Jump to content

In Triplicate, Please!


RainmanTime
 Share

Recommended Posts

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

God was important to a certain extent, in time.

 

However there are new movements that are even escaping me, that I do not understand.

 

Forinstance if I were to abduct Roel and take him to a distant world, in order to do trading business as an officiate, how would this process go.

 

Would Roel and I be sitting at a large table and an alien being only four foot in height come up to Roel and ask, him what he would like to drink and Roel replies, "Not now sonny"; would Roel's lack of knowledge that this being was over fifty years in age and also possessed a considerable i.q. be a hindrance to our mission?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Closing The Loop

 

God is the absolute of faith; existence is the absolute of reason, existence exists by itself, and because it exists.

A good point, OvrLrdLegion. And your point about "absolute" triggered another realization in this regard. I've also referred to it in recents posts as the distinction between Relativism and Absolutism.There would hopefully be little disagreement that, from the POV of our human physical perceptions, we live in a totally Relatavistic universe. The accepted truth behind this is evidenced in that our best model of how energy interplays with mass, space, and time is described by Einstein's Relativity. It's been battled tested, and so far has not been Popper Falsified. More tests are going on right now. While we perceive the universe around us as a 3x3 Matrix of Massive SpaceTime, the reality is it is more compactly described by the dualist description of Relativity as Matter in Motion. I mean that really is what E=mc^2 is saying. "m" is your Matter, and "c" is defined as Motion. The only real absolute is Energy...the full integration of m and c.

 

Piercing the veil of Relativity to see the face of the Absolute is not something that can be arrived at by either Science or Spirituality alone. This is the message of the Times we currently live in. Clinging to either of these two extremes, to the exclusion of the other, is not going to allow one to evolve. The message of the great shift that is on our horizon is one of complete integration of the relative halves of everything in our worldviews. It is both a highly scientific, and a deeply spiritual message at the same time. It is the call of our integrated subsystems (driven by the info in our DNA) and our integrated supersystems (God) for us to take the final step of complete integration. The only way to advance is by achieving the proper, equal balance of Science and Spirituality. And this, in turn, will require each person who wishes to evolve to learn how to achieve the proper, equal balance of "proof" and "faith", for these are the monikers of Science and Spirituality.

 

Many prophecies talk of this Time, and speak of those who "are admitted into heaven" and those who are "left behind". Those who are left behind are those who cannot complete the integration...who cannot achieve the resolution of proof with faith, of Science with Spirituality. Those who are admitted are those who complete the integration. By being "admitted", what I think this means is finally understanding the secrets of the Absolute....which is the undivided, always-constant, Absolute, universal Energy. And Einstein's equation even tells us as much: The balanced integration of Matter with Motion is Energy.

 

God is another name for Energy.

 

The laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum are the only statements of God that mankind will ever understand. And at the same time, they are all we ever need to approach an understanding of God. God is that constant Energy, that mankind cannot upset, no matter how hard we try.

 

This is why I say, Roel, that "the entire universe around you IS the evidence for the Divine". In a Relatavistic universe, God is the only Absolute. All of us limited physical beings can be fooled by our senses into thinking we are absolute.... and it is a pretty amazing illusion, isn't it? :)

 

For once I'd like to hear some new arguments why I should believe there's a creator.

How about this: Because God is the energy that comprises not only you, but all other forms of energy in this universe. When you learn to balance proof with faith, you will know the secrets of balancing Matter with Motion. And since Time is defined as Matter in Motion, this will make you a Master of Time.If you think I am pulling your leg, you only need to really understand the Science of Energy, and its implications to Spirituality.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

If God is energy then why doesn't he resign himself to being just that and not also assume the persona of himself being known as God.

 

Secondly is dark matter is sometimes associated with the dark forces of creation then this is also energy.

 

If the Devil is also energy, then God is also the Devil?

 

Then God is dark energy also?

 

If this is true, where the universe cease to be the universe and only void space exist, then this is God too?

 

I don't know Rainman, you know everyhting you surly can answer these?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Closing The Loop

 

well said rainman..i commend you in wording that. im glad some people get it.

 

although it makes no difference to a sold mind such in roel's case

 

i have nothing against you roel but i wish you'd let go and see whats god given to you! though i know you will along your path someday.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Spiraling Conversation

 

You really don't have a very high opinion of me, do you?

That is not the boolean question you make it out to be. In point of fact, I do have quite a high opinion of you in several areas. But yes, there are also some areas where my opinion of you is quite low indeed. Some of your arguments provide abundant evidence for my feeling this way.

In fact, I'd say that in terms of intelligence that affects us, there is nothing outside our planet.

Well aren't you in for a neat little surprise in the not-too-distant future? :)

I disagree with you about a few things, but that doesn't make me stupid.

Well now, I think that would depend on what subject we are talking about, wouldn't it? I admit to being stupid in some areas. Would you ever be willing to admit your stupidity in your particular areas?

So, no, I don't think that we have, or will have soon, substansive control over our own DNA.

I guess this will be another banner day in your diary entries when it comes to pass then.

I think you're taking this out of context somewhat.

No, I really wasn't.

Or are you saying that even when we didn't have this control over our DNA, that we still had this ability in common?

I am quite sure I pointed out before this, and I am pretty sure you agreed, that we have always had a measure of control over our DNA simply by our reproductive choices. That lead to the discussion of our evolving control over our DNA by having mapped the genome. So, if you would like a small lesson in controls, it would start with the concept that one you attain closed-loop control over anything (in this case our reproduction via DNA), the potential bandwidth of your control influence is infinite. Evolution of control happens as a continuous function, with the independent variable being knowledge (information) of how to affect control. So... because we have always had the capability to reproduce, as has our DNA, I am saying we have always had it in common. We are doing nothing more than expanding our bandwidth of that control as our knowledge increases. It only reinforces the commonality as we achieve higher levels of control.

We do not self-replicate. You can argue about the definition of "similar", but "self-replicate" has a specific meaning, and we do not create exact copies of ourselves by ourselves. As for our offspring being self-similar exactly how many characteristics would you say you have to share to qualify as being self-similar? Our children only have 50% of the same DNA as we do.

You are arguing about nothing more than the mechanism of reproduction and its relative efficiencies. The fact that DNA's reproductive mechanism is much more efficient than ours is actually another bit of evidence for the system-subsystem model being correct. The reason? In my business it is called "tolerance stackup". Say I am creating an integrated system "A", and I specify a certain required performance parameter for this system as "x". I design system A to be comprised of subsystems 1, 2, and 3, that integrate with one another to achieve the required performance (x) of System A. The tighter I crank the tolerances on "x", the required tolerances on sensing and control devices in subsystems 1, 2, and 3 become orders of magnitude tighter. So whoever DID design us and our DNA was a VERY good systems engineer, because they achieved the highest efficiencies in the lowest-level subsystem. The DNA code has the greatest capability for error correction of any coding scheme we know of. So no, you still have not debunked the fact that the primary self-similarity of us with our DNA is that we are self-reproducing (there, are you happy I dropped the self-replicating?)

Again, you were saying that we had the ability to self-replicate in common with DNA. So, before we had the ability to do that, then we didn't have that in common. Again, unless we had it in common, but we simply couldn't do what we had in common with DNA. Which, frankly, is nonsense.

Read above. Nonsense to you....yet perfect sense to someone who understands closed-loop control and bandwidth thereof.

Um, we were talking about making exact replicas of our DNA. Now we're not? Okay. But if you're going to change what we're talking about halfway through, it'd be better to let me know, rather than getting huffily on your high horse when I don't psychically intuit it.

No, this is what YOU were talking about, as you were the one who steered the conversation to this. I was talking about self-similarity of reproduction. Yes, you have technically corrected me in my word use that only a DNA "self-replicates", whereas we humans "self-reproduce". I have not changed what we are talking about halfway through....YOU did.

No. And I think that's one hell of a stretch.

And yet.... without BOTH half-strands of a single DNA double-helix, the cell reproduction would not be successful. Just like with only half of the male/female pairing our reproduction will not be successful. Not so much of a stretch to me....it's DIFFERENT yes, but only in that it is a lower-level system...so the mechanism is different. Still self-similar.

We don't have it in common any more than I have "having a right hand" in common with my right hand.

You're arguments and analogies are getting worse and worse.

Well, I need evidence.

And you refuse to see. There is vanishingly little I can do about that. And if you keep waiting around for the kind of evidence you seem to be demanding, I am afraid you will miss the bus.

As I've said before, if it were, then the existence of that higher intelligence would necessarily be indicative of an even higher intelligence beyond that. And that intelligence would be indicative of another beyond that. And so on for eternity. And exactly the same logic would indicate that there's a system lower than DNA. And one lower than that. And aother lower than that. Again, off to infinity.

 

This seems, to me, to be counter-intuitive, rather than something that follows on logically.

It's too bad you think that is counter-intuitive, because there are a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks. But your notion of infinity in both systemic directions IS correct. If you can get beyond your counter-intuitive barrier, and you can manage to link-up the ever-smaller with the ever-larger systems, you will begin to approach an understanding of the Absolute.

How do you expect me to define a standard of evidence that I would find acceptable?

Well if you can't, how will you ever know you've arrived at complete understanding? Gut feel? For one who doesn't like arbitrary comparisons, I'd say you're being arbitrary if you cannot set out what level of evidence will satisfy you.

But in no way is the Drake equation evidence that life exists on other planets.

And again I will point out that evidence is not a discrete, step function, where there is no uncertainty. For some people, cumulative evidence from multiple domains is all they need. Some have argued that several stories in the bible are evidence of encounters with visitors (Moses and the burning bush, Ezekiel, etc.). The self-similarity of these stories with modern-day UFO sightings is one bit of domain evidence that some people would see as augmenting Drake's quantification of probability.

Thanks. I'll have a peruse later.

Yes, and do get back to me on it. For the record: it seems you never did get back to me on the evidence I provided on the link between information and energy when you stated "The relationship between energy and information would have to be demonstrated to me before I would conceed that." In case you lost the mathematical paper I gave you, HERE it is. If you're not ready to concede, there is plenty more evidence out there...that you can find on your own.

Maybe I should save this next sentence off to my notepad so I can cut it and paste it when I need it in conversation with you. When I say that I don't agree with your application of a theory and the reasoning that you're applying I am not attacking the theory itself. Okay?

