Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by trollface

  1. Re: Geometry and G-d... http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/
  2. Re: Geometry and G-d... As I said above, I thought that you might have something of use to contribute. As it is, I'm in far too much pain and have far too much that actually is constructive to do to bother with this nonsense. If your intention was to stop me reading your posts, then well done - mission accomplished.
  3. The US invasion of Iraq began on the 20th March 2003, and the war was decleared over by Bush on the 1st May in the same year.
  4. Re: Geometry and G-d... Your criticism was pedantic. Because I don't beleive I was wrong. I've conceeded that the steamer need not necessarily do the same work - now you have to conceed that it might. Oh, well, if this is your "me" impression, I think I'll have to imitate you. I'll be nasty, patronizing and ignore anything and everything that is getting a little tricky. I thought you wanted me to start taking pot-shots? Isn't this "fun" for you? I mean, look, it only took a few posts, and we've all but abandoned the subject at hand in favour of sniping at each other. Isn't this what you wanted? Or is it the case that you get just as annoyed as I do when personal insults start coming in to the mix, so you get nastier, so I get nastier, so you get nastier...and the conversation becomes entirely pointless? Conter-productive, even. But, hey, you're too much od a fun guy with too much of a sense of humour to have a reasonable and rational discussion, you've told me so yourself. So let's keep on with the petty name-calling and we can start another thread for if we want to discuss God, mmmmmmmKay? I'm English. Pounds, not dollars. A "fiver" is a five poud note. No multiplier, the term is not slang for anything to do with fives, but for a five pound note. I offered a fiver as a suggestion - personally I'd rather have it a gentleman's bet. But if you want to make a counter-offer, then (as I believe I have said), stop tarting about and make one. What is the point of all this finny-fannying about you're doing?
  5. Re: Geometry and G-d... No, my original statement was that a paddle steamer with 2 paddles would be more efficient than one with just the one. Actually, as it's my example, it can be whatever I say it is. But, fine, say it does a different amount of work, if it makes you happy. And this is a nice way to finegle your way out of answering any of the more pertinent questions about yourself, is it? You do have a habit of that, second only to Chronohistorian. What do you think I'm getting confused. I am not going to accept a bet where you can make the parameters anything you want. If you want to make a counter-offer to mine, then do so and stop tarting about. If not, say you don't accept the bet and be done with it. My patience has grown incredibly thin after your peacock display earlier.
  6. Re: Geometry and G-d... Incessantly quoting a catch-phrase from a 7 year old TV programme is "good humour" round your neck of the woods, is it? Wow, the Saturday nights must be just a-jumpin'. The paddles displce water. Stop the steamer moving and the paddles still displace water. Sorry, how does that make you the only person who can interpret God's definition of "creation" again? I must have missed that bit of your working. So you are disavowing all the dodgy physics you've expressed unto this point? I think you need to do some reading up on logic. So...are you saying that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to everything, or to nothing? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you're not interested, expend your energy elsewhere. Right, because equality and negotiation are such unfair concepts, aren't they? Give me a break. Don't be soft, I'm not about to blindly accpet a bet where the terms could be anything. Exactly how stupid do you think I am? I'm saying that any bet should be amenable to both parties. Why are you trying to wiggle out of it?
  7. Re: Gentlemen's Bets, and how they go... So, you don't want a gentleman's wager, then? I'm not making up what a "gentleman's wager" is, it's an old term. Maybe you've not heard of it. As it goes, round this neck of the woods, neither side gets control over anything, both sides negotiate for what they feel is fair and adequate. That's the only fair way where neither party can complain afterwards. I've made my offer, and Roel's made his. What's your counter-offer?
