the universe and space....?

i think you're all crazy! it is quite likely that there is no point or purpose to the existnace of the universe, at least, of humans. the universe is nondeterminism at it's best. blah blah blah

0 Replies

Hokie,

There are folks here, who believe that someday we will have a theory of everything based on a single quantum mechanics applicable to both the micro and macroscopic. Are they correct? beatsthehelloutofme Laughing

0 Replies

Hey ican...careful there...don't get on accusing me of there being a purpose to anything...I just like the theory Laughing

0 Replies

Ican wrote:

Quote:

I think it improbable [i.e., probability less than a moogolth = 10^(-1,000,000)] that UC+NS (i.e., Undirected Chance PLUS Natural Selection)caused humans to evolve within the last 60,000,000 years (or within the last 60 trillion years). I infer from that that the probability that DC+NS caused humans to evolve is greater than [1 - a moogoth].

With all the respect in the world (naturally) the only way you can come to the probability estimate of "less than a moogolth = 10^(-1,000,000)] " (I suspect you mean "a moogolth to 1 against) is by cooking the books -- and in this case, cooking them to the point of disintegration.

Terry has pointed that out to you clearly and rationally on many occasions, but it just never seems to penetrate. I acknowledge I do not know the math or the arguments Terry makes well enough to do the debating myself -- and I am just guessing that her apprehensions with your math and the logic leading to it is well-founded -- but I am doing that based on my assessment of your abilities with probability theory -- which you torture when using.

You are determined to show that we humans cannot have gotten from where we were -- to where we are now -- without some form of intelligence influencing it to happen. Earlier, you were certain it was God -- but now you say it is something other than God.

If it ain't God -- your god must be in awe of it. You do have a god, do you not? You are a theist, are you not?

You say it cannot be God because theists have convinced you that God must be perfect -- and could not possibly be the trial and error INTELLIGENCE you are inventi...ahhhh...positing.

But what the hell do they know?

Why are you so influenced by their suggestions that God must be perfect? After all, they also think God once told Moses that owning slaves was ethical and moral -- as was killing recalcitrant children and homosexuals.

I haven't mentioned this before, but I think it is time I do: I do not know if "INTELLIGENCE that influences the evolution of humans" exists -- or if "INTELLIGENCE that influences the evolution of humans" does not exist -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

You claim probability estimates that pretty much establish that the intelligence is a NECESSITY to a degree of certainty just an atom or two below absolute certainty.

I consider, once again with the greatest of respect, that your calculations are absurd.

And of course, the elephant in the room is: If time, space, and timespace are infinite, rather than finite, a moogolth to 1 against is a drop in the bucket. In fact, if inifinity exists, an event with odds against it of 100 times your moogolth to 1 -- are almost a dead certainty FOR.

Eliminating the possibility -- even the consideration of the possibility of infinity -- is cooking the books big time. It is stacking the deck. It sucks.

Assuming some INTELLIGENCE was AIMING for what exists now is another bit of book cooking and deck stacking.

We are were we are! We are what we are!

All of it may have happened in the normal course of the way nature and physical "laws" work -- with absolutely no overseeing direction or influence of direction on the evolution ever taking place.

We really don't know.

There may be a God.

There may be an INTELLIGENCE.

There may not be either.

WE DO NOT KNOW -- and stacking the deck in order to make one of those possibilities (there may be more) seem more likely -- is hardly the stuff of decent, ethical research.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

What would define "less than infinite stuff".
Where would "less than infinite space" (distance) reside.
What would follow "less than an eternity"

DEFINITIONS
less than infinite stuff = finite stuff.
less than infinite space resides in finite space
less than an eternity is a finite time.
finite is an amount that does not exceed a particular number.

Also, IF space is curved such that it is <closed> by the gravity of the stuff within it, then that space is finite. By <closed> I mean that none of the stuff within that closed space can exit that closed space. For example, OOU may be expanding at a finite rate while containing finite stuff, within a closed space, contained within an infinite, zero stuff, open space. But at any finite time in the future, OOU will be finite.

EXAMPLES
less than infinite stuff = the stuff within andromeda and within our galaxy.
less than infinite space resides in the space within andromeda and within our galaxy.
less than eternity = my life span.
following my life span is my children's, grandchildren's, and great grandchildren's, et cetera life spans.

