the universe and space....?

Frank Apisa wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
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 ...

The evidence of you mental hernia, whether caused by me or something else, is overwhelming. Currently it is clearly manifested as a memory hernia.

For more than two years in abuzz I have repeatedly told you the samething in clear but admittedly less plain words than:

ican711nm wrote:

Or to say it more plainly, it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

Even here in this discussion, in an early exchange between you and me regarding my being <disabused> of the notion that IOU is God because the definition of God includes infallibility, and IOU is definitely not defined to be infallible.

Yes, I once equated my theorized intelligence of the universe with God. I stopped doing that more than two years ago. Get your head out of your socks and review this topic and the relevant Abuzz threads for copious evidence of what I claim here to be true.

I wish you an early recovery.

0 Replies

?????

0 Replies

ican i just have 2 say this (and it is a compliment, yeah, sure!) but in another life u should have been a minister/priest; u have the 'about' laid down perfectly in your manner!
it's genius, or u missed u're 'chance' directed or otherwise.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

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.

...

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.

I think you are making a tactical error. The theist demagogues of the right are perpetrators of the same kinds of horrorible deeds as are the atheist demagogues of the left. In fact, treating people murdered in the 20th and 21st centuries as an index, the right are a bunch of pussycats compared to those on the left (i.e., millions less murdered by the right than murdered by the left). On the right for example we had Hitler, Hirohito and Musollini; and, now have khomeini, bin Laden (and/or his heirs) and Arafat. On the left we had the likes of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot; and now have the likes of Castro, Hussein, and Taylor (of Liberia).

You think debunking the big bang or any other alleged beginning of the universe will debilitate these kinds of demagogues?
I say, "NOT A CHANCE". You want to take away their big bang and give 'em an always existing, infinite universe with infinite stuff. Those are just the kind of mythological ideas from which those demogogic buggers of the right and left would eagerly and (unfortunately) effectively synthesize their new god and system of morality; a new god and system of morality that aids and abets the fulfillment of their own aspirations for absolute power.

IOU on the other hand ain't infinite anything. What absolute power does a finite thing have to bestow on anyone. None! Rolling Eyes

While that's not my reason for advocating the probable existence of IOU, it IS a secondary benefit. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank, what do you think time "is"?

It appears that most things do not happen instantaneously (on a macro level, at least) and it takes some finite amount of "time" to go from point A to point B, chemical reactions, space dust to condense into planets, etc.

There is something about our universe that controls rates of change, and slows them down in higher gravitational fields. I have no idea what it is or how it works. It may exist independently of matter or it may be the result of gravity. Any guesses?

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

ican ... in another life u should have been a minister/priest; u have the 'about' laid down perfectly in your manner!
it's genius, or u missed u're 'chance' directed or otherwise.

Gad!

You, unlike Frank, really know how to hurt my feelings. Minister or Priest Exclamation

I have some talent for arguing probability. Ministers and priests have some talent for arguing certainty. Who would flock to a guy who advocates there's PROBABLY ain't no such thing as an infallible, infinite anything?
People who think for themselves? Hellno! Shocked

People who truly think for themselves do not flock to anyone. They are my kind of people. Very Happy

0 Replies

All of which brings me to my next topic.

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=312608#312608

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Frank, what do you think time "is"?

It appears that most things do not happen instantaneously (on a macro level, at least) and it takes some finite amount of "time" to go from point A to point B, chemical reactions, space dust to condense into planets, etc.

There is something about our universe that controls rates of change, and slows them down in higher gravitational fields. I have no idea what it is or how it works. It may exist independently of matter or it may be the result of gravity. Any guesses?

I have absolutely no clue, Terry, but I do know I disagree with Ican who insists that if there is no stuff -- THERE CAN BE NO TIME.

I quite agree that in an environment in which there is no stuff we probably would not be able to measure TIME (whatever it is) -- but I am not satisfied that TIME CANNOT EXIST in that environment.

In other words, if there is a place in the UNIVERSE where there is no stuff -- it is my guess that time would exist -- even though I see the difficulties with actually measuring it.

(I'm not happy with this reply, but it is the best I can do right now.)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
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 ...

The evidence of you mental hernia, whether caused by me or something else, is overwhelming. Currently it is clearly manifested as a memory hernia.

In your dreams, Ican, but only in your dreams.

Quote:

For more than two years in abuzz I have repeatedly told you the samething in clear but admittedly less plain words than:

ican711nm wrote:
Or to say it more plainly, it beatsthehell out of me whether or not God exists!

Nonsense! Balderdash! Tommyrot! Bullshit!

