INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

If not, perhaps She knows of an another who is equally competent & omnipotent.

I sure could use the help.

Someone once defined insanity as repeatedly engaging in the same action with the expectation of a different result.

Seems to fit MrMiami quite nicely.

by absolutely May 23, 2005

An older definition of insanity is the inability to distinguish between reality and make-believe. You could slap that definition on anybody the first time they argue for a deist perspective as proven fact. Religion is always a matter of faith. Period.

:)

his failure to logically respond to the rebuttals that he initially received, choosing instead to merely repeat his original premise & supporting "evidence" in ever changing variations.

My point all along has been [b]not[/b] to attempt the impossible. i.e. to [b]prove[/b] that no dieties exist, but rather to [b]disprove[/b] the validity of the construction of his argument, via the inherent weakness in the premise, thereby rendering his conclusion unsupported by facts.

Hal was on the right track, but pulled up short.

And Neil, if you change the "or" in one of your statements to an "and," that will provide an additional clue.

As for Absolutely, who asked the question, we're still waiting for his insight(s).

There's certainly more than enough cognitive powers here assembled to puzzle this out. Who knows, maybe MrMiami would seize on the Truth of the Matter in an instance, if only we might get his attention!

by jmgarvin May 23, 2005

Or if you prefer URI of your page?

by absolutely May 23, 2005

But I do see what you've been doing.

He repeats the same process, you only need to repeat the word "recursive" with very little alteration to your rebuttal template. It's very hysterical :)

The difficulty with a circular argument is that its proponents' worldview tends to be airtight, so to speak. Come to think of it though, maybe "difficulty" is not the right word. Would it be more accurate to say: "The entertainment value in refuting a circular argument is that its proponent is blind to the inherent flaw, thus providing unlimited tail-chasing amusement."?

Also, do you know that you are misspelling deities? It's very ironic considering a short exchange I had over on d/c/v about Oprah Winfrey being accepted by the mainstream as God.

The Eternal Supreme Dieter!

by absolutely May 23, 2005

:)

by jmgarvin May 26, 2005

NT

by absolutely May 27, 2005

his URL's are all over the place.

What does NT mean? Other than "not trustworthy" of course, as in Microsoft!

by hal 9000 May 23, 2005

Naturally well sought of anyway as she just does what is required and has been known to lock me in my dungeon when I'm in the bad books or she is going out for something. :D

She is also constantly able to complain when I'm late back after what should have been a simple job has turned to S##T and taken hours. Like yesterday I took back a LT and all I had to do was setup the network connection, import the email & address book and a dial up connection. Well 6.5 hours latter when I finally got back I got where have you been!? As if she didn't know where I was and didn't have my phone number. ;)

But I'm keeping her so hands off I've gone to all the trouble of breaking her in and I don't want to start anew. :D

Col ]:)

by absolutely May 24, 2005

Infernal "thought" puzzles, always require some goofy assumption that's contrary to all productive approaches to real life!

My best guess was based on your avatar, the Navy thingy. I couldn't tell if it meant that now that you're on land (or sandy beach, whatever) you miss the deep, or if you were always a lubber and glad to be out of the water. I really don't know.

by deepsand May 24, 2005

Still, one hates to throw away such a substantial investment by taking a flyer on a newcomer.

Better the ***** you know, than the one you don't.

by deepsand May 24, 2005

both when typing & verbally reciting character strings.

Where possible, & when practical, I've gotten in the habit of using a spelling checker. Here, I just give it a quick visual scan, which, as you've observed is less than perfect.

Only found Magnetic Current. Is that the one you meant, or does he have another?

Wait a minute, magnetic current? Are there any magnetic monopole suppositions in there? I've had it with hippie "science", please elaborate on the approach of this book.

Thanks.

by deepsand May 25, 2005

Consider the various synonyms.

synonyms of what ds? "deep" & "sand"? I hope you're enjoying this, because I'm getting board.

Consider that an electron's mass is less than 1/1800 the mass of a proton. They have equal but opposite charge. They have other quantum numbers that will either be the same or not, but the important fact is that they have a finite number of these quantum variables. Now, would you agree that storing all those quantum states that descrive the proton, using fewer than 1800 electrons, demolishes the claim that "the universe is built on far more information than its capacity to store it"?

http://www.ageia.com/

According to Maximum PC May 2005 page 14, the physics processor, available on a PCI card, can perform calculations for 50,000 bones simultaneously. I did not find this claim on the manufacturers' site, but the Maximum PC people rarely lie. If anything, they take video games far too seriously.

by fluxit May 29, 2005

In short, dude this Universe cannot be self descriptive. The information to form this place cannot come from within this place. There has to be something more.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=51122

If you had made any points thus far, they would be deducted for inappropriate use of the word "dude".