Fine. And to keep a decent balance, I will place my statement about "when you have a deeper understanding of the theory, then you may also understand my application of it" in my paste buffer to remind you that you don't have quite the grasp of these as you might think.

You turned round and said "well, it was just a joke. Sorry that you don't have a sense of humour".

See, this is where I have a technical problem with the way you bend truth. You should not use quotation marks when quoting a person unless you are faithfully reproducing what that person said. If you are going to quote me, I suggest you use cut-and-paste and get the real words...you know, kind of like you suggested to Chrono?

Should I be prostrating myself at your feet in supplication to give thenks to you for deining to speak to me at all?

 

Or could we just drop this "holier than thou" crap, please?

Yeah, just as soon as you drop the whining and drama. Contrary to something you told me awhile ago, I am not getting used to your flowery demeanor. Your whining about me is growing tiring. Allow me to point out that if you are that sick of my style, you have every right to end this conversation of your own accord. But I think I understand enough about you in this regard to know...

I asked you how close it would have to be for you to consider it valid.

It's not really what I would consider valid. It is what the transcendental nature of the Fibonacci sequence, when used to compute the GMS (Phi), tells us is "close enough" by its pattern of convergence in the floating point domain. Correlation of this computation with fractal structures in nature tell us that within 3 significant figures of matching Phi is close enough.

The ratio of the distance of the Sun from the Earth and it's size is the same as the same ratio for the moon. But they're not related. There is no causal relationship between them.

*paste*So now you want to steer the discussion to heavenly bodies? OK, if you wish. So gravity and angular momentum are not causal relationships between the Sun, Earth, and our Moon? Wow. I gotta see this proof! Maybe the next thing you will claim is the relative sizes of the planets in the solar system have no common causal relationship? The "*paste*" above is not in relation to my request that you educate yourself on fractals....this time it is a call for you to study up on Phi. You can find some interesting causal relationships when you look for them. Why, here is a very interesting one with respect to the dynamics of our solar system's planets:

 

spacer.png

 

And this is an excuse for not behaving in a balanced and fair manner in a supposedly rational debate, is it?

I don't offer excuses, I only provide explanations. You are not being forced to deal with me. And now that I have apologized,ad nauseum, and toned down my rhetoric a bit, the more you continue to whine, the more I am going to be prompted to push your buttons. You can lodge your complaints with the Creator, as I am not a pass-thru for those messages.RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

If God is energy then why doesn't he resign himself to being just that and not also assume the persona of himself being known as God.

Oh but this is exactly what God does, dearest Creedo. It is only mankind that insists on trying to force God into a persona. In fact, God warned us of this "trap" when explaining that graven images of God will never be a true representation of what God is and does.

If the Devil is also energy, then God is also the Devil?

The devil? You still believe in that, Creedo? Surely I thought you knew that the devil is a creation of physical creatures that cannot accept the total integration of all things via universal energy. You are creating your own devils by devoting energy to your fears.

If this is true, where the universe cease to be the universe and only void space exist, then this is God too?

"Void space" is not as empty as some seem to think. In fact, it seems to be teeming with energy. And could you tell me where, precisely, the universe ceases to be the universe? I might want to take a holiday there some day soon! :)

I don't know Rainman, you know everyhting you surly can answer these?

Well, I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I am far from knowing everything. But it just so happens that those questions are fairly easy for one who can balance Science with Spirituality.RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

Isaiah 45:6,7:

 

"That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

From my experience, I know it is futile to try, by either argument or pursuasion, to convince anyone of the existence of God. It is a purely personal experience. However, there are methods that are available under certain circumstances. Also by experience, I know these methods are quite convincing if there is the least bit of openness on behalf of those that request convincing. If the mind is closed in spite of what comes out of the mouth--it will be to no avail. A full denial will occur even in the most convincing situations. Therefore, I am proposing the following: As a Christian, I believe in the POWER of prayer so I am going to offer a prayer to God. The result will be a fully personal experience understood only by those affected. My prayer is as follows: Father, I sense that there are some on this forum who desire a personal understanding of your existence despite any evidence they have ever had in their lives. Even if an Angel had spoken to them, they would doubt their very words. Therefore, Lord, I pray that you would send them an EVIL spirit that would be discernible only to them so thay they may know that You are all in all. This I do Lord, not for personal satisfaction, but for the spiritual growth of those involved. I pray also Lord that they will be able to relate their story to others on this forum for the spiritual uplifting of all. I pray this in the name of your only son, Jesus, whom you sent so that we may know YOU. I fully believe that you have already answered this prayer and will speedily bring it to those whose names I am not even fully sure of. AMEN, so be it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

Well now, I think that would depend on what subject we are talking about, wouldn't it? I admit to being stupid in some areas. Would you ever be willing to admit your stupidity in your particular areas?

"Stupidity" is a different concept to "ignorance".

 

I am quite sure I pointed out before this, and I am pretty sure you agreed, that we have always had a measure of control over our DNA simply by our reproductive choices.

Yes, and when I said that I didn't think that what we had could be called any real level of control over our DNA, your response was to start talking about genetic engineering as further proof. It's nothing of the kind.

 

You are arguing about nothing more than the mechanism of reproduction and its relative efficiencies.

You're right that I'm arguing about the method of reproduction. That's because you're saying that two entirely different mechanisms of reproduction are comparable.

 

So no, you still have not debunked the fact that the primary self-similarity of us with our DNA is that we are self-reproducing (there, are you happy I dropped the self-replicating?)

Well, you can change to that if you like, but it's still worng. I assume that you think that by changing from claiming that we can both self-replicate to claiming that we can both self-reproduce that you're broadening the criteria that you're using enough because it means that, while DNA creates exact replicas of itself, humans don't. There's still a problem, though. We do no "self-reproduce", either. By definition this means doing it by yourself. As you yourself have pointed out, to reproduce, there need to be two humans, one male, one female. The same is not true of DNA.

 

Read above. Nonsense to you....yet perfect sense to someone who understands closed-loop control and bandwidth thereof.

Yes, do read above, perfect sense to you, yet nonsense to anyone who has been following the conversation and what we've actually been talking about. Unless you want to claim that before we could (potentially, possibly) clone a human being that we could self-replicate after all. As you've just conceeded that we can't even now in the previous paragraph, why are you changing your position again, to try to make it out as if your superior knowledge makes you right? You have, after all, just majorly contradicted yourself. Are both contradictory things really true?

 

No, this is what YOU were talking about, as you were the one who steered the conversation to this. I was talking about self-similarity of reproduction. Yes, you have technically corrected me in my word use that only a DNA "self-replicates", whereas we humans "self-reproduce". I have not changed what we are talking about halfway through....YOU did.

Really? So who said this?

 

So the fact that humans and DNA both replicate themselves, and the fact that we hold the creative reigns of our DNA via our intelligence DOES have something to do with my argument.

As for the bit about changing your terminology (which has a precise, scientific menaing, lest we forget) but not changing what you're talking about...how does that work? "Well, I've changed what I'm saying, but I've not actually changed what I'm saying"

 

And yet.... without BOTH half-strands of a single DNA double-helix, the cell reproduction would not be successful. Just like with only half of the male/female pairing our reproduction will not be successful. Not so much of a stretch to me....it's DIFFERENT yes, but only in that it is a lower-level system...so the mechanism is different. Still self-similar.

That's a very asinine thing to say. You might as well say that before a cell splits during meitosis that there are 2 sepereate DNA strands, so a foursome is self-similar.

 

Really, you're trying to have it both ways with this double helix-human couple analogy. Your entire argument is that (to use one person as an example) Marjorie and her DNA are self-similar. This has been your argument. Now, with this new tack you're taking, you're saying that further proof of this is that Marjorie's DNA is self-similar to Marjorie and her husband Albert. Now, surely if your systems theory of intelligence in the universe relies on the fact of DNA being self-similar to one human, then by indicating that it's actually self-similar to two humans, you're defeating your own theory? Or are you now arguing that, as DNA and two people are self-similar that there would be two interdependent higher systems of intelligence?

 

You're arguments and analogies are getting worse and worse.

I can come up with a beter analogy, if you'd like. The fact remains that you are claiming a similarity between two things, which aren't actually seperate things whatsoever - they are exactly the same thing. Meiosis occurs in the human body exclusively with the formation of sperm and egg cells. Do you dispute this fact? These egg and sperm cells, each of which contain half of our DNA, only combine with each other and form new, complete DNA strands during the process of human reproduction. Do you dispute this fact?

 

If you don't dispute those facts, then I don't see how you can say that this process is similar to human reproduction. It's not similar to human reproduction. It is human reproduction.

 

I can come up with another analogy if you like, but I think it's pretty clear, to be honest.

 

And if you keep waiting around for the kind of evidence you seem to be demanding, I am afraid you will miss the bus.

So what you're saying, essentially, is that if I demand any kind of empirical evidence, rather than - as Roel succinctly put it - "weak analogical evidence", then I'll never believe? Well, I think I'm happy enough requiring extraordinary claims have some kind of burden of proof, let alone extraordinary proof.

 

It's too bad you think that is counter-intuitive, because there are a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks.

See, now this is where I'm going to start approaching this less as a friendly discussion, and more as claims that need back up. Can you provide cites for your claims here? I mean, Hawkins seems to believe that you cannot get infinity by subdivision - that the Planck length is the smallest measure possible. Who are these well-respected scientists that disagree with Hawkins?

 

Well if you can't, how will you ever know you've arrived at complete understanding? Gut feel? For one who doesn't like arbitrary comparisons, I'd say you're being arbitrary if you cannot set out what level of evidence will satisfy you.

I said that 73% would do it.

 

Seriously, I've asked you for your standard of evidence for more than one thing, and you can't answer the question, either. You haven't even answered the question of what kind of answer you were expecting. I think it's an unanswerable question. It's a game of semantics, whereby you don't actually have to argue anything, but can still destroy any counter-argument offered by Roel or myself by claiming that there is no standard of proof that we would accept. It's a neat trick, but it's not actually a real argument.

 

I tell you what, you write out an example sentence of the kind of answer you're expecting, and I'll cut and paste it, inserting my own figures in place of yours. Okay?

 

And again I will point out that evidence is not a discrete, step function, where there is no uncertainty.

