this stuff..."

I think it is bullshit.

Not because I think people cannot change and be logical about it, but because I've seen the way you change and I see the way you do and say things to the advantage of where you want to go without regard for other niceties - such as truthfulness.

Quote:

From Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com
[ Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god ]

NOW PAY ATTENTION FRANK
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!
it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

....

it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

My guess is that you are simply saying this to throw the people who are not as familiar with you as I am off the track.

Your overall thesis is to attempt to show that the probability that humans could not have come from some point in the past to the point where they are now -- without help from some kind of INTELLIGENCE.

Now, you want to pretend you are not talking about GOD -- because you are not talking about the god of the Bible or the Koran.

Once again, BULLSHIT!

You are talking about INTELLIGENCE guiding the evolution of the universe and humankind -- and in every thread you've ever developed on this topic -- that INTELLIGENCE obviously is your idea of GOD.

If you want to play the word game -- go ahead. But it is a game.

In any case, I'm saying you cannot even show that INTELLIGENT GUIDANCE (whether GOD or not) was necessary for humans to get from point "a" to "where it is now" without laughable assumptions and tortured use of logic and probability theory.

Why not get to that!

Let's see what you do.

How about starting without making absurd assumptions about whether or not the UNIVERSE or SPACE or TIME or SPACETIME is finite or infinite. Work on your theory without making any assumptions about that!

NOTE TO ALL: In fairness to Ican -- AT NO POINT IN ANY OF HIS THREADS HERE OR IN ABUZZ HAS HE EVER SAID OR INFERRED THAT HE WAS OFFERING OR AIMING AT A PROOF. It has always been that he is trying to show probability in one direction or another.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

BoGoWo wrote:
ok, Frank and ican;

I AM BEGGING!!!; could u both please stop quoting every1 else's posts, & parts of u're own posts + some1 elses, ad infinitum (i find it hard 2 accept that neither of u will admit to the existence of infinity, when u r both trying to display same by wiping out pages, & pages here simply with 'quotes')

do neither of u have 'BACK' buttons, u have no memories??
what is it?

please!

Bo, just disregard the quotes -- as I am trying desperately to disregard this science fiction phonetic spelling project of yours that is annoying as hell. They happen to be helpful to me -- and I would much rather someone actually quote what they are commenting on than paraphrasing -- so we are 180 out of synch on the quoting issue.

To suppose for one second that I cannot acknowledge the possibility of inifinity is wrong. (I will not "admit to the existence of infinity" since I do not know if infinity exists, although I find the concept of infinity much, much, much easier to accept than finite in this case.)

i can (not ican, note) accept that!

0 Replies

and, speaking of ican;

cards m'boy r not 'directed chance' they r a case of "'confined' chance" where the potential variables are discrete, and diminish as the play procedes; & moreover, as they are controlled by hard & fast rules, astute play, lies not in the vagaries of chance, so much as in the understanding of the rules, capacity for mental counting, and skill levels of the individual players!
no connection whatever to silly little insubstantial things like the creation of a universe!

0 Replies

Bogowo re your post Aug 10-9:28

I am not attempting to bring down a house of cards, It would be enough to make it ridiculous.

I have noticed that ridicule is a potent tool to use against many pompous personalities. This is evident in the little tale of "The Emperor Has No clothes".
This tale would only be important in a society that values appearances more than facts. The point would be entirely missed here. :wink:

www.avalonnude.com

If we can make the very Idea of a "beginning" ridiculous then the Pat Robertsons, Ayatollah Kohmenis, and even George Bushes, and Mr. Ashcrofts, ideas that are based in their view of a "Creator with revealed truths" become ridiculous.

When scientists back up the "Creationists" simply by postulating a beginning that probably never happened this gives credence to the class of people who are perfectly willing to exploit others suspicions and succeptabilities for their personal benefit.

A thousand fingers pointed at Ashcroft and giggling as he expounds on the "sanctity if life" would be more effective than the whole list of facts availiable in the encyclopedia.
The Emperor will have no Big Bang with which to impose his God Damned views of the Universe upon a gullible populace.
The Pope will have no Creator to justify his ill considered views about birth control.

Hopefully this will force them to come up with REASONS for a particular course of action that they may take on our behalf. Actions that have been shown to be deleterious to human affairs, like slavery, wars, impoverishment, uncontrolled reproduction, pollution, personal aggrandizement, excessive regulations and the like.

Just call me Pollyanna Smile

. But I think it would help a bit.

There will always be wars and rumors of wars as long as we allow the God Damned supersticious amongst us to confuse facts with beliefs, knowledge with myths, and thoughts with revelations.

God Damned is not a curse indicating that I have a paucity of words availiable, but rather a description of a people that believe and fear an event or entiety that cannot be shown to ever have existed.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

So, as your friendly mechanic, may I ask "What is it that this thing is supposed to do"?

Thank you for asking. Very Happy

Metaphorically speaking, this thing is supposed to play "a winning game of cards" without the consumption of any beer. Laughing

What is "a winning game of cards" a metaphor for?

Answer: the evolution of living organisms that work.

What is "that work" a metaphor for?

Answer: capable of improving the effectiveness of winning "the game of cards" .

What is "effectiveness" a metaphor for?

Answer: do it with less time and stuff.

Yeah but, why does the thing want to play "a winning game of cards"?

Answer: beatsthehell out of me! Crying or Very sad

Why do I want to fly? Beatsthehell out of me! Laughing

So we have what is called in the trade a closed loop, negative feedback system (i.e., one of the characteristics of the many useful machines we human mechanics have built, too). This system constantly seeks to steadily reduce error. Why? Beatsthehell out of me!

Yeah but, who or what built THIS system? Again, beatsthehell out of me!

Yeah but, look at all the errors humans make. The machine is obviously malfunctioning.

Whatthehell, humans have existed less than 200,000 years; give humans another 200,000 years and see what happens. Maybe the dumbshits will eventually learn that it is in their self-interest to root for each other unrelentingly, each and everyone. If not, then bye bye baby! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know