Scientists discover new clue to the chemical origins of life

Jan 24, 2012

Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life.

A team led by Dr Paul Clarke in the Department of Chemistry at York have re-created a process which could have occurred in the prebiotic world.

Working with colleagues at the University of Nottingham, they have made the first step towards showing how simple sugars –threose and erythrose—developed. The research is published in Organic & Biomolecular Chemistry.

All biological molecules have an ability to exist as left-handed forms or right-handed forms. All sugars in biology are made up of the right-handed form of molecules and yet all the amino acids that make up the peptides and proteins are made up of the left-handed form.

The researchers found using simple left-handed amino acids to catalyse the formation of sugars resulted in the production of predominately right-handed form of sugars. It could explain how carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in nature.

Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry.

"We are trying to understand the chemical origins of life. One of the interesting questions is where carbohydrates come from because they are the of DNA and RNA. What we have achieved is the first step on that pathway to show how –threose and erythrose—originated. We generated these sugars from a very simple set of materials that most scientists believe were around at the time that life began."

Explore further: New technique reveals immune cell motion through variety of tissues

Provided by University of York

4.8 /5 (27 votes)

Related Stories

Did clay mould life's origins?

Apr 04, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- An Oxford University scientist has taken our understanding of the origin of life a step further.

Shape-shifting sugars pinned down

Jan 10, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Oxford University scientists have solved a 50-year-old puzzle about how, why or indeed if, sugar molecules change their shape.

Recommended for you

'Global positioning' for molecules

Dec 19, 2014

In everyday life, the global positioning system (GPS) can be employed to reliably determine the momentary location of one en route to the desired destination. Scientists from the Institute of Physical and ...

Cells build 'cupboards' to store metals

Dec 17, 2014

Lawrence Livermore researchers in conjunction with collaborators at University of California (link is external), Los Angeles have found that some cells build intracellular compartments that allow the cell ...

User comments : 284

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (31) Jan 24, 2012
Sung to the tune from Mary Poppins-
"Just a spoonful of sugar makes EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down- In the most delightful way!"
Deathclock
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2012
This article has nothing to do with evolution.
Telekinetic
1.2 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2012
With all due respect D.C.:
"Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry."
Deathclock
4.7 / 5 (25) Jan 24, 2012
With all due respect D.C.:
"Dr Clarke said: "There are a lot of fundamental questions about the origins of life and many people think they are questions about biology. But for life to have evolved, you have to have a moment when non-living things become living -- everything up to that point is chemistry."


In that quote Dr. Clark referred to the origin of life separately from the evolution of life. One is clearly a prerequisite of the other, that does not make them the same thing.

The ultimate origin of life and the evolution of life are two different things are studied separately. One is called abiogenesis, the other is called biological evolution. They relate to each other in the sense that the one leads to the next. They are adjacent, but not overlapping.
bewertow
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
In b4 religious nutjobs...

great article!
thales
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
Sung to the tune from Mary Poppins-
"Just a spoonful of sugar makes EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down, EVOLUTION go down- In the most delightful way!"


The emphasis should be on the third syllable. Your sense of rhythm is matched by your understanding of evolution.
Ilya_Beraha
1.4 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2012
With all due respect D.C.:
They are adjacent, but not overlapping.


Really, D.C.? Why don't you try another site, not Physorg.com?
Telekinetic
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2012
To all:

'to go down'- street vernacular meaning to happen.
Also, in creationism, you don't need carbs to create DNA,
Man suddenly appears. When does evolution begin? From the moment when non-living things become living, like the good Dr. Clarke says. You're one tough crowd.
Henrik
Jan 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kaasinees
3.2 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2012
Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.

Assumption = wrong?

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.

How did God create life? God must be alive otherwise he couldnt do anything like creating life. God can not be alive since he suposedly created life. You can not create yourself. If God is not alive and therefor did not create life i am pretty sure he doesnt exist.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2012
Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.


A billion plus... not millions.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.


Replicate the environment of the early Earth in your office and use the correct type of sugar (which is not table sugar) and let me know in a billion years how that turns out.

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.


Stupid fairy tale for babies.
Henrik
Jan 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2012
Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.

String theory is false. So is God theory.
Non sequitur. You are limiting life to biological life, which presupposes atheism. God is defined as a bodyless Spirit, so He does not rely on biological life to live Himself.

No i didnt, dont put words in my mouth.

By definition God is uncreated, timeless and immaterial. This is reflected in His Name: I Am (Yahweh). The universe (time, space, energy) was created.

If God is alive he was created, thus he could not have been the creator of life. If God was not alive he could never have created life either.

Seeing both your premises fail, this conclusion is false.

Your mind fails.
Henrik
1.2 / 5 (25) Jan 24, 2012
Stupid fairy tale for babies


Babies can't read. Fairy tales are a 19th century literary genre portraying fictional characters. The Bible is older than that, and contains real characters, like David, Cyrus, Jesus, Pilate and John the Baptist.

In literary terms, many books of the Bible most closely resemble a historical account based on eye witness material. In addition there is poetry and prophecy.
Yellowdart
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2012
Your mind fails.


No no, it's your mind that fails...
Calenur
4.8 / 5 (21) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik, I'm not sure why you even bother to come here. Your type always try to answer these articles with the same mundane religious answers, but have little insight into the science, or even ironically your own scripture. You aren't going to convince us by curb-stomping dogma into these threads, as there is no substance...much like the people who espouse dogmatic ideas.
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
If God is alive he was created


Give me your definition of life.
Henrik
1 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2012
have little insight into the science, or even ironically your own scripture.


Feel free to provide an example.

You aren't going to convince us


Us? Are you a spokesperson for some committee perhaps?

by curb-stomping dogma into these threads


Like the dogma of evolution.
Graeme
1.9 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
Well currently we have proteins need nucleic acids to form. Nucleic acids need carbohydrates to form, carbohydrates need proteins to form giving us a loop. It is pretty unclear that abiogenic evolution could have produced this process in one go. This suggests that in the past the chemical process was simpler or that somehow information about the process was introduced externally. (eg information expressed in DNA).

Until abiogenesis is reproduced we will have just have a series of unproven hypotheses.
Thrasymachus
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2012

Seeing both your premises fail, this conclusion is false.

That's not the way deduction works, Henrik. An argument with false premises or invalid structure says nothing whatsoever about its conclusion. Only true premises related to one another in a valid way can say anything about a conclusion. Not surprising you don't get that though, since all of your premises blatantly and proudly contradict each other on top of being spectacularly false or nonsensical.
Calenur
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
I'm generalizing...I feel rather comfortable doing so in this case. It's hard to take seriously a person who believes the world is 6000 years old and was magicked into being. Please, go troll elsewhere.
Henrik
1.7 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
An argument with false premises or invalid structure says nothing whatsoever about its conclusion


You are correct. I should have said: the whole argument fails. The conclusion does not flow logically from the premises, since they are refuted. The conclusion could still be true (or false), but the argument did not make it's veracity any more plausible.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.
Interesting you mention that. The first page of the bible says it is the story of the TetraGrammaton: four letters that also encode DNA. You religion is based upon worshiping a geometric object with 72 vertices. It's also represented as the Flower of Life upon which the dragon's paw rests at the Emperor's Palace in China.
Henrik
1 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2012
It's hard to take seriously a person who believes the world is 6000 years old


Do you have any reason for that or is it just a gut feeling? In fact, there is no reason to assume the earth is any amount of years old, because the age of the earth can be measured in many ways that provide equally valid answers. The earth simply does not come with a production date.

and was magicked into being


That description applies best to the big bang. This theory assumes that the whole universe popped into being uncaused out of literarlly nothing. I think that could be considered a fine definition of magic.
Henrik
1.2 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2012
You religion is based upon worshiping a geometric object with 72 vertices


Whatever helps you get through the night buddy. Keep taking the tablets and you will make it.
kaasinees
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
That description applies best to the big bang. This theory assumes that the whole universe popped into being uncaused out of literarlly nothing. I think that could be considered a fine definition of magic.

Scientific illiterate.

Big Bang does not claim a created universe (from nothing). It states that the universe is constantly expanding and changing (evolving).

Henrik
1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
Big Bang does not claim a created universe (from nothing).


I did not use the word created. The current inflationary LF-models (Guth, Vilekin, Borde) all assume a universe starting from a point where time, space and energy do not exist. Alan Guth called the big bang universe "the ultimate free lunch". You see, you are allowed to disagree with me, but you do not have the liberty to misrepresent physics to fit your agenda.

It states that the universe is constantly expanding and changing (evolving).


Yes, but that is not a unique feature of LF-models. Multiverse and cyclical models also have an expanding universe. But Vilekin proved that those also have an ultimate beginning from nothing.

quaillrun
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik, you need to read this book so you can have factual information instead of your omnipotent sky fairy tale. "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss. It might give you some insight besides a book written over two thousands years by lots of Men.
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik, you need to read this book


I read a lot of such books, and they are quite interesting. But none of them can answer the quintessential question: how can something come from nothing caused by nothing. Physics does not have a naturalistic explanation for the singularity, simply because before Planck time, physics does not exist yet.