And, again, I'll point out that the Drake equation, even according to Drake himself, is not proof of anything, rather it is a theoretical construct designed to illustrate the factors that need to be taken into consideration when thinking of extra-terrestrial life. And I'll say again that many of the factors in the Drake equation are hotly debated, and most are highly uncertain. We have no idea about some of the factors whatsoever. What percentage of any intelligent species that may exist would have the ability and desire to communicate with us? I don't know. Neither does anybody else with any degree of accuracy.

 

Now, if the question of on which percentage of planets capable of sustaining life has life actually evolved could be answered definitively and accurately (with the burden of scientific proof), then that would be proof of the existence of life. The equation still would have nothing to do with it, though, and would not be proof of anything in and of itself.

 

Some have argued that several stories in the bible are evidence of encounters with visitors (Moses and the burning bush, Ezekiel, etc.).

And that's speculation, rather than proof. Another peice of speculation is that magic mushrooms grew in the area, and that Moses was fond of them. Ditto Ezekiel.

 

Not only is that theory within the bounds of logical possibility (which seems to be the standard of evidence that you adhere to), it is backed up by the evidence of what we know about the areas and climates of the time in which the events took place.

 

The self-similarity of these stories with modern-day UFO sightings is one bit of domain evidence that some people would see as augmenting Drake's quantification of probability.

And others would see it as indicative of the way that hallucinations (whether caused by hallucinogens, sleep-deprevation, trance-like mental states, false memory syndrome, hypnotic suggestion, or whatever) have common attributes with each other.

 

See? Equally reasonable explainations (which do not exceed the bounds of what we know, and do not rely on "what if"s and "maybe"s), except that there is actual proof to support this theory - the existence of magic mushrooms back at those times in those places, the testimony with regards to the similarity of certain aspects of hallucinogenic experiences to each other, the research that has been done into how the mind can be tricked, and so on.

 

Now, I don't necessarily believe that the hallucinogenic theory is the correct one, but I find it the most convincing. I don't believe we'll ever know enough to be able to say for certain, but in the mean time, I'm going to go with the theory that has by far the most proof and corroborating evidence to it.

 

Incidentally, you've claimed twice now that Drake has quantified his equation, despite my pasting of a quote from the man himself saying that his equation is not for quantification. So, I'm going to have to ask you for a cite for that, too.

 

In case you lost the mathematical paper I gave you, HERE it is.

My comupter can't read .pdf files. Maybe if you give me a unique sentence from the text, I can find the google cache.

 

See, this is where I have a technical problem with the way you bend truth. You should not use quotation marks when quoting a person unless you are faithfully reproducing what that person said. If you are going to quote me, I suggest you use cut-and-paste and get the real words...you know, kind of like you suggested to Chrono?

I was accurately paraphrasing. When quoting someone, I use the UBB quote code. Still, if it makes you happy, from now on, when summarising something that someone has said, I'll use single quotes, okay?

 

Still, you want me to quote what you said exactly? Okay:

 

Christ... you really DO take these things personally. Lighten-up a little, huh?

That's not a 'I'm sorry if I was out of line', that's a 'I'm sorry you don't have a sense of humour', exactly the same as Chronohistorian's

 

In the future people don't mind having jokes about them.

I may not have quoted your exact words, but in no way did I "bend the truth" or misrepresent what you said. Happy?

 

Yeah, just as soon as you drop the whining and drama. Contrary to something you told me awhile ago, I am not getting used to your flowery demeanor. Your whining about me is growing tiring.

Cause and effect, my friend. I did not start "whining" until after you'd started the patronizing and putting me down. And yet the onus is still on me? O-kay...

 

It is what the transcendental nature of the Fibonacci sequence, when used to compute the GMS (Phi), tells us is "close enough" by its pattern of convergence in the floating point domain. Correlation of this computation with fractal structures in nature tell us that within 3 significant figures of matching Phi is close enough.

Okay, so "within 3 significant figures" is the closest that I've got to an answer so far. So, can you show your working, or do I have to take your word for it?

 

So gravity and angular momentum are not causal relationships between the Sun, Earth, and our Moon?

That is completely different to what I said (and you accuse me of 'bending the truth' for not quoting your exact words, yet you can completely change what I've said to something completely irrelevent with impunity?). I said that the fact that the Moon and the Sun appear to be the same size from the POV of Earth is a coincidence. The Moon was not designed to be seen as the same size as the Sun. It is not the Sun that causes it to be the same size. It just so happens that that's the way it's worked out.

 

Sure, you can paste a diagram that is irrelevent to what I said and act as if it proves your point, but I notice you didn't tackle the question of the stork and baby correlation in Norway.

 

I don't offer excuses, I only provide explanations.

Oh, so your explaination for not discussing things in a civialised manner, or wanting to do so on an equal footing is that life isn't fair? Good explaination.

 

Honestly, I wouldn't accept that excuse from a 5 year-old, let alone someone who purports to be a scientist engaged in a rational discussion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Closing The Loop

 

God is the absolute of faith; existence is the absolute of reason, existence exists by itself, and because it exists.

Uhm, yeah... Roses are red, violets are blue, I quote philosophers and so do you.

 

This is why I say, Roel, that "the entire universe around you IS the evidence for the Divine".

*sigh* If that's all the evidence you can come up with, I'm afraid you don't have a very strong case Ray. Even my level of science reaches beyond this reasoning. To put it bluntly: I think it's total bullshit. Really. First I thought it was my lack of knowledge, but now I realize that you've been twisting scientific facts to help them support your religion. Because that's all it is. Religion. You obviously believe in god. Perhaps it's not the classic image of god, but it's still god, divus... the divine. I still think some of your theories are close to brilliant, but in this case I seriously have to disagree with you.

 

The laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum are the only statements of God that mankind will ever understand.

What makes you think they were statements of god?

 

And another thing. You keep calling me an Absolutist, while I'm not. But tell me, assuming you're not an absolutist, do you accept the possibility that god doesn't exist?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Closing The Loop

 

i have nothing against you roel but i wish you'd let go and see whats god given to you! though i know you will along your path someday.

"I have nothing against you either. And I don't mind you believing in something that doesn't exist as long as it makes you happy. I know someday you'll find out you've been living a dream."

 

Of course I don't really mean that, but this is to illustrate how patronizing and at the same time stupid it sounds.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

The devil? You still believe in that, Creedo? Surely I thought you knew that the devil is a creation of physical creatures that cannot accept the total integration of all things via universal energy. You are creating your own devils by devoting energy to your fears.

Ray, I thought everything was energy? Is "the devil" not part of your Sea of Energy?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Closing The Loop

 

Uhm, yeah... Roses are red, violets are blue, I quote philosophers and so do you.

 

And which philosopher might that be, Friend Roel? Rousseau perhaps? :)

 

As far any quotes being presented, I have noticed several, and if such may provide even the smallest component to complete the time travel formula, then does it matter the source?

 

However, it was not said by Rousseau, and I wonder if you gleened that idea from the other on-line screen name I use during my AOL interludes.

 

As for proof to offer regarding God's existence, only my experiences can I present. Roel, only a personal experience between you and the Creator would ever provide you with adequate proof. I simply try to present those things I have learned and come to practice upon my own journey. Those things I present are not meant for you to believe or follow, only to be taken with a grain of salt, taking only that which may apply to your own journey, and throwing the rest to the way side.

 

Perhaps another within this forum can expand on what a Goetic Magician is, I do not wish to. I will say that when told to "fasten my seat belt, cause you're goin fer a ride " wasn't even close to what Ive seen, heard and felt.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

Good Morning,

 

Ray, I thought everything was energy? Is "the devil" not part of your Sea of Energy?

Did you not read what I wrote in my response to Creedo? Or did you just not understand it? ;) The "devil" is a construct of mankind, and nothing more. Since mankind lives in a relativistic world (which I don't see you arguing...yet), mankind has this feeling that EVERYTHING must have its dualistic balance. Well, that is actually true here in our relativistic world. Male is balanced by female. True is balanced by false. Day is balanced by night. That all makes perfect sense in a relativistic world....so why shouldn't there be a dualistic balance to God? Viola... man creates the devil.

 

Only problem with that is that God exists beyond our world of relativity. God *IS* the Absolute Energy. The concept of the devil is mankind's attempt to force God to live in our relativistic world... but it doesn't work. In fact, it works against us. By trying to force a relativistic, dualistic counterpart on to God, and calling it the devil, all we really do is invoke evil....upon ourselves and in our world of relativity. You should study Zerubbabel's quote of Isaiah a little bit deeper, because it has a link to the "God as Energy" description. You might even want to ask Zeru to begin to paint that picture for you....he has a LOT more data on such links than I do.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Closing The Loop

 

*sigh* If that's all the evidence you can come up with, I'm afraid you don't have a very strong case Ray.

See, you want evidence to be a single, magic bullet. In point of fact, I have a very strong case...and there are some others on this forum who have been making that same case. The problem you are having is in seeing that my "case" is not limited to this one quote you have listed of mine. I have been making my "case" in many, various postings since I arrived here. You might not recognize it, but another big part of my "case" is the 3x3 Massive SpaceTime Matrix. You will note that the original title of this thread was focusing on triplicates. That is another big part of my "case". You want to argue and debate the individual pieces of this "case" rather than attempt to weave them all together into a single, coherent view of who and what we are. I can lay out the pieces of the "case" for you, Roel, but only YOU can integrate those pieces in your own mind. I cannot do that part for you.

To put it bluntly: I think it's total bullshit. Really.

That's too bad you feel this way. Perhaps some day you might decide to change this thought.

First I thought it was my lack of knowledge

Actually, yes it is. But "knowledge" is not the proper technical word. I would describe your issue, more technically, as a "lack of gnosis".

but now I realize that you've been twisting scientific facts to help them support your religion.

I've done nothing of the sort. The facts of fractals/chaos and the Golden Mean Spiral are there for everyone to see and investigate. The facts of the Tree Of Life, and how it relates to GMS and fractals/chaos is also there for all to see and investigate. And believe me, Roel, there are a LOT of people out there in the world who have investigated it, and have raised their own level of gnosis far beyond yours, and even far beyond mine. Ask Zerubbabel and CAT about this....they will give you more info (if your mind is open enough to receive it).I have no religion, Roel. I believe I have made that clear many times in this forum. And I take it as a insult that you assign this badge to me. I am a spiritual being, Roel, and I have renounced man-made religions. But that does not mean that various "sacred scriptures" do not contain eminent truths about how our universe works....it is just not the warped truths that man-made religions have tried to force on people as their means of control.