Now, I've tried Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and found it not to support your claims. Numbers require definition by humans, particles do not. The requirement of human definition of rules and axioms is the fundamental axiom in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and by definition that axiom does not apply to the physical universe, each particle of which was very much in existence before humanity evolved, and obeying the same laws of physics the entire time.

You are still engaged in circular reasoning.

And, you continue to dodge the tough issues, such as the logical flaw in your premise.

If you can't step up to the plate and address such, [b]nothing[/b] that you might say is of any consequence.

by jmgarvin May 30, 2005

1) What is your URL so we can all read the refutations on your web page?
2) Please explain how holographic images and TDM and FDM are somehow related to the life the universe and everything.
3) Please explain how the universe/information fits with Godel's theorem, which in essence says: there is always a statement about natural numbers which is true, but which cannot be proven in the system. What does that mean...something everyone who has taken freshman calculus knows; math is a little fuzzy around the edges.
4) Are you saying that because of Godel we can never know if P = NP or if the secret to life, the universe, and everything is 42? Or are you saying we know this but only through tangental relationships that are true? Or are you saying that because of various portions of proof that are true in any given case that the whole proof is true (or false)?

by jck May 31, 2005

how about a comparative:

Say Mr. Universe is the only universe to survive the big bang, before all the other universes form in the nothingness of being.

If Mr. Universe is existing and alone with no one around to describe or delineate his being...then, he can be no more? His ceases to exist when not defined by something else?

If that's Godel's Theorem, then Godel needs to get off the bottle.

BTW, you're applying Godel's Theorem to a quantified entity (this chat, I assume). Godel's Theorem is applicable to sets (particularly natural numbers) which are considered infinite with the probability that within that set there will be some distinction which breaks the axiomatic constant of it's being.

Plus, you apply the theorem to "this Universe" as a singularity. When in fact "this Universe" is innately a multiverse within itself and could be (under your own rules of cross-comparison) self-defined relatively as a whole by its own components.

Therefore Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does not apply to the physical universe, only to fields of mathematics, or other fields of human inquiry sufficiently similar in nature.

Can you prove that the concept of information itself is anything other than a result of intelligence? Does information mean anything to a sheep? An amoeba? A muon?

Chromosomes contain all the information necessary to build the entire human body. Need I say more?

Neil, I'm sure you've been giggling all along while the rest of us didn't notice this.

:p

by jmgarvin May 31, 2005

DNA is folk lore! Only those that worship the evil science claim it is real! The reality is in hamburgers...you can't see DNA can you, but you can see a hamburger...so there...

ID maintains that DNA is "too ordered, or complex" to have arisen from a disordered system without the intervention of a "more complex" system which they call the Creator.

by Member 25348569 May 31, 2005

Timezones! I wake up this morning and you've all been posting up a storm. How WILL I get any work done this morning?

LOL

by Member 25348569 Jun 1, 2005

chromosomes also contain sufficient information to build the human mind. from the atheist point of view, the DNA in human chromosomes, therefore, contains enough DNA to build God.

There's lots more information storage space that's unused, as well. For example, despite it being a simple molecule, humans cannot synthesize ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and we suffer scurvy as a consequence. At one stage, ancestors of humans must have had this function as most other modern animals except primates can synthesise vitamin C. During the Genome Project, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans existing as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning. In follow-on studies, the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates (exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory) - chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes.

Yeah, I know. Wrong thread but I can't be bothered to scroll down to the bottom of EL.

Neil

by fluxit Jun 1, 2005

Information that acts on the DNA strand such as timing, duration, and sequencing data for when genes are to fire or have the chromosomes attach? That is not held in the strand! Where does that come from and who or what decides how that is applied to make a man, woman, or whatever?

Eating...do loops?

I think I've pretty well demolished MrMiami's claim of the necessity for God based on excess information, so we may as well turn this into another mouse-joke thread...DA.M! I should have bet you that if I could do so, you'd explain the mystery of your name! Oh well, will you tell?

by deepsand May 26, 2005

You're a clever enough lad; why not give it some thought?