Why do you ask Confused

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, If you can find a "life characteristic=intelligence" in the world of Quantum Mechanics then you may have a chance of finding that "life=intelligence" affects OOU. in some way. Might be worth thinking about a bit LOL you'll need it, M

Probably is and I probably will Laughing

0 Replies

truth
A single formula explaining everything? That's tantamount to shrinking the Cosmos to the size of our brains. I've said elsewhere that humility is the result of knowing that all our experience is limited in part by the limitations of our species' neurological system. Even the most intelligent of ants can never--because of the shape of his nervous system-- understand the ecological system in which he operates. He can, at best, only have "ant theories" to "explain" it. And despite my language here his theorizing behavior will be nothing like ours.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Terry has pointed that out to you clearly and rationally on many occasions, but it just never seems to penetrate. I acknowledge I do not know the math or the arguments Terry makes well enough to do the debating myself -- and I am just guessing that her apprehensions with your math and the logic leading to it is well-founded -- but I am doing that based on my assessment of your abilities with probability theory -- which you torture when using.

I think that the reason "it just never seems to penetrate" is because it is false, incorrect, invalid, and .... oh yeah, wrong!

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are determined to show that we humans cannot have gotten from where we were -- to where we are now -- without some form of intelligence influencing it to happen. Earlier, you were certain it was God -- but now you say it is something other than God.

I WAS NEVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE CERTAIN IT WAS GOD! NEVER! That's true, because I never was certain God even existed! More than two years ago, I thought God PROBABLY existed. But also more than two years ago I decided that iteatsthehelloutofme whether God exists or not. The primary reason for my change of mind is that itbeatsthehelloutofme what the valid definition of God is. The secondary reason is that many theists have disabused me of the notion that it is valid to define God to be fallible. itbeatsthehelloutofme whether it is or not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I haven't mentioned this before, but I think it is time I do: I do not know if "INTELLIGENCE that influences the evolution of humans" exists -- or if "INTELLIGENCE that influences the evolution of humans" does not exist -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

I hope you finally understand that I DO "see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess". I think that INTELLIGENCE does exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

... of course, the elephant in the room is: If time, space, and timespace are infinite, rather than finite, a moogolth to 1 against is a drop in the bucket. In fact, if inifinity exists, an event with odds against it of 100 times your moogolth to 1 -- are almost a dead certainty FOR.['quote]

I agree!

However, an infinity of stuff is not necessary for there to be an "elephant in the room." Only 10 t0 20 moogol life evolving planets are necessary for there to be an "elephant in the room."

Frank Apisa wrote:
Eliminating the possibility -- even the consideration of the possibility of infinity -- is cooking the books big time. It is stacking the deck. It sucks.

Yes it does suck! BUT, I merely eliminate the possibility of infinite stuff and thereby infinite time. I guess you guess that asserting the possibility that infinite stuff and thereby infinite time may not be possible, sucks, too! I ignore that possibility because, itbeatsthehelloutofme whether infinite stuff and thereby infinite time actually can exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Assuming some INTELLIGENCE was AIMING for what exists now is another bit of book cooking and deck stacking.

Come on Frank, get a grip. I don't ASSUME any such thing. Based on other assumptions I have tried to defend, I compute that probability to be greater than (1-moogolth).

Frank Apisa wrote:
All of it may have happened in the normal course of the way nature and physical "laws" work -- with absolutely no overseeing direction or influence of direction on the evolution ever taking place.

That statement is self-contradictory. If nature and physical laws are the cause, then there is of necessity the direction provided by"the way nature and physical "laws" work".

An important question is what caused or causes "nature and physical 'laws' " to work the way they do? I guess it is caused by some form of intelligence, because I calculate that without that intelligence all that would probably take more time than was inferred to be available.

Frank Apisa wrote:
We really don't know.

Yes, we really don't know for certain.

Frank Apisa wrote:
There may be a God.

There may be an INTELLIGENCE.

There may not be either.

Possibly!

Frank Apisa wrote:
WE DO NOT KNOW -- and stacking the deck in order to make one of those possibilities (there may be more) seem more likely -- is hardly the stuff of decent, ethical research.

YOU ARE GUILTY of "stacking the deck" and behaving in a manner hardly the stuff of decent, ethical discussion, WHEN you accuse me of "stacking the deck" and behaving in a manner "hardly the stuff of decent, ethical research". You lack or have not offered sufficient valid data to support your contentions; you repeatedly depend on your interpretations of the assertions of others; you do this on nothing more than you disagree with what I assert; you do this when YOU DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN AND CANNOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT YOU ARE CORRECT.

Disagreement with the assertion of another, valid or invalid, is decent, ethical discussion. Accusing me repeatedly of indecent, or unethical discussion or unethical research is disgusting and constitutes an appalling lack of self-control. Believe what you will, but your ad hominem makes you unfit for honorable discussion.