You were obviously trying to describe GOD in your posts - and much, much more recently than two years ago. And you often talked about a GOD that was flawed. (That, in fact, was one of your rare agreements with Terry.) You even named your INTELLIGENCE GOD, god, and finally goe -- but each time it was an attempt to identify a GOD and make it appear more probable than no GOD.

This nonsense you are trying to peddle here is just more smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

Even here in this discussion, in an early exchange between you and me regarding my being <disabused> of the notion that IOU is God because the definition of God includes infallibility, and IOU is definitely not defined to be infallible.

Ican -- if there is no GOD (the perfect god of the Bible) -- and what you are describing is the underlying INTELLIGENCE upon which evolution depends -- just what in the hell do you think your attempting to describe?

Jeez!

Quote:

Yes, I once equated my theorized intelligence of the universe with God. I stopped doing that more than two years ago. Get your head out of your socks and review this topic and the relevant Abuzz threads for copious evidence of what I claim here to be true.

I wish you an early recovery.

More bullshit!

I'd actually take the trouble to go back and find posts that indicate you were still equating your INTELLIGENCE with God recently, but to be honest, I don't really want to go to that trouble.

This whole series of threads deals with you wanting to get to that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" stuff.

But I recognize that your denial may now have so clouded your mind that you truly cannot recognize any of this.

Have no fear. I'll be right here reminding you of the truth. I will not leave you.

0 Replies

Frank,

Your expletives and libels are a poor substitute for thought. They are perceived by me as indexes of your fear and not the working of your potentially insightful intellect.

Again, I urge you to get your head out of your socks and think for yourself about what I am actually claiming and not what you are mistakenly claiming I am claiming. Then argue all you want with what I am actually claiming. That I guarantee I will appreciate no matter how strongly you choose to express your disagreement or agreement.

In my new thread, just posted here above, you have an opportunity to obtain additional insight into what I am earnestly saying. For the sake of your own future self-respect, if nothing else, please give it a try.

I continue to wish you a rapid recovery. Smile

0 Replies

Careful with the sticks and rocks and tommyrot and socks, there kids ... don't want anybody gettin hurt here, now do we? Whatever parameters may define the universe, debate and discussion have finite limits of decorum, which preclude personal insult as acceptable practice.

0 Replies

c'mon frank; i know u have a huge amount of time invested in wondering how ican can (dancing) almost in spite of his posts, still keep a diety of some sort in his pocket.
BUT, if the guy says clearly that is not the case, then give him the benefit of the doubt (not the benefit of your 'pointy' shoes), and simply keep an eye on those posts (like watching the lamp posts flash by as 1 drives along the superhighway of knowledge)! Idea

and ican; u took the wrong meaning from my 'minister/priest' post; i meant that your measured and meticulous approach was similar - its like packing a bag for your holidays; u place each thought carefully into the bag, making them line up, and look similar 2 1 another, in such a way that when the final item slips into the bag, it flips shut like an animal trap, proclaiming the successful containment of u're thoughts, & protecting them from the pending assault! metaphoric perfection! :wink:

0 Replies

Terry re u're temporal question, i c time as a relationship between objects which r phenomena of matter. Time, not being a 'thing' but a lens, so 2 speak, through which we assess various object's relationships 2 1 another; it seems not surprising that very massive objects might have various effects upon the lens itself, altering the way we perceive what it is telling us about the objects.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

c'mon frank; i know u have a huge amount of time invested in wondering how ican can (dancing) almost in spite of his posts, still keep a diety of some sort in his pocket.
BUT, if the guy says clearly that is not the case, then give him the benefit of the doubt (not the benefit of your 'pointy' shoes), and simply keep an eye on those posts (like watching the lamp posts flash by as 1 drives along the superhighway of knowledge)!

Bo, I've had a couple of years to assess the difference between what Ican says and what Ican means.

He's playing with words here -- just as he plays with words in all his posts. No problem -- that is his "right!" But no matter what Ican calls his "INTELLIGENCE necessary for the evolution of the universe" -- it is an attempt by Ican to show that GOD PROBABLY exists. And when he is through, he will assert that the PROBABILITY of its existence is so incredibly great as to make it virtually certain.

Ican is setting out to show that GOD has to exist - no matter that he calls his GOD, INTELLIGENCE.

The fact that he says he does not know if God exists is a red herring. My guess is that nobody KNOWS if God exists -- and that is quite tangential to the issue of whether or not he is trying to establish that INTELLIGENCE exists that guides the development and evolution of the universe.