  8. Re: Geometry and G-d... So you really are that arrogant and condecending in real life? Okay, I'll repsond to the less objectionable parts of your post, those I can make sense of. FWIW, the reason Mr. M'kay says this is to show that he's an obnoxious pratt. Using it in conversation doesn't make you look clever. Okay, there is no mathematical definition of "work", and I made no reference to "heat" whatsoever. The definition of "work" in physics, however, is a force acting on an object which causes displacement. Why do you presume to tell me that only you can define the word? Or that you have been told personally by God how He defines the word? And by defining your criteria so broadly, and being reliant on your logical fallacies that you are so proud of, you make your arguments both impossible to discuss, as well as entirely useless for the purposes of proving anything to anybody. The second Law of Thermodynamics, and the definition of enropy that accompanies it applies to any system or susbsytem where no matter or heat can get in or out. Other forms of energy can be gained or lost. You're right, however, that the true definition of entropy doesn't work beyond that, which is particlaly why your use of it in throughout this thread (and your application of the Second Law) has been wrong. You're also right saying that outside of the precise definition of "entropy" there are the "entropy analogues", which are all different from each other. In fact, this is what I said to you several posts ago. So, other than to disprove a lot of the bad science you've been spouting in this thread, I'm not really sure what your point here is. That's not exactly what I said, no. I said that the peices of music my computer created would have been created by my computer. So, long story short, there is no such thing as a closed-loop system? I never claimed the Bible thing was what you were saying, I showed it as an illustration of exactly the same reasoning. But I can certainly tell that you've never done any study of logic at all, as you'd have recognised the example as what I introduced it as - an old classic. And, again, from this point on I simply don't have the energy to wade through your torrent of bad attitude. I really don't care what the rest of your post says, as you make it so unpleasent to read that it's simply not worth the effort. So well done on the effective communication there.
  9. Re: Gentlemen's Bets, and how they go... If it's a gentleman's wager, then it's a matter of honour, and nothing as vulgar as money is entered into it. Do you want a gentleman's wager?
  10. Re: Bush death will be the beginning of the civil Oh, trust me, I'm not making any excuses for Tony Blair. I mean, if I was to be making any nationalistic and/or xenophobic comments, they'd be along the lines of pointing out that the majority of the UK actually opposed the invasion and our government acted against its people's wishes. But I won't. Not from religious intolerance. He may have worn the clothing of vareious religions to gain support from time to tame, but the reason bin Laden wanted him dead was for the secular nature of his rule. Christian Iraqis were free to wander around wearing what they wanted. Now the more extreme Moslem factions are taking over, Christian women are covering theiur faces, just to avoid being beaten in the street. In fact, if you're talking about graves full of Kurds (which I have to assume you are), then you should know that the majority of Kurds are Moslems - Sunni to be precise. Saddam was nominally a Sunni. And yet there was 20% unemployment, mainly in those industries, under Saddam's rule. Now he's gone, the US has fired and replaced most of the workers, Iraq has 80% unemployment, and the industry's opoerating in the same way, except the profits go to the US and a few hand-picked friendly countrys? The sole reason for this is that Iraq lacks skilled workers, you say? Besides, that's technicians, what about the managers, and the people who decide what happens to the oil industry? Is it a coincidence that they're American and give favourable deals to Americans? Are you saying that the invasion had no effect on this? Well, the area in general, but you could say Iraq too. Indeed, but they've got lots and lots of new recruits now. Actually, I was talking to a friend of mine who is in charge of a platoon over there. He says that there are 4 basic types of "insurgent", and that most of them do make sure that they only target US/Iraqi troops/police. I agree, but what do two wrongs not make? Not me, that's just for you 'merkins. Knowing our lot, we'll probably just be rounded up and clubbed to death from the back of a horse.