I wish you a speedy recovery.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Even the most intelligent of ants can never understand the ecological system in which he operates. He can, at best, only have "ant theories" to "explain" it. And despite my language here his theorizing behavior will be nothing like ours.

Worse, that genius ant never learned how to build and fly a self-propelled aircraft. Laughing

A MYTHOLOGICAL TALE

Gazing out my back window at the trees something interrupted my gaze. That something announced it was God. I ask it to remain where it was until I could get a closer look. It said OK.

Now in my backyard, face to face with it, I said how do I know whether or not you are what you say you are. You may be God, you may be the devil, you may be my delusion, you may be anything else I can think of.

It said well if I'm the devil I could still also be God, because the devil cannot exist without God to hate.

Well whatever you are, what do you want, say I.

I want to convince you that God exists, says it.

Convince? You mean like know with certainty? ask I.

Yes! says it.

Ok convince me, say I.

How? asks it.

Well, if you truly are God you ought to know the answer to your own question, say I.

Where did you get that idea, it says.

Well, God is supposed to know everything, say I.

Where did you get that idea? It asks.

Forget it, say I.

Is it ok if I guess the answer to my own question? asks it.

Please, get on with it, say I.

Immediately, someone looking exactly like Frank Apisa's able2know icon appears on my lawn next to God.

What's HE doing here, asks I.

Frank says he is here to certify whether or not it is God.

Well, what do you know, Frank? ask I.

Frank says, I don't know for certain whether it's God or not.

Well that's good enough for me, says I.

It says, But that isn't good enough for me!

Now what? asks I.

Frank, says it sucks!

It says, Now I don't know for certain whether I am God or not.

I say, both of you get off my land, get out of here, and let me look at the trees in peace.

They both comply and disappear immediately.

I again am peacefully enjoying the trees.

0 Replies

Ican

You're losing it, man. Try to keep the flaps tucked in tight.

You have repeatedly asserted that you can show or establish that the odds are prohibitively against humans having gotten from where they were at one time -- to where they are now -- in the amount of time available -- without help from this outside agency you have variously called GOD, god, goe, or INTELLIGENCE.

I think you exact wording was: "I have establish that it is virtually impossible."

You have presented your complicated and technical argument a dozen times -- each time coming to the conclusion that the chances of the evolution happening without INTELLIGENCE influencing the process is a moogolth to 1 against (although you seem unable to master the idea of "to 1").

The process you've used to arrive at that probability estimate has been called defective by several posters -- and in any case, I have called your attention to the fact that you constantly misuse probability theory.

Several of us have tried to penetrate the concrete barrier you have erected -- and point out that if the UNIVERSE is infinite (with infinitely recurring Big Bangs or infinitely concurrent Big Bangs -- then even the (in our opinion, defective) probability estimate you have made -- is insignificant. In an infinite UNIVERSE a moogolth to 1 against is nothing. Peanuts!

You simply will not acknowledge that fact -- although if your history is any indication, at some point you will simply abandon this argument just as you have abandoned a half-dozen equally stacked-deck theories in the past. And more than likely, you will abandon this one like you did the others, without ever having the decency and honor to acknowledge that the people pointing out your errors were correct.

What the hell! It doesn't matter. If you want to post nonsense -- you certainly have the right to do so. You do such an interesting job of posting nonsense, it at least provides those few of us who actually humor you by sticking around -- a chance to truly exercise our brains.

Have fun, but you are going nowhere with this theory -- because it all depends on artificially and inappropriately whittling down the possibilities of what IS to the few that make it work. Your book-cooking devises are almost painfully obvious.

Best thing for you to do, Ican? Just give it up -- and go on to the next incarnation of "Ican shows that God probably exists!"

BTW: You are getting better at that quote procedure. Only screwed up one quote in that last post.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ican You're losing it, man. Try to keep the flaps tucked in tight.

Ah, nice recovery, Frank!

You appear to now understand that all you need do when you rebut my assertions, is merely tell me you think I am wrong and/or "losing it". More contentious Ad Hominem should be rigorously avoided.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You have repeatedly asserted that you can show or establish that the odds are prohibitively against humans having gotten from where they were at one time -- to where they are now -- in the amount of time available -- without help from this outside agency you have variously called GOD, god, goe, or INTELLIGENCE.

I think you exact wording was: "I have establish that it is virtually impossible."

You have presented your complicated and technical argument a dozen times -- each time coming to the conclusion that the chances of the evolution happening without INTELLIGENCE influencing the process is a moogolth to 1 against (although you seem unable to master the idea of "to 1").