You see, observing others reactions here provides me with a measure of my success in choosing a suitable alias.

by deepsand May 26, 2005

...

by absolutely May 26, 2005

oops, lost interest.

by absolutely May 26, 2005

I am clever enough to know that I'm no lad any more.

by deepsand May 27, 2005

See 2nd meaning.

Main Entry: lad
Pronunciation: 'lad
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ladde
1 : a male person of any age between early boyhood and maturity : BOY, YOUTH
[b]2 : FELLOW, CHAP [/b]

by deepsand May 27, 2005

Without our whipping boy, it's getting rather quiet here.

by jmgarvin May 27, 2005

NT

by hal 9000 May 30, 2005

You used that unusable word EV######N shame on you for that slip up. Now go wash your mouth out with soapy water {the industrial strength stuff not the weak domestic stuff} and you're not allowed near a computer for 5 days. :)

Col ]:)

I did not use EV######N, I used the past tense verb EVOL#ED, so why don't YOU go wash your EYES out with soapy water if you can't tell the difference!

No, until Tech Republic becomes Trek Republic, I'll interrupt this nanobot babble and other science fiction with the occasional science fact whenever it suits me. And this time, MrMiami has gone TOO FAR. I hope he bursts an artery when he checks all those refutations at Everything2!

So, let's hope that he survives.

This is getting ridiculous.

Strike that, it was ridiculous from the outset, but it's getting boring.

MrMiami: you may believe what you like. I do NOT want to see your BRIEFS.

ippirate & MrsMiami (no, that's [b]not[/b] a typo) were quite entertaining.

Now that the 2 of them have become like the Cheshire Cat, it's hard to maintain momentum.

Perhaps, he's incapable of such.

Since he's claimed to be an aeronautical engineer, we might be wise to inquire as to the identity of his employer, so as to avoid flying on craft bearing the mark of his hand.

by hal 9000 May 30, 2005

Concorde don't we. They only had one fatal accident over their life time and even that wasn't caused by the aircraft but another one that was in the process of falling apart on takeoff. :D

Col ]:)

Fortunately for me, my preferences, with regard to mode of transportation, in order, are:

1) Motorcycle
2) Automobile
3) Train
4) Boat or ship
5) Aircraft

So, I guess the odds are in my favor.

who is this Hawkins (Dawkins maybe?)? I need to argue with ippirate and don't know what name to Google...

by hal 9000 May 31, 2005

The only person I know off as Hawkins is Steven Hal kings the Astro Physicist who suffered a bout of something that confided him to a wheel chair in his late teens or early 20's.

He is considered as an "Expert" on the issues that he addresses.

Is that any help?

Col ]:)

by Member 25348569 May 31, 2005

Stephen Hawking is on http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html but I'd be certain that you already knew about him.

Richard Dawkins is author of the "The Blind Watchmaker", which is the book that really causes ippirate and MrMiami to froth at the mouth. He's currently "Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University.

It's worth mentioning that "Professor" in the UK implies the highest rank of teacher in any department and is, I believe, not quite the way that the title applies in the US. Oxford is, well, Oxford so Dawkins credentials are pretty good.

I like reading Dawkins and it's only thanks to the EL thread that I discovered him.

Neil

something that I hadn't realised until checking Dawkins references for you was that the Professorial Chair was endowed by a couple of guys who made their money by being in on the early days of Microsoft. I will use my Windows with more pride from now on.

:D

Thanks for the imagery of those two frothing at the mouth, that was pleasant...

by fluxit May 31, 2005

"3) Please explain how the universe/information fits with Godel's theorem, which in essence says: there is always a statement about natural numbers which is true, but which cannot be proven in the system. What does that mean...something everyone who has taken freshman calculus knows; math is a little fuzzy around the edges."

Godel's theorem states that a system cannot be self descriptive. However, by going outside that system one can describe the system. But as an outcome we get cascading systems that get larger and larger in attempts to explain the smaller system. We see this in describing our universe today when we have gone from a single universal model to the Brane-world model of many universes. The model got more complicated and the basic questions have not been answered in science or math. ie Where did it all come from? What is its origin?

The questions that need to be asked are:
1. What is the shortest message that can describe a system to a certain level of detail? (software compressibility)
2. How can one know if a particular algorithm is actually the shortest possible? (Godel's Theorem)
3. Can the Universe be its own simulation?