 

Perhaps it's not the classic image of god

Exactly. And I am wondering why you are so afraid to talk about anything other than the "classic" image of God? Do you fear that you might find something that would cause you to change your view?

I still think some of your theories are close to brilliant, but in this case I seriously have to disagree with you.

Disagree if you must, but I am secure enough in my gnosis to know you are missing the boat. And those theories that you think are close to brilliant... they are all part of the "evidence" you do not wish to accept. In the spirit of the God that binds us all, I would really, REALLY encourage you to study the more SCIENTIFIC aspects of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life, Roel. Believe me....I have been down the path you are on. You are younger than me and I can see the things in you that were major questions in my younger days. It was not until I rejected religion, and researched the science behind the TOL, fractals/chaos, and the GMS, that I realized we are all spiritual beings. There are others on this forum that are willing to help you in such research.... but you have to do it, and you have to want to understand it.

What makes you think they were statements of god?

Correction: They ARE statements of God...not were. The reason I know (as in gnosis) they are statements of God is because they are the highest statements of immutability that our science has proven the universe is based upon. God is immutable, and so are these laws. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be modified in form. God cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. Really, we are getting to the heart of the matter with these scientific principles, Roel. How would you like to dispute these? Please tell me how I am "twisting" these principles? They are what they are...they cannot be twisted. I am simply pointing out that these laws describe Energy, and since these laws state that total Energy is constant, and they have been shown to be true, that these are yet ANOTHER large piece of evidence that there is a God. But I know you will not agree. That's OK, it doesn't hurt my feelings, nor God's feelings. But you might want to look at what your insistent disbelief does to your own feelings...and where it leads you down your path.

And another thing. You keep calling me an Absolutist, while I'm not. But tell me, assuming you're not an absolutist, do you accept the possibility that god doesn't exist?

Is this a signal that you are now ready to discuss the "grey area" elements of the various descriptions of a diety....to use your own words "God, or godlike, supreme being if you will". And let's not forget that I added to your list the words "creation" and "creative energy". Are you ready to discuss this? It would be tantamount to discussing something else you have pointed out about my view of God: "Perhaps it's not the classic image of god". Please let me know if you are now ready to discuss this, because it was apparant that you were not willing to when I brought it up during our discussion of the semantics of "divine".And to answer your question: As an engineer who uses science as his primary tool, I am, of course, open to the possibility of anything. But science also allows me to convert "possibility" to "probability" by examining myriad sources of evidence. And because I can see all the varied forms of evidence for a supreme being in the workings of the universe this being created, I know (there's that gnosis again) that the probability of there NOT being a God is very low indeed.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

Don't you worry, trollface...I won't leave you feeling lonely. I've got things to do today, but I will be back. And now that your tactics are becoming ever more clear, let me set the tone of where my next post will be going....you wrote:

 

"Stupidity" is a different concept to "ignorance".

Answer the question I posed, rather than changing the course of the ship. Here, again, is more evidence of your tactics of trying to make the conversation go where you want it to go. As a controls engineer, I can easily spot a control freak...and you've got all the markings.I'll be pointing out this tactic of yours whenever I see it, and holding you true to the exact words you post, from now on. Whine all you want, but you are doing more to expose who you really are than I am.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: I am the light of contradiction:

 

Hi Ray,

 

First of all I want you to know I don't mean to insult you in anyway. I've always respected you for your knowledge and insights and I will continue to do that. Please do realize that I seriously disagree with you on several issues in this thread. :) Also, when I said "I think it's bullshit" I was expressing my personal opinion, but perhaps it was a bit too blunt.

 

Did you not read what I wrote in my response to Creedo? Or did you just not understand it?

Yes, very carefully actually. At first I wanted to delete the post because I actually misread it. But then I gave it another thought and figured there is a truth in Creedo's point. For two reasons:

 

1. I see no difference between the devil and the devine. In my opinion both don't exist. Claiming the existence of either seems equally implausible. The devine is just as much a construct of mankind.

 

2. Negative existence. I was trying to look at this from your perspective. But please correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not knowledgeable in this field.

 

You might not recognize it, but another big part of my "case" is the 3x3 Massive SpaceTime Matrix.

Yes, I am very well aware of that. A lot of aspects of your 3x3 Massive SpaceTime Matrix seem very plausible. However, the fact that I can accept part of your theory, doesn't mean I have to accept the whole. I think it's not a matter of understanding, it's a matter of disagreement.

 

That's too bad you feel this way. Perhaps some day you might decide to change this thought.

I might have overreacted a bit when I said "bullshit". I'll try to give a more balanced reply next time I disagree. :)

 

I would describe your issue, more technically, as a "lack of gnosis".

Uhm, I don't have any issues :) It's not a lack of gnosis either. I do understand the several spiritual aspects you're describing, I just don't attach value to them. I told you before that I'm not a spiritual person. And althoug you may consider that a loss, I think it helps me see things more clearly. Now, don't get me wrong... I'm not claiming that I know things better than you, I'm claiming that my opinion (especially in this case) weighs just as much as yours.

 

And I am wondering why you are so afraid to talk about anything other than the "classic" image of God?

Now this is exactly what irritates me in some posts. I am not afraid to talk about anything. If you think I am, that's just you having very bad judgement. Don't try to tell me how I'm feeling.

 

And those theories that you think are close to brilliant... they are all part of the "evidence" you do not wish to accept.

Like I said, I can agree to some of the things you're saying, but that does not mean I unthinkingly accept your whole theory. You only provide analogical evidence that is, to say the least, questionable.

 

I've done nothing of the sort.

Perhaps "twisting scientific facts" was not quite the right choice of words. You often refer to existing theories and scientific facts. Now basically there's nothing wrong with that if you use that information to support your theory. But what you're doing is presenting scientifically proven facts as evidence for your theory. I can't say I have enough scientific knowledge to contradict you, but these references are, again, questionable.

 

I have no religion, Roel.

I could have sworn you're into The Kaballah, but if you say that you don't have a religion I guess must be hallucinating. One of the definitions for religion is: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

 

Now, unless you're going to argue the dictionary again, I'm afraid you do have a religion! Hehe, you're just in denial ;)

 

And I take it as a insult that you assign this badge to me.

Well, you've been assigning badges to me on multiple occasions. You've called me scared and afraid, you claim that I have a lack of gnosis, you doubt my application of semantics. I'm tempted to say that this is a taste of your own medicine, but I can't. Calling someone religious is hardly an insult, is it? Especially in this case, where you clearly fit the profile of a religious person.

 

I am a spiritual being, Roel, and I have renounced man-made religions.

Then what is the Kaballah (or Quabalah)? Is it not man-made?

 

In the spirit of the God that binds us all, I would really, REALLY encourage you to study the more SCIENTIFIC aspects of Qabalah and the Tree Of Life, Roel.

Until I have reason to believe that there is a god or anything remotely similar, I don't see why I should study the Quabalah more than I'm doing already. I'm willing to look into the scientific aspects, but as of yet it seems as if everything is related to "the divine". From my perspective, studying the Qabalah would thus be illogical.

 

I have been down the path you are on. You are younger than me and I can see the things in you that were major questions in my younger days. It was not until I rejected religion, and researched the science behind the TOL, fractals/chaos, and the GMS, that I realized we are all spiritual beings.

But that doesn't mean we have to follow the same path and by the looks of it, I don't think it will happen. Again, this sounds somewhat patronizing, although I'm not sure whether you actually meant it that way.

 

Correction: They ARE statements of God...

Correction: They ARE statements of humans. Where, when and how did god make these statements?

 

Really, we are getting to the heart of the matter with these scientific principles, Roel. How would you like to dispute these? Please tell me how I am "twisting" these principles?

First of all I'm not disputing the principles, I'm disputing the ridiculous assumption that these principles are statements of god!!! Again, you assume that god exists. There is no proof of that whatsoever. Perhaps I my standards for evidence are too high, but have you ever considered that yours might be too low?

 

that these are yet ANOTHER large piece of evidence that there is a God.

How is this evidence that there is a god... This is truly nonsense. Please explain to me why you think this is evidence. I could also make claims like yours: "I am simply pointing out that these laws describe Energy, and since these laws state that total Energy is constant, and they have been shown to be true, that these are yet ANOTHER large piece of evidence that there is a Giant Turd". It makes no sense.

 

But I know you will not agree. That's OK, it doesn't hurt my feelings, nor God's feelings.

Again, the patronizing... AAAARGH :)

 

But you might want to look at what your insistent disbelief does to your own feelings...and where it leads you down your path.

I'm happy as can be. I'm not missing anything in my life. You might want to look what your insistent believe does to YOUR emotions!

 

And because I can see all the varied forms of evidence for a supreme being in the workings of the universe this being created, I know (there's that gnosis again) that the probability of there NOT being a God is very low indeed.

Again, no evidence... except for your "gnosis". I can't say I'm ready to be converted, certainly after hearing the same "evidence" over and over again. Why would the possibility of there NOT being a god very low? Since I don't see any evidence of a god anywhere, I would estimate the chance of there BEING a god very low!

 

Roel

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

And now that your tactics are becoming ever more clear[...]

Well, I said that if you wouldn't take my word for it, then there was nothing I could do to convince you that I wasn't some child playing a game, and it seems that it was right. Okay, you believe what you will about me. But if you really think that I'm not interested in constructive conversing, and that I have "tactics" as if this were some kind of schoolboy jape, then why on Earth are you continuing the conversation? Either you think this conversation has potential merit or it doesn't. If you think it does, then please drop the insults and assumptions, and discuss the issues.

 

Answer the question I posed[...]

Well, okay. No, I don't think that the word "stupidity" is one that is applicable to areas of knowledge or abilities. It's a general term denoting level of intelligence. It would be gramatically and technically incorrect to say the sentence "I am stupid at history". You could say "I am ignorant about history" and you could say "history makes me feel stupid" or even "I say stupid things with regard to history", but not "I am stupid in the area of history".

 

I'll happily admit that I am ignorant with regards to some subjects, and I'll happily admit that there are things that I'm bad at. That's a "well, duh" answer, as exactly the same is true of anybody and everybody. But, to answer your exact question, no I don't think I am stupid at anything, because that's a nonsense phrase.