  11. Re: Geometry and G-d... I don't drink, thanks. Seems like you've had a few, though. Care to re-post what you have, but in a less triumphantly patronising tone? I couldn't force myself to get to the end with two tries. But what I have read seems to be pretty muddled. Try again, with a clearer head. Okay, can I ask for absolute clarification, here, then. You are directly responding to my assertation that the construction of the pyramids is not proof that the Ancient Egyptians knew how to do third differential equations, because third differential equations would in no way be necessary to construct the pyramids. So, are you saying here that the pyramids in fact are proof that the Egyptians knew how to do a third differential? And, if so, can you explain your reasoning. And, no, "just look at them" doesn't count, I want a real clear line of thinking that would demonstrate a third differential equation was known. I did not say that they weren't. Can you quote what I've said that made you think otherwise? That's definately a new one on me. Can you provide a cite for this, please? Well, this is interesting. I've got you arguing that everything is a closed-loop system, and I've got Rainman arguing that nothing can be considered a closed-loop system. Maybe someone should offer up a definition and we should stick with that. I've been using this one: "Refers to a feedback control system involving one or more feedback control loops, which combine functions of controlled signals and of commands, in order to keep relationships between the two stable." I did address this, and have posted my refutation above. Most of which has yet to be addressed by anybody. Start with the mathematical paper. Yet, instead, it is pushing water backwards. They don't. CAT's point was dependent on her dates being right. The purpose of the papyri were, and still are, utterlyt incosequential. My claim is that what evidence there is does not indicate that the Semites were the inventors of everything mathematical, nor were they the originators of the written word. To clarify your claim, was that mathematics was not originated by the Jewish peoples. I think that this was your original point that got lost in the hub-bub.
  12. Re: Bush death will be the beginning of the civil It cannot be pretended that the US went into Iraq for any kind of altruistic reason. There have been some good effects from the invasion, sure, but we cannot pretend that that was the reason that the country was invaded. And retro-active justification is never a good excuse. You also cannot pretend that there haven't been adverse effects of the invasion: a massive increase in religious intolerance, the farming out of Iraq's industries to forigen contractors (and the accompanying 80% unemployment that there now is), the doubling of child malnutrition, the state of power and medicare (which are reportedly now at the levels they were in pre-war times, but it's been a long time coming and has cost many lives), the decreased stability in the region, the haven for terrorists/terrorism it has become, the added impetus it has given towards an increase in militant radical Islamism...the list goes on. So, you cannot simply say "Saddam was a bad man, he is no longer in charge, ergo we have done a good thing", the issue is much broader. Similarly, you cannot say "because it is beleived that there will be a reasonably free election in a localised area with a small proportion of the country participating next year" that democracy has been achieved, or is a certainty for the future. You know that Saddam's lawyer has pointed out that there's nothing in the law to prevent him for running for office, and that a poll said that 45% of Iraqis would vote for him? Now, personally I don't hold much stock by that, by that's a possible side-effect of democracy, and where exactly would that leave us with regards to our retroactive justifications of getting Saddam out of power? Now, even though the oil industry was privatised (which is illegal, BTW, but then so many things of the handling of this war have been illegal that pillaging is hardly surprising), I don't really beleive that the invasion was to do with securing the oil. I also don't think that it was "revenge" for Bush's father although I do think that both these things, like the advantages that the Iraqi people have gained, were considered a happy side-effect. No, I think that the idea was to have a stable base in the Middle East, in a strategically good geographical position from where the US could exert pressure on Syria, Iran, even Saudi Arabia. It hasn't worked out like that because the administration had absolutely no post-invasion plan, and simply assumed that taking and holding Iraq would be easy, and that they would be welcomed with open arms by one and all. So, to sum up, you cannot say "but the people are better off" because: A: In some areas they are much worse off, and the long-term effects may be much worse. B: That was not the reason for going in, but may have been an incidental side-effect. You might be able to make a good case for the logical sense of having a military power-base (and a friendly government) where Iraq is, both for US security and the security of the globe. However, the absense of a post-war strategy, let alone a good one, has meant that the situation now cannot be described in terms much more accurate than "cock-up". I think you'd still have trouble justifying it legally, too.