Only the Bible provides a valid answer to that question. The cause of the big bang can only be metaphysical. A timeless, bodyless, uncaused and superior intelligent Mind is the answer.
Henrik
1.6 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
Before someone mentions quantum fluctuations as responsible for the big bang: they are not truly creation from nothing. A quantum event only happens in the vacuum energy field. And that exists in space and time, consisting of energy. But the big bang came from literally nothing, which excludes vacuum energy, space and time.

Also, causation does not require time to exist within the framework of 3D-space. God could have caused the big bang simultaneous with the creation of time. Timeless causation is also logically possible, this is called logical instead of temporal causation. Causation just means that without the causing event, the caused event cannot logically exist.
ACW
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2012
I sincerely doubt that anyone is actually taking your posts about the hocus-pocus theory very seriously. That said, I found the article interesting as it puts into place yet another piece of the puzzle of life that was required for evolution to begin here on Earth.
CubicAdjunct747
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
@henrik, where did your god come from? My all encompassing bible told me he was farted out of a snail. By the way, why did your god create such a massive universe, with massive solar systems and stars and planets, only to let children be born deformed and millions of them hungry. Cant he create enough food for them on this simple little planet? What a lame god of the weak you worship.

Back to the scientific method, i wonder if anyone can tell me if these sugars are some of the ones found in nebula via spectroscopic methods?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (22) Jan 24, 2012
Do you have any reason for that or is it just a gut feeling? In fact, there is no reason to assume the earth is any amount of years old, because the age of the earth can be measured in many ways that provide equally valid answers. The earth simply does not come with a production date.
Sure it does, and science has figured this out. But your book includes one as well, according to many godlovers more knowledgeable in such things than you.
http://www.albatr...arth.htm

6000 years. No wait! Between 5,700 and 10,000 years old.
http://en.wikiped...ationism

-Regarding numbers, this is the percentage of americans who are dimwitted:
"...between 40-50% of adults in the United States say they share the beliefs of young Earth creationism"
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (24) Jan 24, 2012
I read a lot of such books, and they are quite interesting. But none of them can answer the quintessential question: how can something come from nothing caused by nothing
Well you dont read the right books do you? Or you read them and dont understand them. Or you understand them but dismiss them as being ungodly.

"In his latest book, The Grand Design... Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."


He added: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."

-And why would god create a universe in which he was superfluous? He would not. Ergo god does not exist. Next question -?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (23) Jan 24, 2012
Causation just means that without the causing event, the caused event cannot logically exist.
You use half-baked logic word putty fueled by wishful thinking. Scientists use their training and experience, look for clues, and devise theories based on what they find.

This is evidence, by the way, that you would insist was left by your god in the first place, and examined using the senses he gave us and analyzed with the brains he gave us.

Scientists choose to investigate the world using all these wonderful gifts but you choose to reject them all. You insult the god who gave you these things henrik.

Repent.
bewertow
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
Why is this idiot Henrik still allowed to troll every article with his idiotic religious garbage? Mods, do your job and ban him already!
Henrik
1 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2012
Hawking said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing


Reviews of his latest book agree that Hawking doesn't really answer that question. He just reframes some existing theories (like the M theory) and attacks religion a lot. I think it is his weakest book looking at the explantions he gives. Basically for him something out of nothing is the same as gravity working in some eternal vacuum energy field. Now for one, that's not nothing. The law of gravity and a vacuum field is something. Hawking is avoiding the question not answering it. Reputable scientists like Paul Davies and Roger Penrose blasted the book, and it has received many critical reviews (SA, FT, Economist). Obviously folks like Dawkins and Deepak Chokra were positive, but they are not physicists.
Rekar
5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik, I would like to point out that assuming the universe had a cause is a fallacy. Causality only works in space-time. space-time had yet to exist before the big bang. Please understand what you are talking about BEFORE you spit it out assuming. Someone that knows you are spitting fallacies will come along.
Henrik
1 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2012
Mods, do your job and ban him already


A new recruit for the thought gestapo. Where is Frank Herbert?
Rekar
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2012
And also, if you would like to look into the quantum world, effects CAN come before causes.
Henrik
1.3 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2012
Causality only works in space-time. space-time had yet to exist before the big bang


Why should causality be limited to our universe? First of all, God could have created the universe simultaneously with the big bang. The cause therefore coincides with the effect, like a ball hanging from a chain.

Furthermore, causality does not rely on the existence of spacetime at all. A form of spaceless time could exist. Time is very different from space in nature, and several multiverse, and vacuum models all assume space and time to exist independently. Even in Einsteins initial theory, time simply exists separate from space.

Secondly, causation could be independent of our interpretation of time. This form of causation assumes a logical rather than temporal relationship between cause and effect, like the number 7 depending on the existence of the number 6.
Henrik
1.5 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2012
into the quantum world, effects CAN come before causes.


Like I already pointed out, a vacuum event is not creation ex nihilo. It is creation ex something, namely the vacuum field that exists in space and time. By the way, many scientists are convinced that yet unknown laws underpin quantum events. That is consistent with the usual claim of science: we just haven't discovered it yet.
Henrik
Jan 24, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rekar
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
Yes, his initial theory. But if you really knew anything about Relativity, you would know they are NOT separate. Science has done many experiments to test the likeliness of a combined space-time and they come out to be true every time.

So if you would like to show me exactly how much smarter than Einstein you are, please by all means publish a theory and let it get peer reviewed. No? Didnt think so.
Rekar
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik, we have never, ever seen a "nothing" or experienced a 'nothing'. Nothing does not exist in the universe, Im sorry. Empty space IS SOMETHING. Not a single location in space is nothingness. We could not imagine what nothing is. Tell me your definition of 'nothing'. Completely void of everything?

Second, your logic is flawed, like many people arguing for god. You are using what is called Special Pleading. Do some research.
Sciencebee
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 24, 2012
I wish Physorg would please implement bury functionality in the comments. That is the most elegant solution to the religious trolling. This way the trolls can continue to post all they want but once enough people give it one star it will become collapsed/hidden. If a poster wishes to he/she can still open the comment.
jdawgeleven11
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2012
Henrik,

'By definition, God is a space less, timeless, uncaused intelligent Mind or Spirit'

So by your definition and fallible logic, God created the Universe from nothing and then waited 13.7 billions years for human beings to win out as primates, then watch them rape and kill each other for roughly 200K years then step in and 'choose' one specific little group of people and give them a vague and contradicting group of texts, then watch more raping, war and killing, for a few thousand years, then say oh wait shit i fucked up, let me rewrite the rules and send my self down to sacrifice to myself and then if everyone just acknowledges that I did so then you can spend eternity with me in happy go lucky time where you all gather around me for creating this little social experiment of mine and worship me for being awesome.

Regardless of how much circular logic you throw into physics, it doesnt change the human part of the story which is at best ridiculous and at worst a sick joke.
emortis9
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2012
"Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings."

How is this? You just stated this like fact. Connect the dots for me. How is speaking consistent with the findings of string theory? I have read a bit about string theory and I still don't have a real grasp on it by any means. I would really like for you to shoot yourself in the foot with this reply. Whoops...did I say that out loud?
jsn3604
not rated yet Jan 24, 2012
There are a lot of comments over one tiny piece to the puzzle on how life formed. I like how we have a science article followed by ads on how penny stocks are the key to my financial future.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (17) Jan 24, 2012
Why should causality be limited to our universe? First of all...The cause therefore coincides with the effect, like a ball hanging from a chain.
In your book (literally) god could do ANYTHING. And so your arguments re; logic and causality and morality themselves have no meaning. Your arguments are ungrounded. They assume god exists and then argue that he must have created everything because he exists.

In other words you are just singing songs. You use words because they sound good and they fit the cadence. Music is a powerful tool of religion. 'Make a joyful noise unto the lord all ye lands!'

There is meaning in the bible indeed but you will never see it because you and your fellow somnambulists think its all about you. 'God loves us so much he wrote a book to tell us how to save ourselves.'

But its not about saving you or your friends sir. It is about saving the world FROM you, from the great multitude that would flood it yet again. Which is much more important yes? Amen(Ra)
jsa09
5 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2012
Organic chemists at the University of York have made a significant advance towards establishing the origin of the carbohydrates (sugars) that form the building blocks of life.


Please note the chemistry is just a small step in an ongoing process of determining what may have happened so long ago here on Earth. Of course it may have happened millions of times in each of millions of locations. this would mean the beginnings of the beginning may have happened trillions upon trillions of times and some of these perhaps only millions progressed to the next step.

But it is hard to take Henrik seriously as that person seems to think that there is only one way of doing things and that way was written down about 2,000 YA by number of people that somehow know more about the subject than do people today that have the benefit of far more comprehensive education.
jsa09
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
statements seen in correct order
1) god exists
2) god created universe
3) god created man
4) god told man how to behave
5) god killed off most men because many were not behaving the way man was told to behave.
6) god loves man
7) we must be god fearing
8) again god told man how to behave correctly but this time different than last time
9) again god killed off most of men for not behaving correctly
10) but god loves man

... and so it goes on
then apply logic....
universe is really really big.
man is really really small.
god created all the other beasts as well as man.
How do we know that god talks to man any more than god would talk to the other beasts?
Where does our information come from?
how do we determine the validity of that information?
Does it make any practicle difference what we believe anyway?
davhaywood
4 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik thinks this is more plausible than evolution:

http://www.youtub...UuZN5w#!