BTW, The word "evolution" evolved so that he could change the original acronym for his initial attempt at this exercise from GOD (governor of development) to goe (governor of evolution). The GOD, which had an incarnation in small letters as god, was too obvious -- so the change to goe came into being.

Ican has never deviated for one second from his initial intention, which was to show that INTELLIGENCE is necessary (or so PROBABLE as to be necessary) for what exists right now -- to exist.

He IS attempting to establish probability for GOD -- and as I said earlier, whether he KNOWS God exists or not is not even remotely important to determining whether he is or not.

He has managed to get a few people (apparently including you) to think that by saying he does not KNOW if God exists -- that is equivalent to saying "Frank is wrong in saying I am trying to show God is necessary to WHAT IS." An indication that his ruse is working is contained in your comment: "he says clearly that is not the case".

He doesn't. He says, "I do not know if God exists" and "My INTELLIGENCE is not God (in the sense of the god of the Bible.) But pay attention to what he does as opposed to what he says he is doing. You'll see I am correct.

Try to be as understanding of my position as you can. I know how Ican's arguments have to be dealt with from long and arduous experience. And I intend to deal with them.

0 Replies

A Japanese novel <Ring>, it has a monstrous and idiographic view of our world~~~~~~!

0 Replies

"that is equivalent to saying "Frank is wrong"";

Frank; a professional agnostic CANNOT be wrong!!!!

to be wrong, one has to climb gingerly down one side of the cosmic fence, or the other, thus exposing one's self to 'incorrect' opinions.

[actually, only in 'my' case, are all the other 'positions' WRONG! Laughing

]

P.S. my "Buggered English" on a2k is toast.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

"P.S. my "Buggered English" on a2k is toast.

I admire your attempt to test the new language here...

...and I consider this latest move to be among the best news I've thus far gotten in this forum. :wink: :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

ican, don't have time for a detailed analysis of your posts, but re your list of possibilities for SATOOU, several are trivial and (6) stuff did not EVER have to be condensed into a single point, but was almost certainly once very much smaller.

We do not know what, if anything lies outside of OOU, but there is no reason to think that this universe is all that there is. They may well be a multiverse in which our universe is only one small bubble. It is also very likely that the universe created by our big bang is much, much larger than the limited part of it that we can observe.

If you postulate a "first cause", what caused that cause?

It seems to me that the odds of an "intelligence" just happening to exist to direct the evolution that took billions of years to produce OUR intelligence are infinitesimal.

If you do not consider your postualted intelligence that directed evolution to be God, then where did God come from, and who/what is the intelligent force?

ican711nm wrote:

Consider Orville and Wilbur Wright at the beginning of the 20th century. They took the chance that they could, by application of sufficiently intelligent trial and error, build a self-propelled aircraft that would fly.

Please don't confuse the kind of "chance" we are talking about here with calculated risk. They achived their goals through the application of intelligence and engineering, not by random processes.

ican711nm wrote:

The sufficiency of UC+NS has a probability of less than a <moogolth> [i.e., 10^(-1,000,000)] of evolving humans within a trillion years. It is alleged that OOU is only 10 to 20 billion years old. The probability of our evolution in 10 billion years is one hundreth that of evolving in a trillion years

We have been over this many times before. The probability that some kind of life would evolve somewhere in the universe by natural selection acting on random mutations is fairly good. It didn't HAVE to be homo sapiens. Humans are only one of the gazillions of possible forms of intelligent life that MIGHT have evolved. The odds of my PARTICULAR DNA sequence turning up are incredibly slim, but the chance that SOME equally improbable sequence would be formed when my parents had a child was certain.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

(6) stuff did not EVER have to be condensed into a single point, but was almost certainly once very much smaller.

Terry I didn't write that it had to be condensed down to a single point. I wrote that IF SATOOU had finite stuff for an infinite time, THEN due to gravity that finite stuff would have consolidated down to either a small finite point or to an infinitesimal point.

Terry wrote:

there is no reason to think that this universe is all that there is.

I think there is such a reason. The absence of any data whatsoever that anything other than this universe exists. I agree that it may be possible for more to exist, but that is no reason to think it actually does exist.

Terry wrote:

They may well be a multiverse in which our universe is only one small bubble. It is also very likely that the universe created by our big bang is much, much larger than the limited part of it that we can observe.

Yes, all that may be possible, but we have zero data to show that it actually is true. Please take note that by the phrase "we can observe" I mean that "that which we can infer from the data we have observed."

Terry wrote:

If you postulate a "first cause", what caused that cause?