  13. Re: Geometry and G-d... Well, this isn't quite what you're claiming for the snowflake, though. We'll take my example of a sound being generated. The end product I'm discussing here is the sound (incidentally, you'll note that I didn't say anything about turning the alarm off). So the sound is equivalent to the snowflake, in that it's the end product we're interested in. Then you have the process by which the end product is generated - in the case of the snowflake it's the formation of the crystal around the dust mote and in the case of the alarm clock it's the hour hand being in the same place as the "alarm hand", tripping a switch, making electrical contact and causing the speaker to make the noise. Then there's what sets this process into motion - in the case of the snowflake, this is the dust being in the atmosphere in the right conditions - temperature, moisture and so on. In the case of the alarm clock it is me. And this is where my example has stopped. You are claiming in the quote above that I, in setting the alarm clock, am equivalent to God in the snowflake example, which I am not. I am the equivalent of the atmosphereic conditions. So, if you state that I am creating the sound by setting the alarm, then you are agreeing with me that creating a snowflake is not an intelligent act, and that creation in and of itself need not be an intelligent act. Now, you are going one step further, and are saying that there is intelligence behind the creation of the processes - that the mechanism by which the snowflake is produced is the product of intelligent design, and that the process by which the sound of my alarm clock is produced is the product of intelligent design. But this is indirect creation, not the direct creation of my examples to date. If I apply your proof of the existence of a creator with regards to the snowflake to my example of an alarm clock, then you are saying that the sound of my alarm going off in the morning is created by a designer working for Tudor and a factory somewhere in England. Which means, as I didn't mention turning the alarm off (and was not picturing it, I was thinking of it in isolation), that I did not describe a closed-loop system. the alarm-clock in and of itself is not a closed-loop system, as it does not give itself feedback which controls the input. Add a human in to the mix, and maybe you have a case for the alarm clock and the human being a closed-loop system, but I wasn't talking about that. If I set my alarm, and then stay out the night, it'll still be going off in the evening when I come back. Or, if I never come back it'll continue beeping until the battery dies. No, there is forward force. The motion has been stopped. That would depend on the resistence of the water. Again, think of the small model, rather than the full-scale version. I actually only used a paddle steamer because of the simple physics and the ease of picturing it. I was specifically thinking of the "swimming" events in Technogames (the "robot Olympics), although I suspect you don't have that transmitted in the US. Technogames: http://www.technogames.net/ I did not claim that. I claimed that just because you found them doesn't mean that they were put there intentionally. I left it out because it was not relevent to the point I was making, not because I was trying to decieve you in any kind of way. For the record, one last time: I have not claimed that the two papyri represent all the knowledge that was needed to create the pyramids. I have not claimed that the two papyri contain all the mathematical knowledge that the Egyptians had. I have claimed that the pyramids are not proof of any mathematical knowledge that was not needed to create the pyramids. I have claimed that the two papyri are not proof of any mathematical knowledge that are not contained in them. In other words, yes it is possible that the Egyptians knew how to do a third differential. However, as this knowledge would not be necessary to build the pyramids, the existence of the pyramids are not proof that the Egyptians had this knowledge. Furthermore, as this knowledge is not contained in the two papyri, they are not proof that the Egyptians had this knowledge. I'm arguing within very narrow parameters here, and it's getting increasingly annoying to have people trying to flasify claims that I have not made, especially when it's done in an accusitory tone. I have very clearly stated what I am saying numerous times, and hopefully, one of these days, it'll actually stick. Regardless of what opinions may be of me, I actually prefer to lose this kind of argument. You may believe I derive pleasure from "proving people wrong", but the real joy of debate is that moment when what the other person is saying clicks for you, and a whole new vista opens up for you. BTW, if you have any additional lnks to share about the papyri and the pyramids, I'd be very interested in reading them.