Also, Henrik, you are right that the principle of something being created from nothing is an absurd notion. However, what is equally absurd by that same line of logic (causation), is that there is something that was never created and but somehow exists. You can't skirt this by saying God is "just so." Moreover, by that logic again, one may just say that the Universe existed forever before Plank Time as the singularity. The point of all of this is that both conclusions are absurd because both rely upon the logic of Man whom imposes our learned/acquired mode of synthesizing knowledge, which is inherently limited (see Godel). Science offers much more definitive answers about the universe because it makes the attempt, as much as possible, to transcend that limitation -- often rendering astounding non"sense"ical results which are epistemologically objective nonetheless
davhaywood
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Hence why science > philosophy.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2012
Like the dogma of evolution.

Is it dogma? You can test it yorself.

Make synthetic sugar. It's not hard to do. You will discover that if you do it chemically then half of it is right handed and half of it is left handed. Yet, in all of nature only the right handed form is ever consumed or produced by living things. They can't make (or use) the other kind.

If stuff were to have been created independently of each other there would be no need for this astounding fact. It only makes sense if the first organism (by chance) made that kind of sugar and all descendants kept on making (and using) that kind of sugar.

As for religious dogma: let's hear how you can test that.
Meyer
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
The universe did not come from nothing. It is effectively infinite because time is a product of the universe itself. If we could watch the universe in reverse, those 13.7 billion "years" (whatever "year" means in a quark-gluon plasma) would take an infinite time to pass due to gravitational time dilation.
roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
The Kalam cosmological argument Henrik, really? *Facepalm*

God is the beste explanation for the origin of the universe.

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is what human experience and logic tells us. For, out of nothing, only nothing comes. To say that something for no apparent reason can come out of totally nothing is not science, but magic.


Human experience and logic tells us everything has a cause. Adding "begins to exist" is disingenuous as nothing that didn't "begin to exist" has ever been observed, so falls outside of human experience and logic. No room for god here.

(2) The universe began to exist.

In an event 13,7 billion years ago, the universe came into being from nothing.

Straw-man fallacy. No-one claims the universe came from absolutely nothing.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

1 and 2 are both fallacies.

LivaN
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Assumption: sugar plus millions of years = life.

I will ask the cubes I put in my coffee what they want to evolve into.

Assumption = wrong?

Correct assumption: Word of God plus 6 days = life.


Straw man. Non sequitur.
roboferret
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012

Most likely, the creation act by God co-occured with the big bang on t=0, so there is no need for a- or pre-temporal causality.

You are presupposing your conclusions in your argument. I'm getting dizzy.


(4) That cause cannot be the universe.

Something cannot create itself, for then it must already exist.

No-one knows what existed before the big bang. It's possible that the universe is cyclical, the maths works. It's definitly not an opportunity to insert the supernatural.

(5) The only viable cause is therefore outside of the universe, outside of space, time, causality and energy, and must be God.

Whoa there! Non-sequitir alert. It's a vast logical leap to go from "the universe must have a cause" to "so it must be [insert favoured deity]". Why does it have to be intelligent? How can intelligence exist without a brain (examples please)? How can intelligence be non-contingent?
By definition, a god is whatever you want it to be.
animah
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
Through His Word. He spoke it into existence. This, interestingly, is consistent with the findings of string theory, which equates matter with vibrating strings.


Hilarious! Henrik, there is no air in space. You can't speak. It doesn't vibrate. You're illiterate.
LivaN
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
That description applies best to the big bang. This theory assumes that the whole universe popped into being uncaused out of literarlly nothing. I think that could be considered a fine definition of magic.


Your assumption that the universe popped into existence implies time existing independent of the universe. Time is a property of the universe and does not exist independent of it.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
It's possible that the universe is cyclical


Cyclical and multiverse models cannot avoid the absolute beginning either. This is the Guth/Borde/Vilekin theorem: any expanding relativistic universe cannot have an infinite past.

No-one claims the universe came from absolutely nothing.


Alan Guth (the father of cosmic inflation models) said about the universe coming from nothing: "the universe is the ultimate free lunch". That the universe came into being from a state of nothingness (absence of all space, time and energy) is generally accepted in bb-cosmology.

All alternative theories (like Hawkings black hole universe) just avoid the initial beginning question by postulating some pre-existence, which is arbitrary and begs the question.

Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
implies time existing independent of the universe


Not necessarily. Not when time itself came into being co-occurring with the popping at t=0.
LivaN
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
The current inflationary LF-models (Guth, Vilekin, Borde) all assume a universe starting from a point where time, space and energy do not exist.

It expands from that point, at which dimensions are zero and density is infinite. There is no starting point.
Alan Guth called the big bang universe "the ultimate free lunch".

This seems intuitively correct, as seemingly everything comes from nothing, however we can reason using neat mathematics that the universe's total energy is in fact conserved at 0. Nothing is free.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Why does it have to be intelligent?


Intelligence is required because of the complexity of the laws of nature and the incredible fine tuning of the universe to plan for ultimately producing intelligent life.

How can intelligence exist without a brain (examples please)?


You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.

How can intelligence be non-contingent?


You have to elaborate on that question.

By definition, a god is whatever you want it to be.


No, God has certain attributes that are required. Examples are that He is immaterial, timeless, intelligent, omnipotent etc.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
The net energy in the universe could be zero, or have any other value. There is no proof for this hypothesis however, because it depends on the arbitrary setting of initial values in the mathematical model.

But even if we assume that this is true, that does not make an uncaused universe from nothing any more credible. For we still need an explanation how the negative and positive energy came about, and why. If someone digs a pit, the net amount of extra volume of pit and dug out material is still zero. But if someone falls into the pit, he will still wonder how that pit came about.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
It expands from that point, at which dimensions are zero and density is infinite. There is no starting point


There is no physical starting point in space, but there is a beginning.

At the big bang, time itself came into being at t=0. That is pretty much a beginning, in the sense that there is no eternal sequence of past time leading up to the bb.
roboferret
4 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
Cyclical and multiverse models cannot avoid the absolute beginning either. This is the Guth/Borde/Vilekin theorem: any expanding relativistic universe cannot have an infinite past.

We are not talking about the expanding universe. We are talking about pre-big bang origins. Models such as the BaumFrampton allow a cyclical universe despite entropy. I'm not convinced either way, but at least they have a theoretical framework to back it up, not just "Goddidit".

All alternative theories (like Hawkings black hole universe) just avoid the initial beginning question by postulating some pre-existence, which is arbitrary and begs the question.


And how is this different to your hypothesis?
And why is a non-contingent agent any more philosophically satisfying than infinite regress (hint: it isn't)? Could God make an infinitely regressive universe if he wanted to?

Tausch
2.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Cryopreserve all Henriks. I refuse to let any of the Henriks die - still harboring the thoughts they express.

Reanimate them when language and science can treat such aberrations of thought far more effectively than any of the sciences presently do today.

Even today we have no way of convincing the Henriks of the world to suspend themselves voluntarily until language and science offers an alternative to what all Henriks of this world have come to label God.

Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
It's possible that the universe is cyclical


Cyclical and multiverse models cannot avoid the absolute beginning either.


Why are you assuming a beginning? Did you know that we have never witnessed the origin of anything? "Beginning" is a man made concept that really only serves as a demarcation between two different states of matter... but the matter existed all along.

Matter/energy (as a single entity as per mass-energy equivalency) cannot be created or destroyed. This is a law of thermodynamics and indeed we have never seen matter/energy be created and all the evidence we have points to it having always existed.

It is fallacious to assume that there was a beginning... even if there was, "god" (some ill-defined conscious entity) is perhaps the WORST explanation, because it isn't an explanation at all. If "god" could have always existed then everything could have always existed, why is your god the only thing that can violate causality? Because you say so?
LivaN
4.6 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Everything in our universe, yes.

(2) The universe began to exist.

In an event 13,7 billion years ago, the universe came into being from nothing.

Incorrect. That is the point from which the universe expands, however it is not a beginning.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

Incorrect. While events in the universe, viewed along the time dimension and in the direction of entropy are subject to cause and effect, the universe as a whole is not. Time, a requirement for cause and effect, is a property of the universe and is undefined outside of it.

Since your premise is incorrect I will leave it at that.
ccr5Delta32
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
This is an article on the origins of life ( reproduction with inheritance ) and not on the the origins of the universe .Both are interesting questions but please stick to the topic
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Why are you assuming a beginning?


Because the alternative, an eternal universe, implies that there is an infinite series of past events in the universe. That is highly implausible for many reasons. One is the impossibility of an actual infinite (Hilbert etc). If the past were infinite, we would never arrive in the present. The other problem is with entropy. An infinite universe would need a mechanism to create matter from nothing, which negates your own premise.