Terry, I went through a list of nine possible combinations of space, time, and stuff (zero,finite,infinite) for SATOOU. I merely observed that those combinations that existed for a finite time would have had to have a first cause. So I reject them on that account, since it beatsthehell out of me what that first cause probably is.

Terry wrote:

It seems to me that the odds of an "intelligence" just happening to exist to direct the evolution that took billions of years to produce OUR intelligence are infinitesimal.

I understand that that seems to you. I'm saying that the chances of OOU just happening to exist are infinitesimal also. I'm also saying that while it beatsthehell out of me why OOU exists, it nevertheless does. Likewise, I'm saying that it beatsthehell out of me why human intelligence exists. It just does. I am saying one more thing too. I am saying I theorize that the natural phenomenum that enables some configurations of proteins to think is the same natural phenomenum that enables configurations of other stuff I call IOU in OOU to think.

Terry wrote:

If you do not consider your postualted intelligence that directed evolution to be God, then where did God come from,

it beatsthehell out of me.

Terry wrote:

and who/what is the intelligent force?

I'm guessing that it is the same thing that gives some configurations of proteins the capability to think. I'm searching for some research that provides a plausible explanation for what is it that give some configurations of protein the capability to think. Maybe I'll find such research in my life time and maybe I won't.

Terry wrote:

Please don't confuse the kind of "chance" we are talking about here with calculated risk. They achived their goals through the application of intelligence and engineering, not by random processes.

Exactly: it was NOT by random processes! No they were by intelligent trial and error, or what I call <directed chance>. The Wrights had zero guarantee of success. So yes I theorize a kind of intelligence in OOU that works the same way. If that's the way the human brain works why not IOU?

ican711nm wrote:

The sufficiency of UC+NS has a probability of less than a <moogolth> [i.e., 10^(-1,000,000)] of evolving humans within a trillion years. It is alleged that OOU is only 10 to 20 billion years old. The probability of our evolution in 10 billion years is one hundreth that of evolving in a trillion years

Terry wrote:

The probability that some kind of life would evolve somewhere in the universe by natural selection acting on random mutations is fairly good.

I think that probability (for the reasons I have given here in various posts) is fairly bad: less than a moogolth (i.e., 10^(-1,000,000).

Terry wrote:

It didn't HAVE to be homo sapiens. Humans are only one of the gazillions of possible forms of intelligent life that MIGHT have evolved. The odds of my PARTICULAR DNA sequence turning up are incredibly slim, but the chance that SOME equally improbable sequence would be formed when my parents had a child was certain.

But after the evolution of the common ancestor to mice and humans, allegedly only 60 million (or 60 trillion years ago) the probability that by UC+NS that your parents would even exist to bear you within that time was less than a moogolth.

0 Replies

The volume of a sphere = (3/4) times (3.14159) times R^3.

R = the radius of the sphere.

Suppose Ru = the radius of OOU, and Rg = the radius of the space around the average galaxy. Cool

Allegedly the radius of OOU is 30 billion light years = 3 x 10^9 light years. But suppose it is actually 10^18 light years, because of errors (to be discovered) in computation of the amount of redshift caused by the Dopler Effect.

The closest galaxy to us, the Andromeda galaxy, is about 2 million light years from our galaxy, and approximately that amount of light years from other of its neighbors. However, we also observe galaxies in collision in OOU. Suppose the actual radius of the space around the average galaxy is only 1 light year.

Then the total number of galaxies in OOU would be G =

(3/4) times (3.14159) times Ru^3 / (3/4) times (3.14159) times Rg^3 =

Ru^3 / Rg^3 = (10^8)^3 / 1^3= 10^24.

Then G = 10^24 galaxies in OOU.

It is alleged that the number of stars in the average galaxy is less than 10^12. But suppose that computation is also in error and the true average number of stars in a galaxy in OOU = 10^24.

Then the total number of stars in OOU would be = 10^24 x 10^24 = 10^48.

The number of life evolving planets/moons in our solar system is alleged to be less than 10. But suppose the average number per star in OOU is 100 = 10^2.

Then the total number of life evolving planets in OOU would be P = 10^48 x 10^2 = 10^50.

P = 10^50 life evolving planets in OOU.

That number is substantially less than the 10^(1,000,000) that would have to exist in OOU to begin to make UC+NS a practical probability.

Thus, I'm even more willing to gamble that DC+NS, and NOT UC+NS, caused the evolution of humans within the lifetime of OOU.

===========

But this analysis contributes zero data to the question of whether or not God exists. Whether God exists or not continues to beatsthehell out of me. Confused

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know