  14. Actually, funnily enough, I really enjoy nightmares. Correct.
  15. Re: Geometry and G-d... I'm a prudent man, but if you can get a paper published in a scientific journal which proves mathematically that God exists, then I'll happily give you a fiver. Read my replies to OvrLrd. I am not claiming that that is your argument. I am claiming that that argument follows the exact same logic , that is the "circular logic" that you were so proud of. It was a different example of the same fallacy, to better illustrate the flaw in your reasoning. You, like OvrLrd, don't find it so convincing when it's applied to a different argument. Hmmm, so circular reasoning is only valid when it supports your point? You put the assumption of the conclusion in your premise, and so you cannot claim that that premise supports your conclusion. While the premises of your argument and the arguement I presented are different (althouh the conclusion is the same, that is neither here nor there), the point remains that they both rely on exactly the same flaw in logical thinking. In other words, if you truely believe that defining intelligence as something that encompases everything is proof of the intelligence of everything and the veracity of this statement: "It is [my] inability to expand (evolve) beyond linear logic, and understand not only what circular logic means, but how much more powerful it is in its self-reference.", then you must accept the argument I presented. Reasoning is either valid or it isn't. You cannot claim it is valid when it supports what you wish it to support, and then say it is nonsense when it supports something else.
  16. Re: Geometry and G-d... Are you serious? You've never heard of ships being grounded? Okay, imagine it's a model steamer, measuring 2 inches. I could hold it in place with my hand, while the paddles turned. The paddles would lose no efficiency because they would still be moving water backwards - still doing the same amount of work, however that work would not be being translated into forwards motion of the steamer because my hand would be preventing it. Creating the snowflake is the act of creation. This is an autonomous system, ergo the act of creation is not proof of intelligence. If I programme my computer to randomly assign notes to 15 bars, and then save that off as a song, then leave it doing that while I go out, I cannot claim to have composed those songs. I did not create them, my computer did. If I set my alarm-clock to go off at 5 in the morning, when it sounds, I am not creating the sound, my alarm clock is. Creation is not necessarily an act of intelligence. It was an example of the same type of logical fallacy, not what I was directly claiming Rainman was saying. I outlined his reasoning quite clearly. However, as you object to this line of reasoning, I hope you will agree that begging the question is not a useful line of reasoning. It doesn't matter if it's called "circular logic" or not, it's still a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument, as you can see from the example that you objected to. I don't understand what you mean here. My point is that just because something contains information does not make it sysnonymous with that information. So, just because energy can contain information, it doesn't mean that the terms "energy" and "information" are therefore interchangable. Yes, in your case, the hidden information was put there intentionally. That still doesn't mean that any messages found in religious texts were.
  17. FWIW, that's my view of alien life, too. Except add in the issue of timescales. Compared to the existence of this planet, human life is but a blip. We must expect any alien life to also be a blip. For these blips to occur at comparable times, with each life-form being at a comparable stage of technological evolution reduces the odds again.
  18. Re: House Reps ask GAO to investigate 2004 Electio I think that detailed post-mortems of elections is a good idea. It's only by examining such things in detail that any problems that their might be with them can be identified and addressed. This is especially true when new methods of voting have been utilised for the first time. This won't contest the results of the election that has just gone, but it might ensure that the next one is more efficient and that there is less room for error.
  19. Re: Geometry and G-d... Well, okay, you've just admitted that your entire philosohpy is based around a flaw in your reasoning. As I say, you can call it what you want and invoke linear trousers as much as you want, but the fact remains that you are begging the question and therefore your entire line of reasoning is invalid. To give maybe a more classic religious example of exactly what you're doing: God exists. We know this because the Bible tells us that this is true. We know the Bible is true because God wrote it. If you start from a position of faith, then maybe this is convincing, but what it ultimately comes down to is faith. You can use this to demonstrate your faith, if you so desire, but what you cannot do is lay any claim to this kind of reasoning being at all logical (no matter how you wish to define logic), and certainly not to have any scientific foundations whatsoever. Good luck getting that paper published. Which I don't. And despite what Rainman may claim, Shannon doesn't either. He defines information very specifically as a decrease in the uncertanty of a reciever in going from a before state to an after state. You cannot apply the common vernacular of "information" to that and say that it is exactly equivalent, any more than you can with "entropy" or "massive". Shannon's theory is applicable to the transmission of information through electronic channels, and that is it. It's a branch of mathematics, and not a model of the real world (and, even if it were, it should be noted that a model of reality is not the same as actually being reality). I will agree that information can be contained within energy - I believe that the brain is nothing more than energy - but that doesn't mean that all energy is information. Or, to put it another way, if I have a box of sand and draw the number "2" in it with a stick, the number "2" is contained within that sand. This does not make the sand actually become the number 2. For feedback to be feedback, the one has to be reliant on the other. If the steamer is stuck against a wall and is not going forwards, the paddles can still turn - they will merely move the water behind them, rather than the steamer. For the forwards motion to be feedback, the paddles turning would have to be reliant (partially or fully) on that motion. Thank you. Ergo, the act of creation in and of itself is not an intelligent act. Well, my alarm clock, to bring that example to the fore again. There is no feedback - it merely mechanically moves some parts round in a circle. There's tonnes and tonnes of things that do not depend on feedback. You can ask Rainman, he has talked many times about how closed-loop systems have recently been aplied to advance technology. So, once more, we come back to the message that you must simply have faith in order to be convinced, and that it is actually impossible to prove the existence of God. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said that just because a message could be interpreted didn't mean that it was put there intentionally.