A universe with a beginning makes physical sense, and is in line with mainstream physics. So it is the more rational belief.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Everything in our universe, yes.


The universe is defined as everything in it: time, space, energy. So your statement is based on a false distinction between everything and everything. Word play.
Henrik
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
That is the point from which the universe expands, however it is not a beginning


So it begins to expand, which is a beginning, because before that it did not expand. Again, you are just juggling with words but offer no real argument here.
Tausch
2 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
X174
http://users.rcn....hiX.html

You have 11 genes and 5186 bps. Do you really think the hunt stops there?

Once you have a few genes and a hundred or so bps you can reverse engineer this to have a clean picture where chemistry stops and biology begins.

The sooner we can suspend the cyropreservation of the Henriks the better. And of course with a hard core record between the moment of chemistry and biology to show and not with a kiss.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
http://www.physor...ife.html

This link relates closely to the article posted in here.
Both beneficially and mutually supplement each other.
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
If someone digs a pit, the net amount of extra volume of pit and dug out material is still zero. But if someone falls into the pit, he will still wonder how that pit came about.


Invalid analagy, that is not a closed system, and so the total energy has changed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 25, 2012
You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.
You have a link to this research or are just making shit up again?
LivaN
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Not necessarily. Not when time itself came into being co-occurring with the popping at t=0.

In order for a beginning to occur you need a change. Change is a property of time. Time exists at t=0, and so only from that point on can change occur. You cannot move back to t=-1 because t does not exist. Your innitial position to change from does not exist. It is undefined.
Tausch
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Infinities - as physical concepts - are plausible and within the grasp of a human means of understanding.

If infinities and visually picturing them are the prerequisites for the concept God, so be it. I can wait until science is finished preaching. I will give science as much time to preach as all religions were given time to preach.

Lines without beginnings or endings on surfaces of spheres.
There is no limit (to math or imagination) to create geometric objects that represent infinite densities and temperatures as obvious as the geodesics of spheres.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Invalid analagy


The analogy is quite valid. The analogy is not the energy balance but to illustrate that even with net results being zero, the fact remains that something exists (namely positive and negative energy in an expanding spacetime) and that demands an explanation. To deny this would be irrational.
LivaN
not rated yet Jan 25, 2012
Everything in our universe, yes.


The universe is defined as everything in it: time, space, energy. So your statement is based on a false distinction between everything and everything. Word play.


The distinction was between the universe as a whole and a subset of that whole.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Infinities - as physical concepts - are plausible and within the grasp of a human means of understanding


They exist as mathematical concepts but not in real nature. You must make that distinction.

Something in nature can be 7 kilograms in weight, but not infinite. The same applies to time and space. Things may approach to infinity, but they will never reach that point.

Even in mathematics infinity poses a problem. For instance, the substraction infinity minus infinity can have any real number as outcome, including infinity.
Henrik
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
Hilarious! Henrik, there is no air in space. You can't speak. It doesn't vibrate. You're illiterate.


The Logos (Greek for Word) of God in John 1:1 does not mean the same as human speaking. That is merely an analogy. One could translate Logos as thought, reason, logic, foundation and such. The Logos is an essential attribute of God: communication and intelligence, even to the point that the Bible says: Logos is God.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
Why are you assuming a beginning?


Because the alternative, an eternal universe, implies that there is an infinite series of past events in the universe. That is highly implausible for many reasons. One is the impossibility of an actual infinite (Hilbert etc). If the past were infinite, we would never arrive in the present. The other problem is with entropy. An infinite universe would need a mechanism to create matter from nothing, which negates your own premise.

A universe with a beginning makes physical sense, and is in line with mainstream physics. So it is the more rational belief.


So you're saying the universe cannot be eternal, but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be... just because you say so?

Gotcha.
bewertow
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik is a huge n00b. You can do math with infinite quantities. Arithmetic with transfinite cardinals is pretty trivial.

Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Time exists at t=0, and so only from that point on can change occur


No, time itself came into being at t=0. Before t=0, there was no time. So we have a change from no time existing to time existing. That is a change independent of the common flow of time.

In order for a beginning to occur you need a change


No, the beginning is the change. You are making the mistake of trying to separate cause and effect in our spacetime. They are co-occuring at t=0 while no spacetime exists.

But in fact it is even quite possible that time as a distinct entity does exist before t=0 in our spacetime. Our spacetime may not be the only form of dimensions in existence.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
You can do math with infinite quantities


I never denied that. One can also do calculus with oddities like imaginary time. But in nature there is no imaginary time, nor is there a rock with a mass of sqrt(-1).
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be... just because you say so?

No, no, no...just because the BIBLE says so. And the Bible is true because the Bible says so.

Circular logic?...Nah...couldn't be.
Deathclock
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
You all realize this notion of t(0) is probably completely meaningless in reality, right?
panorama
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik,
You keep saying on here that your ghod invented the universe. (The Al Gore of ghod's?) Honestly I think your ghod is rather arrogant and full of their self. I really think you should switch over to my ghod. He's much more friendly, doesn't kill the first born of any nation, doesn't "test" people by telling them to kill their sons, or employ pedophiles. I know it may hard for you to make the switch, but I think you'll find it worthy. Also, my ghod is a small wooden statue I found under an old house.

Switching will make answering all of these questions much easier. When you ask my ghod any of the big questions you get the same response every time, "How should I know, I'm a small wooden statue..."

We'll be "praying" for you.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
So you're saying the universe cannot be eternal, but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be


I never said God was complex. In fact a timeless, uncaused, bodyless Spirit is quite a simple concept. This is the ontological definition of God.

If one accepts the conclusion that the universe cannot be eternal, then by definition it has a beginning. Since the universe cannot be the cause for the universe, we must look for such a cause outside of the material universe, outside of spacetime. The concept of an uncaused intelligent Spirit is then quite plausible.
Meyer
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012
t=0

t approaches 0 in the limit.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
So you're saying the universe cannot be eternal, but a complex intelligent entity called "God" can be


I never said God was complex. In fact a timeless, uncaused, bodyless Spirit is quite a simple concept. This is the ontological definition of God.


I'm not talking about the complexity of the concept, I am talking about the complexity of the physical entity. A conscious, intelligent being is necessarily complex (complexity, FYI, is a measure of entropy)... let alone an entity with omni-properties.

If one accepts the conclusion that the universe cannot be eternal, then by definition it has a beginning.


Only idiots accept that conclusion and then assume that something else is eternal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2012
You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.
You have a link to this research or are just making shit up again?
You have a LINK to this research or are just making shit up again?
Deathclock
4 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
You are assuming that intelligence is just an attribute of a physical brain. That is begging the question. If indeed human consciousness exists separate from the biological brain, as some reasearch indicates, then this is not a problem at all.
You have a link to this research or are just making shit up again?
You have a LINK to this research or are just making shit up again?


He doesn't because there is none. All controlled experiments have shown that there is no distinction between the mind and the brain. I'm sure you and most reasonable people know this, I mean, people who don't watch Ghost Hunters and think it's a scientific documentary...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2012
I never said God was complex. In fact a timeless, uncaused, bodyless Spirit is quite a simple concept. This is the ontological definition of God.
Waitwait - this reminds me of something...
http://www.youtub...a_player

So Up-lifting
LivaN
not rated yet Jan 25, 2012
That is the point from which the universe expands, however it is not a beginning


So it begins to expand, which is a beginning, because before that it did not expand.


It is a beginning of spatial expansion, which is a property of an existing universe, not a beginning of the universe itself.

The analogy is quite valid. The analogy is not the energy balance but to illustrate that even with net results being zero
.
How is it valid when my point was specifically about an energy balance in a closed system?
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
I'm not talking about the complexity of the concept, I am talking about the complexity of the physical entity


God is not defined as a physical entity, but a spiritual.

A conscious, intelligent being is necessarily complex


Why? You must make a distinction between the thoughts and actions of such a being and his ontology. He may be quite simple, but his actions complex. Even in nature simple causes can have complex consequences.
Henrik
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
It is a beginning of spatial expansion, which is a property of an existing universe


Again you make the mistake of assuming some pre-existent naturalistic state of the universe. But that is not what the big bang states. The beginning of the expansion is the beginning of all there is, space, time, and energy. There is no logical reason why God could not have caused that expansion to begin at t=0.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
There is no logical reason why God could not have caused that expansion to begin at t=0.

The failure in the logic is as follows:
To have a value of x=0 you have to have a RANGE of x in which you can say "this is the zero point". But AT t=0 there is no such range (because other times haven't happened yet).
Therfore the notion of t=0 has no meaning at that 'event'.

The second fault in your logic is to use the notion of cause and effect in your 'explanation'
There is no logical reason why God could not have caused that expansion to begin at t=0.

Cause/effect relationships REQUIRE a concept of before/after (causes need to occur before effects). This REQUIRES a notion of time. But at your t=0 point there is no before or after. So the notion of cause and effect makes absolutely no sense there.