 

Here, again, is more evidence of your tactics of trying to make the conversation go where you want it to go.

Wait...discussing the things that you want to discuss is now a bad thing? Am I supposed to ask your approval of what subjects I can or cannot discuss? To let you in on a secret - you've got exactly as much control over this conversation as I have. And I'm not the only person who has been following their own agenda here. You've abandoned this self-same conversation twice so far, and when you've rejoined you've ignored everything that was being said when you decided to get out, even if I've mentioned them subsequently (I think I've mentioned the Platonic solids twice since you dropped out that time, and you've ignored it. I'm still in the dark as to what your point there was, as you've refused to clarify). This seems to be quite a common thing for you, in fact.

 

Look at this thread. I questioned you very politely with all due respect for your beliefs, but brought the psychological concept of confirmation bias in as an alternate explaination and you didn't even reply. But, of course, you don't like conversations to go the way that you want them to go, and you just constanly go along with the flow, eh? And it wouldn't be like you to not answer a question you were asked, would it?

 

Yes, I like to present my opinion of things, and give you my perspective on things. Yes, I'm interested in discussing the things that are interesting to me. Yes, I'm going to point out the flaws in your arguments and assumptions as and if they occur to me. It's exactly the same thing that you do. that everyone does. It's called "having a conversation". Do you expect me to just say "yes, Rainman" to everything you say? That'd be a bit boring, wouldn't it?

 

As a controls engineer, I can easily spot a control freak...and you've got all the markings.

Well, thanks again for the ad hominem. You know what? You keep addressing me in this aggressive fashion, choosing to assume things about me and to insult me, rather than to address the points I make. I suspect that you'd not be so forgiving of such behaviour if our roles were reversed. Let's see, shall we?

 

Why do you always resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than discussing the points I make? Is it because you're afraid that my points are valid, and so you have to resort to attacking me? It's okay, Rainman. Let me take you by the hand and lead you down this path towards atheism, stopping off at a little place we like to call "rational debate" along the way. If your arguments are sound, then you shold be able to discuss them without resorting to attacking the person who counters your arguments - your arguments should stand on their own. It's not a scary path, if you'll just open your mind to possibilities outside your own, limited mindset (and go and do your research on the proper application of logic, and the process of rational debate, of course. I've been considered a "big gun" in the feild of logic and debate for nearly 19 years now, so you'll have to do your own research. I could teach you, but I'd have to charge, so I wont), then you'll find that it's a nice, comfortable place to be - knowing that your arguments don't need to be backed up by questioning the character and integrity of your opponent. In fact, you'll learn how such things actually undermine your arguments.

 

Good God, don't I sound arrogant and patronising in that paragraph? Is that how you want me to address my posts to you? Because that's how you address yours to me. I can if you like. Just say the word.

 

I'll be pointing out this tactic of yours whenever I see it, and holding you true to the exact words you post, from now on.

Go for your life. Just don't forget to answer my points while you're at it.

 

Whine all you want, but you are doing more to expose who you really are than I am.

I'm not trying to hide "who I really am". Here:

 

snopes: 8333 posts over the course of nearly 4 years.

 

Friday The 13th Forum: 4718 posts over nearly 4 years.

 

New Evolution Online: 1571 posts over 3/4 of a year.

 

All those sites I'm registered as "trollface" at. All those posts are archived (barring a few accidents, and not those more than a couple of months old in the SLC forum of snopes) and you're free to look at all of them at your leisure. I'm a member of a private board, but that doesn't archive posts, and is invitation only, so I can't give you access to that. With that in mind, I can tell you that maybe 2 to 4 years ago, I was briefly a member of both the ViewAskew forum and the Fortean Times forum. You can go and find my posts from those sites as well, if you want.

 

Also, here is my DVD collection, and this is the majority of my video collection. My band's site is down at the moment, but here is a link to an article about us here are some pictures and if you google, you'll find a few more articles and pics about us. I'm Aidy, with the long hair.

 

That's 'who I really am'. You'll find posts on all 3 of those sites covering a variety of topics, from serious to frivolous, from being posted when I was at the peak of my game to being posted when I was unbelieveable tired and drunk and couldn't even remember making the posts in the morning. It's all there, it's all a matter of public record (unless you think I've somehow faked all that info, or that I've been faking 'who I really am' online constantly for the past 4 years), and I think you'll find a pretty consistant personality (and viewpoints) all throughout.

 

I have no idea what you think I'm hiding, or why, or how I'm pretending to be someone different from who I am or why, but I hope that this will be enough evidence to convince you otherwise. I wouldn't mind an explaination of why you've come to this ridiculous conclusion about me, or what it is that you think that 'I really am', or what you think I'm hiding from everyone (well, only trying to hide from you, as you've seen throguh me, apparently). Can you explain what you're actually accusing me of and why? I'd be interested to know.

 

Now, please, stop the accusations, stop the ad hominems, stop treating me as if I'm being immature when all I'm doing is applying my logic to your arguments, stop trying to make me out to be something that I'm not, and just address the issues that I actually post. Please. Either that, or go do a vanishing act again if you really think you can't cope with that.

 

Right, if you're up for that, then I have one or two comments that are actually on the subject at hand.

 

Since mankind lives in a relativistic world (which I don't see you arguing...yet), mankind has this feeling that EVERYTHING must have its dualistic balance. Well, that is actually true here in our relativistic world. Male is balanced by female. True is balanced by false. Day is balanced by night.

I'd dispute that everything has it's dualistc balance. "True" and "False" are human constructs, for a start. But, furthermore, what's the balance for, say, coral? Or bacteria? What's the opposite of air? What's the opposite of fire? What's the opposite of alcohol?

 

Again, I think that these opposites are not as prevalent as you say, and I think that a lot of it is down to human interpretation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

I'm just not even going to respond to your whining anymore. Mmmmmmmmkaaaaaay?

 

First, here is the question I asked. I didn't need an essay, Mr. Logic. A simple YES or NO would do: "Would you ever be willing to admit your stupidity in your particular areas?"

 

You're right that I'm arguing about the method of reproduction. That's because you're saying that two entirely different mechanisms of reproduction are comparable.

Yes, they ARE comparable. They are both responsible for creation, at their own levels of the systemic hierarchy. Did you read that quote I supplied about self-similarity and fractals? Here it is again, since you seem to have conveniently ignored it:"Selfsimilar growth, ubiquitous to nature (living and nonliving), is therefore governed by universal dynamical laws which are independent of the exact details (chemical, physical, physiological, electrical etc.) of the dynamical system, i.e., a system which evolves with time."

 

Well, you can change to that if you like, but it's still worng. I assume that you think that by changing from claiming that we can both self-replicate to claiming that we can both self-reproduce that you're broadening the criteria that you're using enough because it means that, while DNA creates exact replicas of itself, humans don't. There's still a problem, though. We do no "self-reproduce", either. By definition this means doing it by yourself.

First of all, no it is NOT changing the subject, as you seem to imply. If anything it is a mere clarification of terms. Yes, I admit you caught me on the improper use of self-replication. But this is another example of where you try to obfuscate the bigger point, the larger context that I am talking about. Namely, self-similarity. In this case, self-similarity of reproduction. There, is that word better? We are self-similar with our DNA in that we both reproduce our lifeforms. It is a key link, and similar relationship, in the existence of ourselves, the larger system. No matter what you say, we DO share reproduction in common with our DNA. THAT is the primary point with regard to the systems-of-systems model. But sharing reproduction in common with our DNA is just ONE of the relationships of system to subsystem. It was just one example. You seem to want to focus in on the details and semantics. And yet when I focus in on your details and semantics, you brush it off or do not address your own statements as incorrect.

As you yourself have pointed out, to reproduce, there need to be two humans, one male, one female. The same is not true of DNA.

DNA requires a matched dyad to reproduce, just like humans. There are two distinct half-helixes when the DNA unzips to reproduce. They also use a self-similar male/female encoding. We call them purines and pyrimadines. When DNA upzips, one half-helix has the purine and the other has the pyrimadine.

As you've just conceeded that we can't even now in the previous paragraph, why are you changing your position again, to try to make it out as if your superior knowledge makes you right?

This is where you try to divert from the larger context of the example. You want to make it seem like I am changing my position, when I am merely clarifying the position in response to your point about the semantics of the words I chose. The primary focus has NOT changed, no matter how much your control tactics want to make it look like it has changed. One of the major self-similarities of humans with our DNA is that we share reproduction in common.

As for the bit about changing your terminology (which has a precise, scientific menaing, lest we forget) but not changing what you're talking about...how does that work? "Well, I've changed what I'm saying, but I've not actually changed what I'm saying"

Here is how it works: I clarify my intent by selecting the proper word. Reproduction. It does not change my argument. And again....look how you harp on semantics when it is important to you, and what you are trying to accomplish. I will start being a lot more rough on you and the PRECISE words you use. And there are some opportunities right in this response of yours.

That's a very asinine thing to say. You might as well say that before a cell splits during meitosis that there are 2 sepereate DNA strands, so a foursome is self-similar.

It is not an asinine thing to say. The purine/pyrimdine is a gender-like (self-similar) encoding, just like male and female genitalia. Get with the program here.... you are still arguging self-exact, and self-similarity across systemic levels IS the topic, and has always been the primary topic. I have given other forms of self-similarity, but you just want to focus on the fact that DNA reproduction and human reproduction do not use the same mechanism. You are ignoring self-similarity, which is the major point of the systems-of-systems view. I will spell out the main point of this discussion again:Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

The fact remains that you are claiming a similarity between two things, which aren't actually seperate things whatsoever - they are exactly the same thing.

You are trying to change the argument AGAIN...(and you don't think you are a control freak?) You say "they are exactly the same thing". No, they are not. One is a subsystem of the other. If one is a subsystem of another, they ARE separate things!!! A system and one of its subsystems cannot be the exact same thing.

Or are you now arguing that, as DNA and two people are self-similar that there would be two interdependent higher systems of intelligence?

This is close to what I have been exhibiting as self-similarity all along. DNA is a subsystem of the human, and we both share reproduction in common. We are self-similar with our DNA in that we are both agents of CREATION. And there is the link... for Creation is the functional aspect of God. Our DNA reproduces (creates). We reproduce (create). Our higher level system context has a higher context of creation. This has been my point all along. You have simply tried to obscure it by focusing in on self-exactness, while I have been saying self-similar, and pointing to fractals/chaos, all along. If you wish to keep arguing your self-exact argument, and dealing in semantics only when they matter to you, then I will stop trying to clarify and explain myself. To use your own words against you, did you not say this:

Explaining yourself is a good thing, not a bad one.