  20. Re: Geometry and G-d... I'm not attempting to prove anything about anything "behind" anything. I am, very specifically saying that an individual snowflake forms by a process, rather than that particular pattern of an individual snowflake being created by an intelligence. If I pour milk into my tea and don't stir it, then Brownian motion will ensure that eventually I'm left with an even distribution of milk throughout my tea. My highschool biology teacher used to do this in a see-through cup, and it'd take about 5 minutes for there to be an even distribution. Now, although I initiated the process of the mixing of the fluids, it was Brownian motion that actually mixed them. The mixing of the fluids is not an intelligent act on my part, although setting the process into motion may have been. You are asking me to prove that the puorer doesn't exists - which is something that I have not claimed to be able to prove. What I have claimed to be able to prove - and have proven - is that the mixing itself is not an intelligent process, rather is a natural one which obeys simple, observable laws. And before you jump on me, I'm not pretending that the metaphor is perfect, but hopefully it illustrates my point sufficiently. Now, for the third, and hopefully last time, do you agree that an individual snowflake comes into being via a process that observes simple, observable laws, or do you contest that each individual snowflake is crafted by an act of intelligence? That's the dictionary definition, not the scientific definition. The word has entered the common vernacular, but that does not make the common application correct in a scientific context. Entropy change, in scientific terms, is , with dq being the heat intake over any infinitesimal part of the change, T being the corresponding abolute temperature and rev indicating that it is reversable. In short, entropy measures how much energy is dispersed in a particular process at a particular temperature. Statistical mechanics has a few slight variations of that definition (which are more commonly known as "entropy analogues"), but they are not correct in thermodynamic terms. There is no quantative definition of "disorganisation" or "disorder" in scientific terms, certainly not on a par with thermodynamics. If you wish to use the context of thermodynamics, you must use the terminology of thermodynamics. You cannot use an alternate definition of "entropy" and claim that it is exactly equivalent to the specific thermodynamic definition and therefore directly applicable to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, because it is not. Okay, if we put aside the "entropy" question, you are saying that there is less heat dissipation in the more efficient system. Ergo, it can do more work with equivalent energy. Okay, I'll agree that that is one way to make a certain systems more efficient, but it is not the only way to make all systems smarter. One example. You have an old-fashioned paddle steamer with a big wheel at the back - you know the type. The wheel at the back, however, only has the one paddle on it. Because of this, 50% of the time the paddle is out of the water. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. If you add another paddle at 180 degrees you get a more efficient system, and if you add another two at 180 degrees to each other and 90 degrees to the first two you get an even more efficient system. And none of these systems have any information feedback. I think that information, for a certain definition of "information" can affect energy, for sure. That doesn't mean that I accpet that all information is intrinsicly linked to all forms of evergy in all situations. I have said this before. No, I am saying that your particular definition of intelligence is one I reject because of the circular logic described above. I am not saying that any proof of God would be rejected by me. Not necessarily. In the Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths, sure. Buddhism? Not so much. There are many ideas of God that don't fit into that mould. Actually, I didn't. Re-read the beginning of the sentence - I was using your definitions. I do not beleive the two are interchangeable terms, no. I phrased it badly, and have addressed this point in my posts above. If God has no reason, then he cannot like or dislike anything. If God has no will, then I can have no fear of Him, as He is incapable of doing anything. And I am telling you that ad hominem attacks annoy me and make this whole process a lot less fun, and even arduous sometimes. I have stopped interacting with you before I took my work-indiced break, and I'd rather not have to do it again. Unlike CAT, I think you'd be a loss to me. Sorry, I wouldn't consider that fun. It's unecessary and is counter-productive.