Check your assumptions before jumping to conclusions.
tadchem
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
it decidedly does NOT "explain how carbohydrates originated and why the right-handed form dominates in nature." It merely shows that the preferential handedness of carbohydrates and of amino acids are linked, with priority going to the amino acids.
The 'how' and the 'why' are still undecided. This will remain the case until the bias in amino acid handedness is empirically accounted for.
Henrik
1 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
All controlled experiments have shown that there is no distinction between the mind and the brain.


All these experiments are limited to human intelligence. Of course they will arrive a that conclusion. This circular argument is the same as researching ducks and concluding they cannot quack without a beak.

But to conclude from that that quacking does not exist apart from ducks is just a logical fallacy. It is then up to you to prove that a mind cannot exist without a human brain.

In fact science has no credible model how brain activity can cause something like consciousness. Until they do, the assumption that the brain activity is caused by a pre-existing mind is equally valid as the reverse.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Cause/effect relationships REQUIRE a concept of before/after


That is easily refuted. A weight that is pressing on a surface is a fine example of concurrency of cause and effect.
Deathclock
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2012
I'm not talking about the complexity of the concept, I am talking about the complexity of the physical entity


God is not defined as a physical entity, but a spiritual.


This is, of course, meaningless.

A conscious, intelligent being is necessarily complex

Why? You must make a distinction between the thoughts and actions of such a being and his ontology. He may be quite simple, but his actions complex. Even in nature simple causes can have complex consequences.


Nope, sorry. Do you understand thermodynamics? Do you understand entropy? If you want to assert that god can be entropically simple then you are asserting that he is magic. Your assertion that god is not physical but spiritual also informs me that you want to talk about magic.

I have no interest in the discussion of magic. Go play with your dolls and read your fairy tales quitely to yourself.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
But AT t=0 there is no such range


And we don't need a range. Co-occuring. At the same time. No range required. God created time at t=0 from nothing.
Henrik
1 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
Do you understand thermodynamics? Do you understand entropy?


Entropy is a physical attribute of matter and energy. But the argument just concluded that all these material things have a beginning from nothing. Entropy is a useless concept in trying to describe a non physical cause. Try to make the distinction.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 25, 2012
That is easily refuted. A weight that is pressing on a surface is a fine example of concurrency of cause and effect.

Even in this case you have to have a notion of time. I.e. you have to observe the weight on the table for a time larger than zero to establish that a mutual interaction is occuring.

At t=0 you had no such timespan.

And if that is your 'refutation' then you have just stated that the universe created god - and not the other way around (which is equally insane)
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
Do you understand thermodynamics? Do you understand entropy?


Entropy is a physical attribute of matter and energy.


Provide evidence that anything else exists... Oh, you can't? Then there is no reason to continue further.

But the argument just concluded that all these material things have a beginning from nothing.


My argument is that if your "god" doesn't need to have a beginning than nothing else does either, making "god" irrelevant. At the least you must provide a reason why your ill-defined "god" can be eternal but nothing else can be.

Entropy is a useless concept in trying to describe a non physical cause.


Again, provide evidence that non-physical things (things not composed of matter/energy) exist.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
observe the weight on the table


Human observation is limited and fallible. The fact that a human needs time to observe in no way invalidates concurrent causal relationships.

Having said that, there is no logical reason why a form of time cannot independently exist apart from our notion of spacetime.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
Provide evidence that anything else exists


Well, for instance beauty or love, the law of gravity or the number 7. These things exist but have nothing to do with the amount of motion of elementary particles in space.

By the way, I am not assuming God's existence for the cosmological argument, but His existence becomes plausible from it. Just as He did from the moral argument.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
there is no logical reason why a form of time cannot independently exist apart from our notion of spacetime.


There is no logical reason that pink unicorns cannot exist on the moon of a distant planet... but there is no reason to ASSUME that is the case either.

You don't seem to understand how this works, we start with a null hypothesis that makes the LEAST assumptions, then we collect evidence that the null hypothesis is incorrect... you are starting with an assumption that has no evidence... what is wrong with you?
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Provide evidence that anything else exists


That is easy. Even the bb cosmology assumes that before the universe, there was a nothing. Nothing does not have any energy, space or time.


No, it doesn't. The big bang theory relates to an event that occurred at a specific point in the past, and DOES NOT have anything to do with what might have been before that point. I know this because the evidence that we have that is the basis of the big bang theory only gets us infinitesimally close to that point, but not before it.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
Provide evidence that anything else exists


Well, for instance beauty or love, the law of gravity or the number 7. These things exist but have nothing to do with the amount of motion of elementary particles in space.


love and beauty are concepts made physical by neuro-chemistry. They exist in your brain in the arrangement and pattern of firing of neurons.

By the way, I am not assuming God's existence for the cosmological argument, but His existence becomes plausible from it. Just as He did from the moral argument.


No, because it is flawed argument. EVERY OTHER PERSON on this site is trying to explain that to you.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
There is no logical reason that pink unicorns cannot exist on the moon of a distant planet.


You may want to talk to the SETI folks about this. Even Hawking believes that aliens exist.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
There is no logical reason that pink unicorns cannot exist on the moon of a distant planet.


You may want to talk to the SETI folks about this. Even Hawking believes that aliens exist.


I didn't say aliens, I said pink unicorns.

You made the argument that there is no reason to assume that time cannot exist independently from our notion of spacetime. I told you there is no reason to assume that pink unicorns do not exist on some specific moon orbiting some specific planet in some specific star system millions of light years from Earth...

THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A LOGICAL ASSUMPTION. You cannot start with that assumption. You need to understand what a null hypothesis is and why it is so important.

A null hypothesis given the evidence is that many stars, planets, and moons exist... that is it, that's all you can say without making unfounded assumptions that are not based on evidence.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
They exist in your brain


Proof? Most people would say that love and beauty are expressions of immaterial values that have a real existence of their own. I also think it is more rational to assume that a father feels real love for his son, and not just experiences an uncontrolled chemical reaction in the brain. But that is another topic.
Deathclock
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
They exist in your brain


Proof?


Look into neuroscience... we can affect individuals perceptions of these things by tinkering in their brains.

Most people would say that love and beauty are expressions of immaterial values that have a real existence of their own.


Most people are idiots. That is not an exaggeration...

I also think it is more rational to assume that a father feels real love for his son, and not just experiences an uncontrolled chemical reaction in the brain. But that is another topic.


Your opinion of what is and is not rational is highly questionable.

Look, this isn't the stone age, the field of neuroscience has existed for a long time now, you should try to catch up, we have made some amazing discoveries that you are completely oblivious of.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Also, you need to stop asking for proof, proof is a fallacious concept... instead you should be asking for evidence.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
I told you there is no reason to assume that pink unicorns do not exist on some specific moon


Yes it is more logical than that. We have never observed any pink unicorns anywhere. We do experience time. And without any evidence to the contrary, the notion that time could exist as a dimension independently of space is rational. In Einsteins original theory of relativity, time is considered entirely separate from space. I don't see you attacking relativity either.

But my argument does not assume any pre-existent time, albeit its possibility. All we need is God causing the universe to come into existence at t=0.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
And without any evidence to the contrary


That's not how it works...

the notion that time could exist as a dimension independently of space is rational.


You have no idea what is and is not rational, making this assumption is patently irrational.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Also, you need to stop asking for proof


Whenever I think you are being presumptious, I will ask you for proof. That is the rational thing to do.

Most people are idiots


Are you included in most? Or can we consider you the special smart one. By what merit? Are you a famous scientist or have you achieved any breakthrough for humanity apart from using up the air?
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
we can affect individuals perceptions


We can also affect people's perception by force feeding them LSD. But that does not warrant the conclusion that LSD is the cause of perception.
AgingDemon
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
It is then up to you to prove that a mind cannot exist without a human brain.

huh? it is you who makes the extraordinary claim that a mind can exist without a human brain. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For this one, the burdon of proof is on you, Henrik, don't you agree?
roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik, what were God's thoughts leading up to the creation? Do God's thoughts regress infinitely? If not, what caused god to start thinking? Care to cite the research that demonstrates that the mind can exist without a brain (no anecdotes please). Given that destroying areas of the brain impairs intelligence, how do you propose that complete brain death allows the mind to rise out of the body and continue unimpaired? all evidence shows that intelligence is a emergent property of the brain. Ergo, intelligence cannot be a property of any proposed prime mover.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
all evidence shows that intelligence is a emergent property of the brain.


So education and genetics play no role? Fallacious argument. Research on human intelligence will always connect that intelligence to the human nature. That is the same as reseach on fruitflies leading to the conclusion that fruitfly behavior relies on being a fruitfly.

What this research cannot prove is that no form of intelligence can exist apart from the human brain.

Ergo, intelligence cannot be a property of any proposed prime mover


That is a logical fallacy. You have not provided evidence that intelligence can never exist without a human brain. The only thing you have made plausible is that human intelligence is closely connected with having a human brain. All dogs bark, but barking is not a property of dog brains. Try to bark yourself and you will see.
Henrik
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
research that demonstrates that the mind can exist without a brain


There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to have abstract thought or reason and comprehend things. This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate. In fact, do we really believe that Mozarts genious is the result of random chemical patterns? Or that Einsteins theory was produced by chemicals in his braincells?