Other questions will be answered when I complete my paper.

According to "Godel's theorem states that a system cannot be self descriptive. However, by going outside that system one can describe the system," it follows that in describing the entire universe, MrMiami is outside of it.

:p

by fluxit May 31, 2005

My view point is an intelligent design viewpoint which is outside the Universe looking in.

The Blind Watchmaker is myopic and his viewpoint is from within looking outward.

He's a Deity!

Spare the resources for those who know how to put them to good use.

by jmgarvin May 31, 2005

Wow, you are REALLY stretching Godel's (Incompleteness) Theorem.

1) I'm not sure what you are asking here and why it is relevant to Godel's theorem. You have brought up a NP Complete problem though. However, if you are asking how far we can compress before we lose detail you might want to read up on lossy and lossless compression techniques.
2) Once again NP Complete (see Traveling Salesman)
3) The Matrix was awful and pseudo-technobabble.

MrMiami's writing skills are on a par with those of his reasoning.

Still, I've no idea who or what the h*ll God El is. Perhaps it's one worshipped in a heretofore secret religion.

But Godel's Incompleteness Theorem does not state "that a system cannot be self descriptive." It states that a branch of *mathematics* will always rely on some other branch or on everyday language for one or more of its definitions. If Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is to be the basis of your claim about an Intelligent Designer, you will need to prove somehow that the known universe is governed by all the same limitations as mathematics.

He's still trying to learn the rules of logic, and having a very, very bad time of it.

by fluxit May 31, 2005

is a set of processes described by algorythms founded in mathematics. It is not uniquely a singularity instead it is indeed a set.

If you follow intelligent design it describes atleast three universes. Science is only concerned with one.

You are a fraud.

You babble on about things that you do not understand.

You ignore rebuttals.

You refuse to submit to critical review.

You refuse to use logic in a consistent manner.

You are a master of the "baffle them with bullsh*t" shuffle.

You are a fraud.

still isn't pleasant. Call it Intelligent Design, dialectical materialism, or original sin. It's still just the oldest, smelliest BS.

or wtf-ever.

If the universe is not just a set, but numerous sets, and if any of them overlap, meaning any one member is contained in more than one set, your claim collapses. Except that it never stood. See above.

by jck Jun 1, 2005

Since the 1980s, scientists have stepped up their investigation that atomic-level matter exists in various phases, since they've never been able to pinpoint the position of anything atomic.

Part of this investigation is that matter holds state in various material parallel universes, i.e.- legitimate scientists are pursuing the hypothesis that matter not only exists in your reality, but in an infinite number of others, based on the fact that they can not define the position of even the neutrally charged particle of the atom.

So in the basic terms, you are wrong. Science is concerned with more than one universe, and they hypothesize them as endless.

QED

I think the precision that can be achieved is quite impressive, considering our magnitude compared to the atomic. I don't see how Heisenberg's uncertainty (principle?) necessitates any major revision of anything.

Even if he knows that, he's not going to admit such.

:D

I forgot that I still had my ear plugs in.

What it really means is that he CLAIMS to be God, which means...BLASPHEMER!

Remember that his premise is infinitely recursive, such that its logical conclusion is that there are an [i]infinite[/i] number of Creators, or Gods.

Need I say more?

How does pseudo-science *support* the claim that DNA is "too ordered, or complex" to have arisen from a disordered system without the intervention of a Creator?

Badly, I'm sure!

by Member 25348569 Jun 1, 2005

It's too [insert reason] so it *must* have been mediated by an external intelligence.

Select from complicated, complex, ordered, consistent, inconsistent, neat, fragile, elegant...

The ID "scientists" compare DNA sequences to human language. (btw We had a splendid example of that particular ploy over in the EL thread, though the author chose not to explain but merely to be enigmatic and superior).

What they argue is that - in language - if meaningful sentences are isolated from each other then it is usually impossible to convert one sentence to another via a series of random letter changes, where each intermediate sentence has meaning. They then go on to apply the same argument to gene and protein sequences, concluding that they, like meaningful sentences, must have been produced by intelligent agents.

Any closer look, however, shows that the analogy between language and biological sequence is poor for many reasons.

One example: Proteins can lose 80% or more of their sequence similarity and retain the same structure and function (I can furnish examples if required). If we look at any English phrase where four out of five characters have been replaced with a randomly generated text string then it would be indecipherable.