It's not similar to human reproduction. It is human reproduction.

It is self-similar reproduction at two distinct sytemic levels. Humans reproduce humans. DNA reproduces DNA. Both system and subsystem share this power of Creation. They are self-similar in this way.

So what you're saying, essentially, is that if I demand any kind of empirical evidence, rather than - as Roel succinctly put it - "weak analogical evidence", then I'll never believe? Well, I think I'm happy enough requiring extraordinary claims have some kind of burden of proof, let alone extraordinary proof.

If you are ready to accept that one systemic, self-similarity between humans and DNA is that we both reproduce, then maybe we can look at other relationships of self-similarity between the two? How about that both the human body and the DNA triplet-codon structure is an instantiation of the Tree Of Life? That is another important relationship between the two.

I mean, Hawkins seems to believe that you cannot get infinity by subdivision - that the Planck length is the smallest measure possible.

The key is "seems to believe". Thus, a theory. Would you like to show proof of that theory? I don't think we "know" for sure, as in having proof, of what happens at scales lower than the Planck length. It is simply a reference length at which classical gravity and space-time effects cease being reliable, and quantum effects take over. Quantum means uncertainty. So "uncertainty" means we don't really know WHAT happens below the Planck length. Consider it a "barrier of uncertainty". I don't think anyone can say for sure that there are NOT self-similar structures, of some different form or mechanism, below the Planck length. Planck time is the same sort of barrier. We are not really sure what happened at less than 10^-43 seconds of the life of our universe.

Who are these well-respected scientists that disagree with Hawkins?

See, here is another example of how you try to twist what was said. You are trying to make the conversation go in a direction where you want it to go, and you claim that people are disagreeing with Hawking (not Hawkins). I never said that, so why should I answer your loaded question? I am NOT claiming that scientists are disagreeing with Hawking. However, there are theoretical physicists who are working on theories of metric engineering at sub-Planck scale lengths. In fact, this is where John Archibald Wheeler's "IT from BIT" theory of information as energy is going. Jack Sarfatti also has some interesting theories on how dark matter and dark energy are related. But again, for the record lest you think you are going to twist my words: I never claimed anything of the sort that you imply with your question.

Incidentally, you've claimed twice now that Drake has quantified his equation, despite my pasting of a quote from the man himself saying that his equation is not for quantification. So, I'm going to have to ask you for a cite for that, too.

No, I don't. Because that would play into your hand to draw us away from the main topic. I will no longer follow you down these paths. The Drake Equation was simply an example. That example was only to show varying standards of how we infer possibility and probability, and that related to induction. It was not the primary point which, again is: Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

My comupter can't read .pdf files.

Give me a break, dude. Acrobat Reader is FREE. Go freaking download it, and you will forever be able to read PDF files. I am not doing more work for you. PDF is an internet standard, and the fact that it is free means you have no reason to not upgrade your capabilities....and then read the paper. Stall tactic.

Okay, so "within 3 significant figures" is the closest that I've got to an answer so far. So, can you show your working, or do I have to take your word for it?

Yeah, so get off my back, I gave you the accepted standard of evidence for the replication of the GMS. You can compute it for youself: You compute Phi (1.618...) from higher and higher digits in the Fibonacci sequence. As you go higher in the sequence (finer approximations of Phi), the result always lies within 3 sig figs of Phi.

I said that the fact that the Moon and the Sun appear to be the same size from the POV of Earth is a coincidence.

No. You did NOT say that. And now, since you were harping on semantics with me above, it is my turn to harp on you. Here is precisely what you said:

The ratio of the distance of the Sun from the Earth and it's size is the same as the same ratio for the moon. But they're not related. There is no causal relationship between them.

Did you catch those last two sentences? Yes, this is what you said, alright. Hmmm...now that is quite a bit different from what you SAY you said in the quote directly preceding my requote of you. In one you say it is merely a coincidence. But earlier you said there is no causal relationship...they are not related.Now this is where I hold you to the semantics of what you said: no causal relationship. And then I point out that gravity and angular momentum ARE causal relationships between them. If it were not a causal relationship, then we would not be able to plan gravity swingbys of probes out into the solar system. Yes, there obvisouly must be causal relationships between them, otherwise how could we predict the motion of the heavenly bodies. If you think I am being extreme, I point out I am only showing you what you said...and that it is wrong. There ARE causal relationships between them.

 

Sure, you can paste a diagram that is irrelevent to what I said and act as if it proves your point

Sure, you can SAY that it is irrelevent to what you said, but that does not change the fact that it IS relative to what you said. You said "no causal relationship". That diagram shows an interesting causal relationship between heavenly bodies. Now...you see how that is relative: You said NO causal relationship, and then I showed a causal relationship. Wow. Amazing how that works. So now YOU want it both ways, huh? You want to change the subject from what you actually said, to something less than the absolute statement you made about no causal relationships. Interesting how you think you can sneak that by me, but that you will harp me till the cows come home on what I say.And oh yeah...did you even bother to look at the web page that the graphic came from? It is a web page all about Phi and Golden Mean Spiral. LOTS of material there. I suggest you look it over. This is another area that I am pointing you towards that you seem to want to ignore. Just as we are talking about:

 

Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

You can find lots of data of how the GMS and Phi is a repeating, self-similar structure that shows up all over nature, and at various levels of systemic context. In fact, did you know that both the structure of the human body, and the structure of the DNA exhibit Phi? Hey, this is ANOTHER relationship of self-similarity. So again, let me refer back to your words that I was disputing in exhibting all these relationships of self-similarity. Here are your precise words:

 

Well, the one is completely unrelated to each other.

 

Really, it's comparing things that don't bear much comparison.

Yep. Those are your words. No doubt about it. So now would you like to stay on the higher-level topic we started talking about? These words of yours have been shown to be incorrect, as I have exhibited several different, key, relationships between humans and our DNA...and don't forget the context:Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

You said they are completely unrelated, and don't bear much comparision. I have shown valid relationships....and these relationships are related to Creation. Something we share in common with our Creator.

 

So now let us again stay on topic. In case you have forgotten the topic, and might want to wander down some detailed technical pathway at a much lower level, the topic is:

 

Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

Would you like to stay on this topic, and discuss some of the other relationships I have pointed out? Like, maybe the GMS, or the Tree Of Life? Those are a couple of interesting ones.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

I'm not trying to hide "who I really am". Here:

That is not the "who" I was referring to. You are referring to your extant, conscious self. I am referring to the "who" that is quite a bit deeper. But then again, you might not even recognize that entity exists. For if you don't believe in God, then you probably don't believe in the concept of the non-physical spirit, or soul, would you?

Well, thanks again for the ad hominem. You know what? You keep addressing me in this aggressive fashion, choosing to assume things about me and to insult me, rather than to address the points I make. I suspect that you'd not be so forgiving of such behaviour if our roles were reversed. Let's see, shall we?

Whine. Go ahead and insult me, I don't give a flying flip. Ad hominem me all you want. The fact that I use lots of sarcasm does not mean I hate you. In fact, I told you I have a high opinion of you in several areas. You're a smart guy, and that's cool. But HOW you argue and debate is every bit as important as WHAT you are debating. You do things to try to twist my words, or direct the conversation to what YOU think the point is, and so I am attacking some of your tactics with my ad hominem sarcastic, smart-ass statements. So I am a smartass, so what? So are you! And in fact, I appreciate some of your smartassyness, especially some of the goodies you swing at Chrono. Even some you swing at me.If you feel insulted, then that says you DO take them personally. Yet you say you don't take them personally.

 

I've been considered a "big gun" in the feild of logic and debate for nearly 19 years now

Well now, that's interesting. Logic. That means you understand Incompleteness. And thus that there are certain prospects that cannot be positively proved or disproved in a closed system of logic.

I'd dispute that everything has it's dualistc balance.

Yes, OK, another poor choice of phraseology. Rather, our physical existence, as best we understand it, is based on dualism. Everything eventually boils down to Matter and Motion. That is what E=mc^2 is relating. Energy is Matter in Motion. Or we can talk about +charge and -charge, or electron spin-up and spin-down. Or how about the balance between Mass and Space? I think we call it Time. Yes, things like coral do not exhibit any obvious "opposite".

Again, I think that these opposites are not as prevalent as you say

Well, I dunno. MATTER and MOTION can pretty much describe anything in our universe, in a general sense, right? How about some other basic "opposites" like current and resistance? In fact, that could get us back to the topic of:Self-similarity of design artifacts in a systems-within-systems model.

 

Here are two other self-similar relationships: F=ma and V=IR. Different domains, different mechanisms. Yet self-similar because mass is self-similar to resistance (one resistance to acceleration and the other resistance to current). Current is self-similar to acceleration. And mechanical force is self-similar to electro motive force (voltage). Yes, it seems like self-similarity shows up all over nature. Almost like it is one of several "themes of Creation". And then, when you see self-similarity of Phi/GMS throughout nature, you might begin to wonder if it is all by design. As a guy who does design for a living, I gotta tell you that I admire the efficiency of our designer(s). It has set an amazing design standard for systems engineers like myself. Did I tell you I am using fractals/chaos and the GMS in some of my AI system designs for new NASA space exploration projects? Creating systems with the very blueprints of our mutual Creator.

 

RainmanTime

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

I'm just not even going to respond to your whining anymore. Mmmmmmmmkaaaaaay?

Instead you've decided to do some of your own. Okay, that's cool. I'd rather copnverse with someone who's whiney than somone who can't keep a civil tongue in their gob.

 

A simple YES or NO would do: "Would you ever be willing to admit your stupidity in your particular areas?"

It is not a question that I will answer with a yes or a no, for the reasons I have already explained - it is a nonsense question. And, yet, I've already answered it, and two further related questions. Still, if you want me to answer your exact question, exactly as you've asked it, then the answer is "No. Exactly as I said above, and for exactly the reasons I gave above.

 

Yes, they ARE comparable. They are both responsible for creation, at their own levels of the systemic hierarchy. Did you read that quote I supplied about self-similarity and fractals? Here it is again, since you seem to have conveniently ignored it:

 

"Selfsimilar growth, ubiquitous to nature (living and nonliving), is therefore governed by universal dynamical laws which are independent of the exact details (chemical, physical, physiological, electrical etc.) of the dynamical system, i.e., a system which evolves with time."