But let me reverse the argument: if intelligence is just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is a possibility that in the future machines will be able to display true intelligence, once the inner workings of these reactions have been worked out. The machine intelligence would not just be independent of human brains, but also of any form of hardware. That would mean symbolic, immaterial intelligence is possible.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Also, you need to stop asking for proof


Whenever I think you are being presumptious, I will ask you for proof. That is the rational thing to do.


You completely missed the point... proof does not exist, proof is an anti-concept. Evidence is what is important.

Most people are idiots
Are you included in most? Or can we consider you the special smart one. By what merit? Are you a famous scientist or have you achieved any breakthrough for humanity apart from using up the air?


I have a masters of science from a top ranked university, I have studied all of the physical sciences in a formal setting for years. You be the judge.
Deathclock
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2012
all evidence shows that intelligence is a emergent property of the brain.


So education and genetics play no role?


Wow... you don't know what intelligence means... it is not synonymous with knowledge.

What this research cannot prove is that no form of intelligence can exist apart from the human brain.


You keep asking for proof (evidence) of a negative assumption, and I keep explaining to you why that is fallacious... you are like talking to a brick wall.

That is a logical fallacy. You have not provided evidence that intelligence can never exist without a human brain.


He doesn't need to, because the burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must provide evidence that it can, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that it cannot.

If you can't even understand simple concepts like burden of proof and falsifiability then you're fucking worthless in these discussions.
roboferret
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012

There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.


Recovery of faculties is not the same thing as existing without a brain. It is more like a reboot. My point stands.

Intelligence is defined as the ability to have abstract thought or reason and comprehend things. This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.


Your definition of intelligence does not presuppose a physical substrate, but it does require it. Your brain may be ballast but mine is not. Again, the point stands until you demonstrate otherwise.

In fact, do we really believe that Mozarts genious is the result of random chemical patterns? Or that Einsteins theory was produced by chemicals in his braincells?

Yes - except brain activity is highly ordered, not random. your argument from incredulity is moot in light of the evidence.

roboferret
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
But let me reverse the argument: if intelligence is just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is a possibility that in the future machines will be able to display true intelligence, once the inner workings of these reactions have been worked out. The machine intelligence would not just be independent of human brains, but also of any form of hardware. That would mean symbolic, immaterial intelligence is possible.

Yes, machine intelligence is possible, and is well on the way. It is not possible independent of hardware. We can already replicate many aspects of intelligence using neural models, AI is demonstrating that intelligence is the product of physical processes. We model the brain, and we get intelligence out without spells or god breathing on it. Your point demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does. Software cannot run independent of hardware.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.


This does not demonstrate anything to your point...

Intelligence is defined as the ability to have abstract thought or reason and comprehend things. This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.


It does, because nothing exists other than the physical...

But let me reverse the argument: if intelligence is just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is a possibility that in the future machines will be able to display true intelligence, once the inner workings of these reactions have been worked out. The machine intelligence would not just be independent of human brains, but also of any form of hardware.


Independent of human brains sure, independent of a "physical substrate" as you put it... NO.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Your point demonstrates the opposite of what you think it does.


Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.

Secondly, if machines can be intelligent then is becomes more likely that other entitities can be as well.

Software cannot run independent of hardware


The type of hardware is not important. The intelligence is in the software, not the hardware, which is just a way to physically represent the information. Turings machine consisted simply of a moving tape.

If software (and information) contains the intelligence then this proves intelligence is immaterial and symbolic. The step to a spiritual form of representation of intelligence is then much more plausible.

So the correct statement would be: the existence of intelligence does not depend on hardware, only presentation does.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
We are getting a bit sidetracked, but consider a form of intelligence: the laws of logic. These laws exist independently of human brains. On Mars a contradiction is also false.

So where do these laws come from? Atheists would say they are chemical reactions in the brain. But that is self-defeating. Their assertion is also a chemical reaction, and the atheist has no way in knowing which chemical path is true.

If laws of logic are biological attributes of the brain, then they cannot be objective or universal, and communication between brains would be impossible.

The rational approach is to assume that laws of logic are not random reactions in the brain, but immaterial laws that prove a higher form of intelligence than humans.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
We are getting a bit sidetracked, but consider a form of intelligence: the laws of logic. These laws exist independently of human brains.


No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities.

None of the rest of what you said matters because this is wrong.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Recovery of faculties is not the same thing as existing without a brain. It is more like a reboot.


The fact that we need a brain to discover and manifest intelligence does not mean intelligence as such does not exist independently.

The laws of nature manifest through the physical world, but that does not mean these ordering principles, like the law of gravity, do not have their own existence. Stephen Hawkings entire cosmology depens on the existence of the law of gravity independently from matter.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.


No one said this. I said that it does not currently. However I would state that intelligence, consciousness, etc, cannot exist separately from some form of physical hardware, whether that be biological or technological.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Recovery of faculties is not the same thing as existing without a brain. It is more like a reboot.


The fact that we need a brain to discover and manifest intelligence does not mean intelligence as such does not exist independently.


What? No one said this... You used this example to somehow show that human intelligence exists separately from the human brain. Of course you were wrong and it does not show this, so now you spin it as if the example was someone else's in support of a point no one ever made...

Either you easily confuse yourself or you are being disingenuous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2012
There are examples of people who did not have brain functions while in a deep coma but have woken up with a partial or full recovery of their faculties.
So what?
This definition does not presuppose any physical substrate.
Of course it does, as the def (assuming you did not make it up) comes from scientists who assume nothing beyond any 'physical substrate'
In fact, do we really believe that Mozarts genious is the result of random chemical patterns?
Well YOU dont, but that has to be the case as there is NOWHERE else for mozarts talents to have come from.
Or that Einsteins theory was produced by chemicals in his braincells?
Absolutely. Where else?
These laws exist independently of human brains. On Mars a contradiction is also false.
But not in your brain which can believe there is a god who can exist in 3 separate parts - or is it 3 gods in one? No matter-

Henrik would probably do better if the SOUND of words were not more important to him than their MEANING.
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities


You are in fact saying that the law of non-contradiction did not exist before there was life in the universe. But a galaxy cannot exist and not exist at the same time either.

It is more rational to assume that laws of logic exist distinctly from humans and are discovered by them, then to say they are an invention or gradually developed evolutionary function.
Henrik
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
But not in your brain which can believe there is a god who can exist in 3 separate parts - or is it 3 gods in one


The Bible says God is one, not three.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2012
The fact that we need a brain to discover and manifest intelligence does not mean intelligence as such does not exist independently.
Yes it does. There IS nowhere else. And further, there is no function of the brain which cannot be explained completely by physical processes.
Stephen Hawkings entire cosmology depens on the existence of the law of gravity independently from matter
NO it doesnt.
But that is self-defeating.
No its not.
Their assertion is also a chemical reaction, and the atheist has no way in knowing which chemical path is true.
For that matter neither would a godlover like yourself. But scientists can study these things and figure them out. These findings may be counter-intuitive and illogical but if they meet the criteria and explain the evidence then they may be accepted as valid.

I would guess that atheists would have an easier time accepting these conclusions than superstitionists like yourself. Pathology is wholly explainable in physical terms.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2012
But not in your brain which can believe there is a god who can exist in 3 separate parts - or is it 3 gods in one


The Bible says God is one, not three.
AS USUAL, it depends on who you ask.

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit."

-Embrace the perverse ambiguity of your religion. And learn a little more about it.
Calenur
5 / 5 (1) Jan 25, 2012

Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.


You simply swapped one physical medium for another.


Secondly, if machines can be intelligent then is becomes more likely that other entitities can be as well.


Other physical entities, yes.


The type of hardware is not important. The intelligence is in the software, not the hardware...


Again bringing us back to the differentiation of knowledge and intelligence.


So the correct statement would be: the existence of intelligence does not depend on hardware, only presentation does.


So for god to express himself on our world, he would need to have a physical form/force/etc, otherwise it's just uninterpreted 'information', as you say.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2012
Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.
Again you are casually dropping shit bombs without providing references. You imply a metaphysical source for a physical phenomenon, and you imply that science backs you on this. NOBODY with any credibility has asserted this. Links or STFU.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities


You are in fact saying that the law of non-contradiction did not exist before there was life in the universe. But a galaxy cannot exist and not exist at the same time either.

It is more rational to assume that laws of logic exist distinctly from humans and are discovered by them, then to say they are an invention or gradually developed evolutionary function.


Properties of the universe exist without consciousness to identify them, yes... but concepts like "contradiction" and "logic" do not.

What is your point?
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Firstly, my point demonstrates that intelligence can exist independently of a human brain. And that was the assertion some have made.
Again you are casually dropping shit bombs without providing references. NOBODY with any credibility has asserted this. Links or STFU.


To be fair to Henrik I said something to that affect, but I was clearly discounting machine learning as not currently existing and alien life forms as being pure speculation.

To revise my comment I stated that intelligence, consciousness, etc. could conceivably exist independent of brains but not independent of physical matter in general.