  21. Re: Geometry and G-d... One more quick thought - if you don't believe that God has a will or reason, then what could it possibly matter if He existed or not? If Him existsing is utterly indistiguishable from Him not existsing, then why should anyone care?
  22. Re: Geometry and G-d... I'll get back to this to address more, but I simply don't have the energy at the moment. I'm far too full of dinner and Kung-Fu movie. Just one thing I have to address straight away, though. Okay, I should have used the qualifier "useful" when I said meaning of God. What you have said in your last few posts is this: - Intelligence is defined as: Everything. - Therefore, there is an intelligence in everything. Can you see how this is circular logic? And how it isn't actually useful to any discussion? I could define everything as "toast", if I so wished. It wouldn't make the entire universe composed of heated bread, though, would it? Despite what the phrase has come to mean, you are indulging in the logical fallacy known as "begging the question" (AKA "circular reasoning" AKA "Petitio Principii"). You are putting the assumption of the correctness of your conclusion in your premise, and then claiming that that premise therefore proves the conclusion to be true. You can say what you will about "non-linear reasoning", but logical fallacies are logical fallacies. Actually, one more thing, while we're on the subject of logical fallacies... I will get back to this, as you've not yet addressed the very specific issue I have pointedly stated twice now, and I don't have the heart to do it a third time in a row on a full stomach while men balletically kicking each other is still in my mind...BUT, you are right, you know. The burden of proof lies with the person who claims something exists, not the person who claims something doesn't exist. Ergo by the rules of logic (again, linear or non-linear, these rules remain the same) it it not up to me to prove to you that Jack Frost does not exist, you have to prove to me that he does.
  23. Do you have a reliable (i.e. non-conspiracy) source for this? All I can find is conspiracy sites. That's not to say that I don't believe in Rex 84 and Night Train 84 and so on, and it's certasinly not like the US has never used concentration camps before (Japanese citizens in WWII), or that it would be above using them now (Guantanamo Bay isn't far off), but the last reliable source on any of this I can find is the Miami Herald way back in 1987.
  24. Well, certainly, the vast majority of the world regards the corporeal world as not being a fantasy. It's certainly a more useful definition, as one has to be able to function in the corporeal world to exist - you have to eat, for example, whereas there is no universal consistancy in the dream world.