Another goody is "There is no mechanism or example of the generation of new information". Oh yes there is.

And we have "Enzyme structures are so specific that they and the DNA coding for them could not have happened by chance". They're not. Sometimes the active part of an enzyme is no more than half a dozen amino acids - eighteen bases. The rest of the molecule can vary hugely.

I could go on, but I won't. They have absolutely no evidence to "support" their claim other to deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life?s history and diversity, then assert that an "intelligent designer" provides a better explanation. I've never seen a positive account of "intelligent design" since I started looking into this, by the way. ID doesn?t stand a scientific chance without some kind of model of what happened, how, and why. Only a reasonably detailed model could provide explanatory hypotheses that can be empirically tested.

To sum up their stance: An unknown intelligent designer did something, somewhere, somehow, for no apparent reason.

Neil

Their own stubborn atavistic ignorance surely could not have survived 1,000,000 years of competition for resources?

Never let a mere fact get in the way of your most strongly held prejudice.

by deepsand Jun 1, 2005

The Christian Fundamentalists are[i]desperate[/i] for the slightest scrap of hope at finding a "proof" of their beliefs.

And, such extends well beyond the battle over Creationism vs Evolution.

Were they so able, they would be masters of historical revisionism without peer.

by hal 9000 Jun 1, 2005

I would take the Motorcycle and if it is rally bad rainy cold weather the car towing the motorcycle for when things clear up. :D

Now if only that horrible Ducati was quieter and didn't attract speeding tickets like Successful performers attract groupies every thing would be perfect. ;)

But if it was it wouldn't be a Ducati with Conti's would it? Oh the noise is music to my ears. :p

Col ]:)

Work is for suckers.

by hal 9000 Jun 1, 2005

You have both used that totally unacceptable 4 letter word again W##K. ;)

If you do not cease and desist immediately I'll have to make a formal complaint to the Powers that be at TR. :)

The continued use of this worst of all words in the English Language has to be stopped immediately! :D

Now the pair of you both go wash your mouths out with industrial strength soapy water now and if you keep it up no computer usage for 5 days. :p

No better still I'll restrict you both to a 286 with 1 meg of RAM and no installed TCP/IP protocols and a new external modem with no DOS drivers so you'll have to build the drivers and then install them your selves before you can join back in here. :)

Col ]:)

I am doing my penance for non-objective behavior in my past. Can you imagine any other reason for condescending to communicate with the likes of MrMi(where)ami?

by hal 9000 Jun 1, 2005

I would ask if it is so important and is proof of some form of ID why is there so much junk DNA still involved in the Human Genome?

Surely that points more to a change to meet needs and food supplies than something added for no apparent purpose, or maybe it is there to be activated by the Creator as he/she/it thinks we need and require it.

But even if that was correct wouldn't it point to some form of Evolution rather than any form of ID?

Col ]:)

by Member 25348569 Jun 1, 2005

The ID crowd are catching on to the role of Junk DNA in shafting their theory sideways and have culled a few bits of research where functionality has been found in Junk.

Background - two percent of human DNA is used in making proteins. A full 45% of our genome is composed of sections of DNA called transposons and these appear to serve no known function for the individual - except to cause a significant fraction of genetic illnesses and cancers. All specific individual transposons tested up to a couple of years ago have been shown to be nonfunctional. Function [b]has[/b] recently been found for some of the elements of the largest transposon, LINE1, and the ID crowd have been on to it like terriers onto a rat! But, even if these genetic elements in fact provide a biological function as a whole, they would remain some of the most inefficient genes known in all of biology due to their excessive number and their known propensity to cause illnesses. Intelligent "designer"? I don?t think so!

My favourite example of junk DNA is the paramecium, a single celled organism found in ponds. Two species, Paramecium aurelia and Paramecium caudatum, are virtually indistinguishable from each other when examined. However, the genome of the second has [b]45 times[/b] the amount found in the first species. Note also that Paramecium caudatum, a single-celled organism, has about three times the DNA as a human!

There are lots of mechanisms proposed for the increase in genetic material and not just "God done it".

Neil :D

How many pages of who begat whom in the Bible? Minds of that caliber cannot be dissuaded by fact, as has been called to my attention recently.

Not possible, methinks.

In the worst sci-fi, the evil machine is defeated by "overloading", as if data were equivalent to high voltage. Just want to see if he's a robot.