Everything is physical. There is nothing that is not physical. The conceptual (love, beauty, logic, etc) exists physically.
Henrik
1 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
And further, there is no function of the brain which cannot be explained completely by physical processes.


Talking about an overstatement. Brain scans are not an explanation, they have to be explained themselves. Most higher functions have not been explained. For one, there is no clear model of how electrochemical reactions in the brain can cause consciousness.

Second, intelligence is a highly contentious topic. Scientists have no unified definition, and to measure intelligence is quite difficult. Does it equate to IQ? EQ? Many factors other than brain chemistry could play a role.
Calenur
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
-Embrace the perverse ambiguity of your religion. And learn a little more about it.


Ambiguity is at the core of modern religion. It's easier to avoid criticism if the only way they'd accept argument is for you to prove the impossible, all the while providing absolutely no evidence to support their assertations.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
So for god to express himself on our world, he would need to have a physical form/force/etc, otherwise it's just uninterpreted 'information', as you say.


Not only that, but Henrik is also wrong that information can exist absent of physical reality. Information in your brain is in the arrangement of neurons, information in computers is in electrical charges... it's all physical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2012
Most higher functions have not been explained.
Many 'higher functions' have indeed been explained. They are all explainable, and are in the process of being explained, and will ALL be explained, because they are all wholly physical phenomena.
For one, there is no clear model of how electrochemical reactions in the brain can cause consciousness.
Consciousness as opposed to unconsciousness? Or 'consciousness', the pseudometaphysical substitute for the 'soul' which enables philos to continue their subterfuge and hope for nirvana? THAT consciousness is a non-term describing non-scientific nonsense.
Calenur
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
Not only that, but Henrik is also wrong that information can exist absent of physical reality. Information in your brain is in the arrangement of neurons, information in computers is in electrical charges... it's all physical.


Agreed, I was simply using his fallacious argument to show that even if god could exist outside the physical as 'information', he would lack the ability to interact with the universe in any way. Uninterpreted 'information' is as good as nothing...in fact, it is nothing, just like god.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
@Henrik You are in fact saying that the law of non-contradiction did not exist before there was life in the universe. But a galaxy cannot exist and not exist at the same time either.
Space is the extent of existence. If it's not in space, it doesn't exist. Galaxies are in space. Your fairy tale god doesn't appear to be, unless he is hiding out in a black hole or having intimate relations with a white dwarf. What's your point?
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Everything is physical


First of all, that assertion is not physical. The letters on the screen are not the same as the thought behind it.

There is nothing that is not physical. The conceptual (love, beauty, logic, etc) exists physically


Well, this is a form of reductionism that few would be willing to underwrite. I think things like love and beauty are not just concepts in the brain.

If so, where are they stored? In the brain? Can you locate or touch your thoughts? Do they have color or weight or other material attributes? Charge? Spin? No.

My contention is that it is more plausible that our thoughts and feelings are real - not just chemistry. This is more in line with our human experience as well.

We in fact do experience these things as real. Anyone who has ever experienced profound love or grief for that matter, would say these are very real experiences. At least that would be the more rational conclusion.
bewertow
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik is an idiot. I don't even know why he bothers coming to a website about science if he believes in magic and sky wizards.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Everything is physical


First of all, that assertion is not physical. The letters on the screen are not the same as the thought behind it.


What does that even mean? In my brain the idea is stored in the arrangement of neurons and the sequence of their activation. On the computer screen that information is stored in electrical charge... it is transmitted to your eyes through the EM radiation in the visible spectrum... what exactly is not physical about it?

If so, where are they stored? In the brain? Can you locate or touch your thoughts? Do they have color or weight or other material attributes? Charge? Spin? No.


Thanks for asking, yes we can. There was an article on here recently about reading people's thoughts and reproducing images that they imagined, look for it.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
information can exist absent of physical reality


To express information in a coded system one needs physical means, such as a whiteboard and marker.

But the markings representing equations for instance are not the same as that information, as the message they convey. That message is immaterial, for it continues to exist once the board is wiped.

That same principle is what freedom activists throughout history have used: you can kill the man, but not the idea.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
My contention is that it is more plausible that our thoughts and feelings are real - not just chemistry. This is more in line with our human experience as well.


They are real, and they are real BECAUSE they are chemistry. You don't think chemistry is real? Or you think something can be real without existing in physical reality?

Either way, you are severely confused.

We in fact do experience these things as real. Anyone who has ever experienced profound love or grief for that matter, would say these are very real experiences. At least that would be the more rational conclusion.


They are real, and they are real BECAUSE they exist as brain chemistry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2012
Second, intelligence is a highly contentious topic. Scientists have no unified definition, and to measure intelligence is quite difficult. Does it equate to IQ? EQ? Many factors other than brain chemistry could play a role.
Many other entirely PHYSICAL factors you mean, right?
First of all, that assertion is not physical.
Yes it is.
The letters on the screen are not the same as the thought behind it.
As the thought takes place in the brain, which is a widget, the entire process is a wholly physical one.

I know your pronouncements make you FEEL good (Christ is KING!!!) but they carry absolutely no weight beyond that (But He LIVES!!!)

-Such is the wildly addictive narcotic effect of the epiphany (LORD thy GOD!!! Aaaaahhh!!!)

I hate addicts. Theyll slit your throat for a fix. Religionists will consider this a moral act.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
But the markings representing equations for instance are not the same as that information, as the message they convey. That message is immaterial, for it continues to exist once the board is wiped.


Once the chalkboard is wiped clean that information persists in the brains of the person that wrote it and the people that viewed it as memories, yes... that is also physical.

If a robot created a story, wrote it down in a book, burned the book, and then wiped his memory and nothing else observed that book then the information that was in that book is gone... it does not persist anywhere because all physical referents that used to contain it no longer contain it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 25, 2012
Exhibit #1
http://en.wikiped...t_Teresa

-Addiction is also entirely explainable in wholly physical terms.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
thoughts and reproducing images that they imagined


A brain scan is not the same as the memory it represents. You are now contradicting yourself, because you said your thoughts are located in the brain. That means they are not in a brain scan.

In my brain the idea is stored in the arrangement of neurons and the sequence of their activation


How do you know that? That idea is just a brain path, and you cannot know if that brain path is true by using another brain path.

To say the idea is the same as a sequence of neurons is illogical. The idea existed before it was stored in your brain. The idea is stored but not identical to the brain tissue and chemicals. An equation in a book is not the same as the ink and the paper. The folly!
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
thoughts and reproducing images that they imagined


A brain scan is not the same as the memory it represents. You are now contradicting yourself, because you said your thoughts are located in the brain. That means they are not in a brain scan.


You have no idea how a "brain scan" works... the brain gives off low frequency EM radiation... information about it's structure can be gained from this radiation. This radiation is also physical.

How do you know that? That idea is just a brain path, and you cannot know if that brain path is true by using another brain path.


I don't know it, it is the ONLY rational explanation that does not invoke magic or assumptions contrary to evidence.

To say the idea is the same as a sequence of neurons is illogical. The idea existed before it was stored in your brain.


Only if it existed somewhere else physically...
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
An equation in a book is not the same as the ink and the paper. The folly!


It is until it is read... then it is information in a brain and can be cross-referenced with other information in that brain (also stored physically) to make more meaning of it than it was as ink and paper.
Henrik
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
yes... that is also physical.


Well, then two questions:

Does the law of gravity exist independently of (human) brains? If not, why do two atoms still attract eachother according to it's definition?

Does the number 7 exist before there was life in the universe? If not, how many would seven stars be?
Henrik
1 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
It is until it is read


Suppose the book on gravity existed after people and all life in the universe were gone, would the information suddenly become invalid? Why?
Calenur
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
We've already begun investigating the physicality of memory through our experiments on mice/rats. We've erased and implated memories into rats, and I can damn sure guarantee we didn't ask a wizard to do it. We used physical means to exert physical reactions.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Does the law of gravity exist independently of (human) brains? If not, why do two atoms still attract eachother according to it's definition?


Gravitational attraction is a property of the universe, the "law of gravity" is a human concept that refers to that physical feature. One is a concept that exists nowhere but human brains, the other is a physical property of the universe.

Does the number 7 exist before there was life in the universe? If not, how many would seven stars be?


Numbers are human invented concepts. Nothing in reality is identical. In order to count things you must group them into arbitrarily defined categories by choosing which attributes are important and which can be ignored. There is no such thing as 2 trees, there is only 1 of each specific tree, etc. This even works with subatomic particles because they each at least have dissimilar positions in space time.

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.
Henrik
1.5 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit."


That definition cannot be found in the Bible, it was gradually developed based on Greek philosophical concepts during the first few centuries leading up to the Nicene creed. Not all Christians adhere to it however. The Bible says simply that God is one, without division. God refers to Himself as "I" (Yah).
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
It is until it is read


Suppose the book on gravity existed after people and all life in the universe were gone, would the information suddenly become invalid? Why?