I shall graciously help you out here and correct all that for you.<><><>

<You have repeatedly asserted that you can show or establish that the odds are prohibitively against humans having evolved from the common ancestor to the mouse and humans within the estimated amount of time available (allegedly 60 million to 60 trillion trillion years) -- without help from this outside agency you have variously called GOD, god, goe, INTELLIGENCE OF OOU, or IOU>

<I think you exact wording was: "I have established that it is PRACTICALLY impossible.">

<You have presented your complicated and technical argument a dozen times -- each time coming to the conclusion that the chances of the evolution happening without INTELLIGENCE influencing the process is a 1 divided by a moogol, or a moogolth, or 1 divided by 10 times itself a a million times, or 10^(-million), or 10^(-1,000,000), or a moogol to 1 (but not a moogolth "to 1").>

Frank Apisa wrote:

The process you've used to arrive at that probability estimate has been called defective by several posters -- and in any case, I have called your attention to the fact that you constantly misuse probability theory.

No, you have called my attention to the fact that YOU THINK "that I constantly misuse probability theory." I am not misusing the theory; you are. Tell you what. Explain here how you think I'm misusing it and I shall gladly respond here.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Several of us have tried to penetrate the concrete barrier you have erected -- and point out that if the UNIVERSE is infinite (with infinitely recurring Big Bangs or infinitely concurrent Big Bangs -- then even the (in our opinion, defective) probability estimate you have made -- is insignificant. In an infinite UNIVERSE a moogolth to 1 against is nothing. Peanuts!

Concrete or no, I have acknowledged this many times. And in fact, in my last post to you, I have acknowledged that an infinity of stuff is not required. Merely the existence of 10 to 20 moogol of life evolving planets would be enough to flush my theory down the toilet.

ican711nm wrote:

I agree!

However, an infinity of stuff is not necessary for there to be an "elephant in the room." Only 10 t0 20 moogol life evolving planets are necessary for there to be an "elephant in the room."

Frank Apisa wrote:

You simply will not acknowledge that fact -- although if your history is any indication, at some point you will simply abandon this argument just as you have abandoned a half-dozen equally stacked-deck theories in the past. And more than likely, you will abandon this one like you did the others, without ever having the decency and honor to acknowledge that the people pointing out your errors were correct.

Shame on you Frank! There you go again with your libel of me. Your recidivism so soon after your brilliant recovery, is disappointing.

Frank Apisa wrote:

you are going nowhere with this theory -- because it all depends on artificially and inappropriately whittling down the possibilities of what IS to the few that make it work. Your book-cooking devises are almost painfully obvious.

Shame on you again! This time for a egregiously false characterization of what I have done.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Best thing for you to do, Ican? Just give it up -- and go on to the next incarnation of "Ican shows that God probably exists!"

I think you are having a dificult time, but please hang in there. If you persist, I think you will eventually overcome your limitations.

0 Replies

Have it your way, Ican.

I'm not the only person who has lived through the fantasies -- and I think my characterizations of them are accurate enough for our discussion here.

MY OPINION: Although you are understandably loathe to acknowledge it, after all of your work, we are no closer to KNOWING if a God (or whatever you are calling it today) exists or not -- and we are no closer to a probability estimate of whether or not a God (or whatever you are calling it today) exists or not.

So what have we gotten from your efforts here, Ican.

We've gotten some very interesting and intellectually stimulating conversation -- and we've disposed of a theory purporting to show that the probability estimate I mentioned above has been obtained -- and that it virtually establishes that there exists this THING that sounds suspiciously like a God -- but which you now callwhatever you call it now.

Let's see where this heads this time.

I'm betting you abandon the theory without a thorough explanation of why you are abandoning it; that you will not acknowledge the contributions of others in the dismantling of the theory; and that you will proceed to a new -- and even more bizarre theory almost immediately.

I will, however, be ecstatic to be completely wrong about all three of those suppositions.

0 Replies

Ican,

A finite amount of stuff would seem to imply a possibility of "more stuff".
A finite amount of distance (space) would seem to imply at least a possibility of more space. In this case indeed a necessity.
A finite amount of time still is very likely to have had a time before and very likley IMO to have a moment or two after. (figure the odds of any given moment not having one preeceeding or one subsequent to. Smile

.
Seems to work that way in just about everything. Gods imply Satans,positive implies negative, finite implies infinity.
OOU can be defined as finite, defined by whatever fences we use to mark it off.
IF we define OOU as the limits of unaided human vision OOU consists of the Milky Way , Andromeda, and the Two Magellanic Clouds.
Is this all there is, of course not. And the list goes on and on and on, limited only by whatever tools we use to bring its "horizons" to our perceptions (and imaginations)
I submit that "the fence" is only our limits to perceive.
I see no reason for a "fence" to actually exist, I can perceive no fence,
nor can I imagine one. (I may have a paucity of imagination though)

I mentioned QM as Quantum Mechanics deals mostly with the stuff that is used to make other stuff. What sand is to a blockmason QM is to an theoretical physicist. It also leads to a question "Where did the stuff come from first

(another regression of infinities?)
It also often gives me a charge Very Happy

. You should like it. There are a lot of probabilities discussed there. Also a certain amount of directed chance.