  25. Re: Geometry and G-d... Sorry, I thought you were still talking about the Egyptians there. Yeah, but another recurring theme is information, and that has a couple of different definitions, depending on the kind of information. But, okay, thermodynamics it is. No, because I addresseed the point you made. Do you really want to get into the argument of evolution? Are you going to mark yourself out as a Creationist? It is a different discussion, and it is a huge discussion. I really do suggest that you at least attempt to continue with the discussion we are having first before getting into another huge subject. You've still not told me what the relevence of non-linear energy manipulation is to Ancient Egypt - and this was a big point of yours. If you can't even follow through on that, then what can be productively gained by going down yet more avenues while abandoining what we've started but have not even got close to finishing here? Very well. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/faqs/faqs.htm You'll note there is an explaination of the physics, and no meantion of some form of intelligence individually crafting each snowflake. I posted the example, I think I know what I mean, thank you. My contention is this: an individual snowflake is created by an autonomously occurring process, rather than individually crafted by an intelligence. Now do you agree with this or not? No, I did. It is my claim, remember, not yours. See above. If what you're saying here is true, then you've just invalidated your argument that all acts of creation cannot come about except through the direct application of intelligence. Unless you're saying that your argument isn't, in fact, that the act of creation itself is evidence of intelligence, rather you're simply saying that you believe there must be an intelligence, therefore there is. Basically, by saying this, you're reducing your entire argument throughout this entire thread to "God exists because I say so". Hardly scientific, is it? Now, you say, correctly, that a low-entropy system cannot arise and fuction without an outside influence. Now, I give an example (the snowflake) of a low-entropy system that arises and functions without an outside intelligence (note, I'm not talking about the design of the system, just the actual, physical formation of the crystal itself), and you simply say "well, but if you look outside of that, there must be intelligence". In other words, you're reducing the data set that you will consider to exclude any example that don't back up your assertations. You can take any example and say "well, I'll not consider that, but if you take my example with wider paramaters, then we have a different result", but it certainly won't get you your papaer published. That's a very odd definition of "intelligence". A definition which excludes the possibility of anything not being intelligent - excludes all possibility of natural laws and essentially flys in the fact of all established science and pooh-poohs scientific method. By this definition, my alarm clock is intelligent because it takes chemical energy, changes it into electrical energy, then into kinetic energy or sound energy (which is also kinetic energy, really). A sandslide is intelligent because it is converting potential energy into kinetic energy. And so on. Absolutely everything, no matter how small must be intelligent, by this definition. As such, it's hardly a useful definition. Now, this is a different definition, which involves will. That's more how I would define it (although any definition of intelligence will eventually be problematical, I think I can accept and work with this one). But this, once again, leads me to conclude that the formation of an individual ice crystal is not an act of intelligence, as it is an autonomous process. Well, I'm sorry that I believe in scientific method. If you feel unable to stick to it, then you'll have to retract yourt claim to be able to prove the existence of God, and to retract your claim that your views are based on scientific method. And you'll definately not get that paper published. You know, on the whole, I am enjoying this post immensely. We're getting to the nitty-gritty, and you're really making me have to work and think to support my position. You're presenting ideas that I have to mull around a bit and seriously consider before I can say whether they're right or wrong. This is great, and exactly what I like about good debates. It's just a shame that you have to ruin it with petty insults like this. Seriously, when you come to write your scientific paper on Intelligent Design, will you litter the text with phrases about how dense everyone who doesn't believe what you are saying is? Please, cut out the ad hominems. They're extremely unbecoming, and do nothing but detract from what is, at heart, a fascinating, enlightening and highly enjoyable debate. They are nothing but counter-productive, and I do not believe that you actually do think that I am stupid. As such, all it does is annoy me and make me a lot less receptive to your ideas. This statement very nearly just made me hit "delete" on everything I've just written and say "to hell with it" and think that it's simply not worth the effort to talk to you. Please, please, please, can we just have a civilised discussion? Agreed. Okay. Although it must be said that Entropy is not the same thing as "disorganisation". but I'll buy this for now. Can you clarify this for me, please? I've spent the last hour or so just looking at this statement and trying to understand what you mean, and haven't got very far. So, I asked my dad (who, you may remeber is a research physicist). And he has no idea what you mean by this, either. Incidentally, there is no definition of "dense" which would apply to my father, so don't even think about going there, okay? Again, ditto for this. I've spent a lot less time on this one, as step 3 isn't clear, but still it's hard to tell what you actually mean by this. As above, I do not accept this definition of intelligence, as it would apply to any and everything. Well, you're right that I don't understand exactly what you're trying to say. But I'm in good company, at least. Yeah, I think this may be where we differ greatly. You define intelligence in such broad terms that it cannot possibly not be applied to anything, therefore everything is the product of intelligence. If you wish to define it in such terms then, yes, the fact that the universe contains energy (which is the same as information) which changes from one form to another means that information is being processed, ergo there is intelligence at work. But, as this preculdes anything from not being included, it is meaningless and has no relevence to any concept of a God. For my money, and definition of "intelligence" that would apply to any deity would have to include reason and will. I'd lay money on it.
  • Create New...