So you're now saying that the methods of reproduction aren't actually comparable after all, it's the fact of reproduction itself that is comparable?

 

Okay, if that's how broad the criteria you're using is, then humans are also self-similar with plants, hydra, jellyfish...you could even make a considerable case for being self-similar with clouds. I mean, I think you'd probably ultimately lose that last one, but you could make a very strong case for it.

 

First of all, no it is NOT changing the subject, as you seem to imply.

I thought you said that you were going to stick to my exact words from now on (which you seem to think is siome kind of punishment, when it's actually what I'd prefer you had done from the start. In fact, it's something that I've asked you to do repeatedly)? That lasted all of no posts.

 

I said that the term "self-replicating" has a very specific meaning which is different to "self-reproducing". When I was arguing aginst what you were saying when you were using the term "self-replicating" is a different argument than you saying the same thing only with the term "self-reproducing". Yes, it's a small semantic detail, but it's quite a large one that has huge knock-on effects to the rest of the argument.

 

As someone who is into fractals and who works within precise scientific boundries you should know that one tiny error in the beginning of a calculation can end up throwing the end results way way off course. "God is in the details", and all of that.

 

There, is that word better? We are self-similar with our DNA in that we both reproduce our lifeforms.

Yes, that's better. That addressess all of my arguments quickly, consisely, and leaves me with one simple statement that I cannot dispute. More of this kind of thing, please.

 

No matter what you say, we DO share reproduction in common with our DNA.

Yes we do. As I outlined above, though, I don't think that is of great significance. We share reproduction in common with every living thing, and some non-living ones as well. In fact, "reproduction" is one of the criteria by which common wisdom determines whether something is a life-form or not.

 

It's kind of like saying that we have "having a physical form" in common with them, or "the ability to move". Hardly Earth-shattering.

 

You seem to want to focus in on the details and semantics.

Yes. As I said above, they are important. You're building up a big theory, starting from these little foundations, and if the foundations are wrong, then everything built up from those foundations will be wrong, too. do you not think that the details of your theories are important? That's not the sign of a basis in science, that's the sign of a basis in vague mumbo-jumbo.

 

DNA requires a matched dyad to reproduce, just like humans. There are two distinct half-helixes when the DNA unzips to reproduce.

So you're not claiming that we're self-similar in terms of DNA's asexual reproduction, then? Just with regards to the sexual reproduction? That would seem to contradict the idea that the fact of reproduction was enough of a similarity in itself.

 

This is where you try to divert from the larger context of the example. You want to make it seem like I am changing my position, when I am merely clarifying the position in response to your point about the semantics of the words I chose. The primary focus has NOT changed, no matter how much your control tactics want to make it look like it has changed.

I thought you were sticking to what I did actually say, not putting words in my mouth? I did not say that the primary focus had changed, I said that you've changed your position with regards to the details. We were discussing cloning. You said that it (self-replication) was something that we had in common with DNA, even before we could self-repliacte. Then you said that we didn't, and you kind of flip-flopped around the whole issue for a while. All I've been trying to get you to do is to clarify and explain what you're saying with regards to the details.

 

Do we, or do we not share self-replication in common with our DNA? Is the ability to clone human beings relevent to the case you are making or not? I'd just like some definitive answers, please. I'm not trying to distract from anything, I'm trying to get you to explain what exactly you mean. This is your theory, you claim a (at least partially) scientific basis for it, I assume that you've actually thought about these things, and that you have definitive positions on the issues. You cannot expect me to buy your theory if you're not even prepared to explain it except in the most broad generalities. And you certainly won't convince me that it has any scientific merit at all.

 

Here is how it works: I clarify my intent by selecting the proper word. Reproduction. It does not change my argument.

Of course it does. If I were to say G = mc^2, and you called me up on it, I couldn't just change G to E and say that it was the same thing. It's not. Arguing that we share the very general term "reproduction" is a very different thing to the more specific "self-reproduction" and even more different to the very specific "self-replication". You cannot argue that arguing one is like arguing the other, because they're worlds apart.

 

Why, it'd be almost like being very hung-over and tired late at night and mistakenly misusing the term "self-similar" to mean "exactly the same", wouldn't it? Excpet you'd never concentrate on details and semantics only when it suits you, would you? The difference is that when I was called out on my misuse, I simply admitted the mistake, rather than going on about you being petty or disingenuous or patronisingly telling you to go and do more research.

 

I will start being a lot more rough on you and the PRECISE words you use.

Yes, for the love of God, please start doing that.

 

I have given other forms of self-similarity, but you just want to focus on the fact that DNA reproduction and human reproduction do not use the same mechanism.

When you say that I'm not focusing on the other similarities you've pointed out, are we talking about the ones that I agreed with you on, and therefore that needed no further discussion? Or what? If you'd like to clarify, and feel that I've not addressed something, point it out, and I'll happily tell you what I think. Rather than, yes, whining, you could just talk to me like one adult talks to another, you know.

 

You are trying to change the argument AGAIN

How is addressing the specific things that you say and have said, the specific claims that you are making changing the argument?

 

One is a subsystem of the other. If one is a subsystem of another, they ARE separate things!!!

A subsystem of something is a completely seperate thing to the thing it's a subsystem of? So, as you didn't like my last analogy (not that you addressed it, of course), how about this one...do I share "being able to play the piano" with my hands? Is that a trait that I share in common with them? Or are my hands the mechanism by which I play the piano?

 

Meiosis is the process by which humans reproduce. If you want to say that it's a sepereate thing that is similar, then you might as well say that we can "walk around on two legs", similar to DNA, too.

 

This is close to what I have been exhibiting as self-similarity all along. DNA is a subsystem of the human, and we both share reproduction in common.

So, let me get this absolutely clear...you are not arguing that one, single, solitary human being is self-similar with his or her DNA? Instead you are arguing that, in a very generalised way, humans in general are self-similar with human DNA? I want to be absolutely clear on this point.

 

We are self-similar with our DNA in that we are both agents of CREATION. And there is the link... for Creation is the functional aspect of God. Our DNA reproduces (creates). We reproduce (create).

So you would also agree that we are self-similar with every other living thing? From protozoa up to whales?

 

If you wish to keep arguing your self-exact argument, and dealing in semantics only when they matter to you, then I will stop trying to clarify and explain myself.

Not relevent to the point at hand, but I just thought I'd point out the irony that in this sentence you tell me off for both having made a semantic mistake (although you accuse me of being disingenuous with it) and for caring about your semantic mistake.

 

How about that both the human body and the DNA triplet-codon structure is an instantiation of the Tree Of Life?

Um, well, the Tree Of Life, in my mind is purely a human construct. And I have no idea how you mean that either tha human body or DNA are a tngiable example of the Tree. What in DNA is "CHESED...THE RULER, MAJESTY, POWER & AUTHORITY, CONSOLIDATOR OF THINGS" (cite)? I see no analogy between the two at all.

 

The key is "seems to believe". Thus, a theory. Would you like to show proof of that theory?

I thought you were addressing the exact words I used, not inferring your own things from now on? I merely stated that Hawking (you're right, I got his name wrong) didn't believe that to be the case, and asked you who disagreed with him on that matter. I never said that Hawking was right. Of course he can be shown to be wrong. It'd be very foolish to simply believe something to be true because he believed it. There's no need to get all defensive about it.

 

I don't think anyone can say for sure that there are NOT self-similar structures, of some different form or mechanism, below the Planck length.

Sure. But, equally, no-one can say for sure that there [i'>are[/i]. So the whole thing is conjecture. The standard of evidence I require to find something likely is a bit higher than it simply not having been disproved yet.

 

Speaking of "standards of evidence", you seem to have abandoned that line of inquiry. Why don't you type out a sentence showing the kind of answer you would find acceptable, with regards to what standards of evidence I would need, so I can copy the form? Or do you admit that it is a unfair and unanswerable question which simply gave you ammo to shoot down any argument Roel or I make without actually having to address any of the points we make?

 

You are trying to make the conversation go in a direction where you want it to go, and you claim that people are disagreeing with Hawking (not Hawkins). I never said that, so why should I answer your loaded question? I am NOT claiming that scientists are disagreeing with Hawking.

You said that there were "a lot of people (yes, even well-respected scientists) who think it is very intuitive...and supported by the structure of our universe from galaxies down to quarks." I pointed out that Steven Hawking was not among them, that he believed that there was a finite size that you could reach. If these people think differently, then they must disagree with him on this point. It's not a loaded question at all. I'm not about to jump out from behind a bush saying "A-HA! That means ur rong, cuz Hawking is a well-respected scientist and ur not!11!! LOL!!111!"

 

If these people disagree with him, then they might be right and he might be wrong. I don't consider him the ultimate authority on the structure of the universe. It's simply that you made a claim about well-respected scientists, I pointed out the view of one well-respected scientists and asked you to counter the claim with evidence of your own.

 

Again, this is how discussions of this kind of thing work. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm not trying to trap you. I am not playing the childish game you seem to think I am (and, boy, is that baseless accusation ever getting old quickly). I'm simply trying to discuss this with you, taking in your perspective and knowledge-base and offering up mine.

 

But again, for the record lest you think you are going to twist my words: I never claimed anything of the sort that you imply with your question.

Exact words, please, from now on.

 

No, I don't. Because that would play into your hand to draw us away from the main topic. I will no longer follow you down these paths.

I see, you bring something up, make a false claim about it, I disprove your false claim and ask if you can substantiate what you've claimed, and suddenly this is a tactic of mine to change the subject? I must admit, I do kind of admire the way that you manage to make you brinigng the Drake equation up, into me changing the subject, all the while claiming it's me who twists words and subjects. But not that much.

 

That example was only to show varying standards of how we infer possibility and probability, and that related to induction.

What you said was:

 

And in fact, Drake's quantification of this equation has essentially showed us just how ridiculous (unlikely) it would be to assume we are the only intelligent species in this universe.

Maybe you don't want me to address the words that you do say, but as I'm not psychic, I find it a little bit hard to guess what you mean when you don't actually say anything close to it. I'm sorry, but all I have to go on is what you say, so I think I'll continue addressing that, if you don't mind.