No matter where in the Cosmos we go we keep running into a regression of infinities. (no fence outside our minds) Ergo, IMO no fence in reality whatever that is. Thas is unless we assume that my mind is all that actually exists. Personally I won't pay much for that theory either.

0 Replies

Hey Hokie, I am perfectly willing to admit that my perceptions may have little to do with reality; But crazy

Probably not!

"The ability to have all the answers often means you don't understand the question".

If you do not understand the point of an "Ultimate Question" there are several persons that would be glad of the opportunity to "educate you".
You may find some people with the same proclivities on the "Religion" threads.

In philosophy no idea is "crazy" until shown to be so.
You have not shown (presented any evidence) that I, Frank, JL,CI, Terry, or BoGoWo are not in command of our facilities.

Ergo, should you persist in your "ignorance" it probably will be shown that you are "stupid".
.

The cure for ignorance is difficult but it is 100% effective. That is another ambiguous statement BTW. You may be forced by "uncontrolled random interactions" to die ignorant. But if you die stupid it's another effect of random interactions, but controllable.

0 Replies

JL,
I think that you have it backwards. It's about expanding our brains to the size of the Cosmos.
Frankly it took me about twenty years to do it (accept the idea of an infinity) but I don't claim to be a rocket scientist.

Another problem in defining the Cosmos.

Big Bang, Expanding Universe, Sequential Universe and Abrahamic theories postulate some sort of void.
Would a such disordered state be possible? Probable?
String theories postulate a one to twenty two dimensioned thing which has or has had an effect on OOU. Possible? Probable?
When persons with more letters after their name than I have in mine can argue about the meanings of observations then then I am further encouraged to attempt REASON.
Facts are facts. IMO they do not carry us to any finite limitations with respect to the Cosmos.

0 Replies

Mech;

you were doing so well there (you had me with that silly grin of agreement plastered on my face), until we hit "directed chance"! What the _____, et tu Brutus? I take that as viral infection from ican, and suggest an immediate regimen of 'antipsychotics'! Chance CANNOT be 'directed' or it is NOT 'chance'! That is basic logic!

and i don't think usaf..; had any serious slanderous intent with his "all crazy" comment (just a rational observation, i'd say) he think he meant it coloquially, and we must admit that some of the arguments floating around come awfully close to 'not being' genius.

and thinking of ican (i'm always concerned for his welfare); im worried about you lad, seems at every turn nowadays your "beating the hellout of yourself"; might i suggest wearing 'body armour'. They call it self flagellation, and its addictive, careful.

0 Replies

wow Mech... a bit touchy? you really should lighten up. for the record, i wasn't *seriously* calling anyone crazy. and i find it extremely rude that you would suggest that i be ignorant and even stupid.

side comment: i've studied all sorts of theoretical math and whatnot over the past several years... but i cannot begin to understand how someone can compute a probability that god exists. after all, probabilities are based on observed, tangible occurences. to my knowledge, we have not a single instance of god on which to base any sort of probability. dr. watson would have had fun with that idea. ;o)

0 Replies

Wanted: quantum mechanic
ability to repair theories an asset;
experience impossible;
must be familiar with 'strange';
salary 100 quarks/wk.
should be able to make a quantum leap
at a moments notice
references.

0 Replies

truth
Shrinking the Cosmos to the size of one's brain, or expanding one's brain to the size of the Cosmos. They both seem equally quixotic Rolling Eyes

They are the same insofar as the goal is a congruence of Cosmos and Brain. Even mystics don't claim or aspire to that.

0 Replies

But no matter how you approach it,
you still end up with a swollen head! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

HAHAHAHAH MUAHHHAHAHAHAHAH lolololoOLOLOLOLO MUWAHHHH MUWAHHHH LOLOLOLOLOLO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHMUWAY MUWAY MUWAH MMMMMMMMMMBWASKDJFAFL;DAsl;asdfl;asl;sdkl;adfl;? So what's the subject of conversation? Laughing

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know