 

As for the Drake equation being an example of induction, my point is that it's not, as the "facts" upon which any conclusion reached from the equation are highly debateable, to put it mildly (I also personally think the equation is incomplete, but that's a debate for another thread).

 

Now, you can now say that you didn't mean what you said, and that you don't beleive that Drake did quantify his equation, but all I can do is address the points that you do make. With your "references to how the Drake equation is "accepted by SETI and other astronomical communities", it seemed like you were trying to show the scientific validity of the conclusions you had drawn from the equation and, indeed, by mentioning Drake's supposed quantification that you were claiming some kind of scientific basis for it.

 

If you don't want me to point out where you're misapplying scientific theories and principals, or falsely invoking the name of science, then don't do it. I certainly won't promise you that if you give a false pseudo-scientific example to support your case that I won't call you on it. Again, if the foundations of what you're saying are false, then anything you build on those foundations is worthless.

 

Acrobat Reader is FREE. Go freaking download it, and you will forever be able to read PDF files.

And my computer is more than a decade old, operating on Windows 95. It's not the cost, it's the fact that it does not work. Give me a break and stop insinuating petty, childish things about me.

 

I am not doing more work for you. PDF is an internet standard, and the fact that it is free means you have no reason to not upgrade your capabilities....and then read the paper.

I have a good reason, as explained above. If the software doesn't work on my computer, then the software doesn't work on my computer, and no amount of bullying from you will change that. You would consider quoting one single, solitary sentence from the paper (even telling me the title and author would do) so that I can find and read it too much "work"?

 

Stall tactic.

Incorrect unkind assumption. See how it works?

 

You can compute it for youself: You compute Phi (1.618...) from higher and higher digits in the Fibonacci sequence. As you go higher in the sequence (finer approximations of Phi), the result always lies within 3 sig figs of Phi.

Sorry, how does this relate to comparative sizes of DNa and the universe to humans again? What average size of humans did you say you would use for the calculations? What figures am I supposed to plug in to it again?

 

No. You did NOT say that.

Oh, yes I did.

 

In one you say it is merely a coincidence. But earlier you said there is no causal relationship...they are not related.

If there is no causal relationship between the distance of the ratio of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the Sun on the one hand and the ratio of the Moon from the Earth and the size of the Moon, then what is it other than coincidence? that's not changing my story, it's couching the same concept in differnet language to make it clearer. obviously I managed to obfuscate what I meant, rather than making it clearer, but that was not my intention.

 

And then I point out that gravity and angular momentum ARE causal relationships between them.

It is not a causal relationship between them. The distance of the Sun from the Earth is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth. The size of the Sun is not dependent on the size of the Moon. The distance of the Sun from the Earth relative to the size of the Sun is not dependent on the distance of the Moon from the Earth relative to the size of the Moon. There is no causal relationship between them. One of them does not cause the other.

 

Yes, they obey the same laws of physics, but that's not what I was disputing. The Sun is not the distance away from the Earth that it is because the Moon is the distance away from the Earth that it is. That's what I was saying. I hope it's clear now.

 

And oh yeah...did you even bother to look at the web page that the graphic came from? It is a web page all about Phi and Golden Mean Spiral. LOTS of material there. I suggest you look it over. This is another area that I am pointing you towards that you seem to want to ignore.

Wait, because you misunderstood what I said and posted a picture that you thought was relevent (but actually wasn't) to a side-issue to the discussion, you expect me to have right-clicked the picture, discovered the site you got it from from the URL, visited the site, and read it in it's entirety? I do have things to do other than this, you know. I'm not devoting my life to this conversation. if there's something that you feel I should look at, then I suggest that you tell me, rather than say that it's 'too much work'. You'd already been to the site and had the url of the picture in your paste buffer. Would it really have been that much work to type "I think it might be useful to you to look at the whole site" and paste the url, and editing off the ending so it was just http://www.spirasolaris.ca/?]http://www.spirasolaris.ca/?'> That's really too much effort?

 

In case you have forgotten the topic, and might want to wander down some detailed technical pathway at a much lower level[...]

Wouldn't the "lower-level" pathways be self-similar systems of the larger topic?

 

Would you like to stay on this topic, and discuss some of the other relationships I have pointed out? Like, maybe the GMS, or the Tree Of Life? Those are a couple of interesting ones.

So, I'm controlling the conversation completely, and we can't discuss any of the issues that I think are relevent, but you alone can suggest topics which are relevent? And I'm the control freak? What about the free exchange of ideas? I discuss points you bring up, you discuss points I bring up...you know, we have an equal discussion. You should try it.

 

That is not the "who" I was referring to. You are referring to your extant, conscious self. I am referring to the "who" that is quite a bit deeper. But then again, you might not even recognize that entity exists. For if you don't believe in God, then you probably don't believe in the concept of the non-physical spirit, or soul, would you?

Wait, wait, wait...you're claiming that when you said I was showing "who I really am" that you were saying that I may be being upfront and honest about who I am as far as my "consious self" is concerned but that you can tell that my soul is using "tactics" in the words that I type that make me a control freak? You're really going to have to explain what you mean, here, because this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Please clarify exactly what you mean by the post you made that starts with the sentence "Don't you worry, trollface...I won't leave you feeling lonely", because you've lost me completely.

 

And, no, I don't believe in a "soul" or "spirit" even slightly.

 

The fact that I use lots of sarcasm does not mean I hate you.

Never said it did. I just think that your so-called "sarcasm" (and if you think that random ad hominem attacks on me rather than addressing my arguments is "sarcasm", then I suggest you buy yourself a dictionary) is counter-productive to rational debate.

 

But HOW you argue and debate is every bit as important as WHAT you are debating.

Ain't that the truth? This is why I want you to debate me on the issues and address the exact words that I do say, rather than making inferrences, and assumptions about my motives and addressing them instead. Pretend I'm a scientists you're discussing this with.

 

You [...] direct the conversation to what YOU think the point is[...]

I ask again how this is a bad thing. Or different from what you do. The last sentence of your previous post is you explicitly stating what you think the point is, and trying to direct the conversation there. Hos is it disingenous and designed to sabotage the conversation (and evidence that I'm a control freak. Or that my soul is, anyway) when I do it, yet the correct thing to do when you do it? Again, why do you think it's right to hold yourself to a different standard of debate than you hold me to? Oh, that's right "life isn't fair", right?

 

And in fact, I appreciate some of your smartassyness, especially some of the goodies you swing at Chrono.

I argue like that with Chrono because I have a very low opinion of him, and I don't believe for a second that anything productive can come out of debating with him, or that there are intelligent points to be made with reference to him and his claims. My opinion of you is higher and, as such, I tend to address you with more respect than I afford Chrono.

 

If you think I should have less respect for you and your opinions, and should address you like I address Chrono, then I will. But I don't see what can productively be achieved by the pair of us sniping at each other. I think there may be something productive to come out of us addressing what each other says, so I'd rather do that. If you don't want to do that, then say so, and I'll abandon this conversation.

 

If you feel insulted, then that says you DO take them personally. Yet you say you don't take them personally.

I'm not insulted (although you have insulted me; there's a distinction there), I just think that the pair of us being snarky with each other would be pointless and counter=productive, when we could be having a meaningful and interesting discussion instead.

 

Well now, that's interesting. Logic. That means you understand Incompleteness. And thus that there are certain prospects that cannot be positively proved or disproved in a closed system of logic.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

Rather, our physical existence, as best we understand it, is based on dualism. Everything eventually boils down to Matter and Motion. That is what E=mc^2 is relating. Energy is Matter in Motion. Or we can talk about +charge and -charge, or electron spin-up and spin-down. Or how about the balance between Mass and Space?

Again, I'd argue that this really is dualism. It seems like the criteria are too arbitrary and, again, man-defined. E = mc^2 seems like a three-way partnership, not just two. It's true that E = mc^2, but it's equally true to say that E/m = c^2 or E/c^2 = m.

 

But the idea of mass vs space I don't think really counts. Space is not a thing in and of itself, it's simply defined as an absence of mass. Space is not the opposite of mass in the same way that 0 is not the negative of 4. -4 is the "opposite" of 4. Anti-matter, now, that would be a different story.

 

Yes, it seems like self-similarity shows up all over nature. Almost like it is one of several "themes of Creation". And then, when you see self-similarity of Phi/GMS throughout nature, you might begin to wonder if it is all by design.

I can certainly see what you're saying here. But it seems to be essentially the same argument that Creationists use to "disprove" the theory of evolution. The honey bee produces more honey than it needs, and honey has antiseptic and other medical properties. therefore it's unthinkable that there isn't an intelligent design behind it. I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't work for me. I don't think it follows.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

It is ironic that Trollface being of a differing sexual design, should pick up the banner of inquisition against a supposed time traveler, that does not completely relate to this time, due to his non-knowledge of this society.

 

It was many years before that Richard The Lion Hearted, who was also of questionable sexual determination, charged an opposing line of enemy soldiers and was the first to show valor within a battle.

 

Well' at least Trollface had not criticize British architecture?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

It is ironic that Trollface being of a differing sexual design[...]

Uh, "differing" with regards to what?

 

Well' at least Trollface had not criticize British architecture?

Depends on which architechture you mean. I like, say, the former BT labs at Martlesham, but think the Buttermarket in Ipswich looks cheap and out of place.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: A Spiraling Conversation

 

Nah, Chrono called me gay as an insult, and I responded by challenging his assumption that I was straight by asking why he assumed that I was not gay. Basically, he had assumed that I was straight, and furthermore that, as I was straight, I would find being called "gay" insulting. By asking that, I was subtley pointing out that, as I'd not mentioned anything to do with my sexuality at all on these boards, that he was making assumptions based on no evidence whatsoever.

 

I have subsequently posted about my sexuality, mentioneing both Jennifer Connelly and Nicole DeBoer as attractive ladies from which you could deduce that I was at least bisexual with a penchant for brunettes.

 

As it happens, Chrono was right in one of his assumptions, and wrong in the other. Not that it matters, but for the record, I am straight (and I do have a prediliction for brunettes), but my best friend is gay, and I lived with him for two or three years. As it's inconceivable in the eyes of many that a straight man could be best friends with a gay man, let alone share a house together, to this day we still get mistaken for boyfriends from time to time. I don't find this insulting in the slightest. He gets a lot more wound up about it than I do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...