Yes it would, because the symbols as expressed by the arrangement of certain atoms that compose the ink and the paper that used to represent it would have no meaning. That DOES NOT mean that gravitational attraction would cease to be a property of the universe. The property and the symbolic representation of that property are two completely different things.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Gravitational attraction is a property of the universe


So who or what is responsible for it's existence, and why does it have the form it has?

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts


So how many would 7 stars be in the absence of humans?
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Gravitational attraction is a property of the universe


So who or what is responsible for it's existence, and why does it have the form it has?


I don't know, and neither do you. But I am not foolish enough to assume it had to have an origin...

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts


So how many would 7 stars be in the absence of humans?


There would be 1 of each... the only reason we can say they are seven is because we ignore the dissimilarities between them that we consider unimportant when speaking of them in that way, such as their position in space.

We can go from talking about 1 specific star to many "stars" in general. That "in general" part is important, it requires us to ignore dissimilarities between the elements of that group, it is an arbitrary classification and that is a human concept.

In nature there is only 1 of each star, 1 of each planet, one of each moon, one of each atom, etc.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Yes it would, because the symbols as expressed by the arrangement of certain atoms that compose the ink ....


Sounds a bit like trying to avoid the question with fuzzy talk...More likely is to say the message is still valid, because it conveys a simple truth regardless of humans being there.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Yes it would, because the symbols as expressed by the arrangement of certain atoms that compose the ink ....


Sounds a bit like trying to avoid the question with fuzzy talk..


It's not fuzzy talk, it's actually being unusually precise. The physical reality of the message on the paper is just a specific arrangement of atoms... that is INTERPRETED by a conscious entity and becomes information. Without said conscious entity that arrangement of atoms will never become information.

More likely is to say the message is still valid, because it conveys a simple truth regardless of humans being there.


No, the message is MEANINGLESS absent of anyone to receive it.

I don't understand how you can think the way you do.
Henrik
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
There would be 1 of each


So now all of a sudden the number 1 is not an invented human concept? You have tricked yourself into a self-contradictory position. Seven stars are just seven stars, humans or no humans. One star is one star, regardless of human brain biology.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
There would be 1 of each


So now all of a sudden the number 1 is not an invented human concept? You have tricked yourself into a self-contradictory position. Seven stars are just seven stars, humans or no humans. One star is one star, regardless of human brain biology.


1 is a symbol used to convey meaning. Would you like to have a conversation absent of all symbols? That might be difficult on this medium... No, 1 is also a human invented concept, since in nature only 1 of everything exists numbers are unnecessary.

How the hell would you like me to express that to you without using these symbols? Humans invent these symbols to communicate, as I am trying to do with you, but I cannot communicate with you about how concepts are invented by humans without also utilizing those concepts for the purpose of communication.
Calenur
5 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
Sounds a bit like trying to avoid the question with fuzzy talk...More likely is to say the message is still valid, because it conveys a simple truth regardless of humans being there.


What about that is fuzzy to you, and who are you to decry someone for providing 'fuzzy' arguments? Religion, Christianity specificially, has so many interpretations of the supposedly 'infallible' bible, that it's impossible to pin any of you down on any specific part of your religion other than 'God did it'. It's absolutly asinine for you to sit here and seriously call someone out for not having all the answers (which serious scientists NEVER claim), and then use that to dismiss science and bolster your fairy tale.

Science is the pursuit of knowledge, religion is the pursuit of ignorance. You saying because we can't prove your spaghetti monster in the sky doesn't exist means you're right is blatantly incorrect, and I struggle to believe that even you buy the crap you're selling.
Henrik
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
No, the message is MEANINGLESS absent of anyone to receive it.


You are confusing semantics with the existence of a symbolic representation using a coded system.

The coded system still demands an explanation, because it cannot exist by chance. The semantics are a separate issue. Compare to the maya hieroglyphs still not deciphered. We know they contain information but just cannot interpret them.
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Seven stars are just seven stars, humans or no humans. One star is one star, regardless of human brain biology.


You're wrong, and I went out of my way to explain why and you ignored that explanation.

Counting necessitates arbitrary classification, because no two things are identical. In order to count things you MUST ignore dissimilar traits, because all things have dissimilar traits.

Nature is not concerned with classification or categorization, humans are, primarily for the purpose of communication. The concept of numbers, of counts, is human invented as has no meaning in reality, where everything is unique.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
No, the message is MEANINGLESS absent of anyone to receive it.


You are confusing semantics with the existence of a symbolic representation using a coded system.


It's not a coded system absent of anyone that can perceive it as such...

The coded system still demands an explanation, because it cannot exist by chance.


You make an awful lot of faulty assumptions. In fact, your whole schtick seems to be one bad assumption after the next...

Compare to the maya hieroglyphs still not deciphered. We know they contain information but just cannot interpret them.


WE EXIST. You asked about a reality absent of conscious entities... that does not describe this reality. (though I am beginning to question whether or not you are conscious)
Henrik
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
How the hell


No trying to twist yourself out of this one. You said that :

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.


Then I asked you how many seven stars would be. You replied:

There would be 1 of each


So why is the number 1 not an invented human concept while the number 7 is?

Let me ask you then: how many stars would 1 star be in the absence of all intelligent life? If you say 1 star, then does that imply that the concept of 1 exists independently of intelligent life? If you say anything else, do you deny that there is 1 star? Would that not be self-contradictory?

The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
So why is the number 1 not an invented human concept while the number 7 is?


I already explained this, in the post you were quoting... you don't even read my posts do you?

Let me ask you then: how many stars would 1 star be in the absence of all intelligent life?


A star is a star. Saying there is "one" of them is necessary for me to communicate an idea to you, but that is only a necessity of communication. Absent of all consciousness, each star is unique and numbers and counting are meaningless.

The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.


No, and stop asserting what is and is not logical, your concept of logic has, repeatedly, been demonstrated to be in serious error.
Henrik
1 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
We've erased and implated memories into rats,


Storage of memories is not the same as the events on which the memories are based. Tha fact that we can implant false memories does not invalidate the existence of real events, like, "yesterday was my birthday".
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
In fact, if you wanted to go further (which you don't because you aren't even keeping up now) the concept of a "star" would be meaningless absent of conscious life. Reality exists as a sea of energy fluctuations... the distinctions between arrangements of energy is given names like "star" and "planet" by humans, but those concepts are meaningless in nature.
Henrik
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
A star is a star.


How many stars would 1 star be in the absence of intelligent life?
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
We've erased and implated memories into rats,


Storage of memories is not the same as the events on which the memories are based. Tha fact that we can implant false memories does not invalidate the existence of real events, like, "yesterday was my birthday".


What the fuck are you talking about? All you do is deny and deflect. You are intellectually dishonest (you don't even know the meaning of the term) and it's getting really tiring.

You don't want an actual discussion, you want to be combative and not give an inch. When someone expresses a reasonable counter point to one of your points you MUST deny it no matter how ridiculous you sound in doing so, probably whether or not you believe your own words. You don't want to understand anyone else' position you want to proselytize your own. You are clearly psychotic to continue this charade when NO ONE here agrees with you or will ever agree with you. Your motivation for keeping up these conversations is puzzling.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
A star is a star.


How many stars would 1 star be in the absence of intelligent life?


The concept of "star" and the concept of "one" are meaningless absent of conscious life. The universe exists as a sea of energy.

I said this VERBATIM already. You don't read my posts. Why don't you read my posts before responding to them?
Henrik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
but those concepts are meaningless in nature


Still, the universe with its energy fluctuations exists you say. Let's just take that brute fact and analyze it.

Would you say, in the absence of intelligent life, that the universe exists or not? Why would that be a valid statement seeing no human is there to observe it? With your definition of reality, even the very existence of anything would be unknown. And there we are right back with the cosmological argument.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything. The more logical postion is theism, because the universe then really exists as the expression of the will of God. We are able to make valid statements about it that do not depend on arbitrary brain chemistry.
Deathclock
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
Henrik, do you know that solid matter is an illusion? The only thing that differentiates solid Earth from the atmosphere, and the atmosphere from space, is energy density. The entire universe exists as a sea of variable energy density. Humans perceive reality in a very specific way, namely through interpretation of the visible spectrum of EM radiation. The only reason that stars and planets are meaningful concepts to us is because our very specific mechanism of perception allows us to easily identify their boundaries. It doesn't have to be that way... if our eyesight was tuned to the infrared, or to gamma rays, the universe would appear to be a VERY different place. If we existed at nanometer scales it would appear much stranger still. In that case we likely would not even have a concept to refer to "planets" and "stars" because they would be insignificant changes in energy density from our point of view.

Humans invent these concepts, they are meaningless without us.
Henrik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
The concept of "star" and the concept of "one" are meaningless absent of conscious life. The universe exists as a sea of energy


I would just have said 1 star.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Would you say, in the absence of intelligent life, that the universe exists or not?


Sure, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Why would that be a valid statement seeing no human is there to observe it?


I believe that reality is real independent of observation.

With your definition of reality, even the very existence of anything would be unknown.


What?

I have no idea what you meant by that.

In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.


It doesn't try to...
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.
Wrong, because there are no standalone "1s" in space. You seem to lack reading skills. There are only waves and standing waves mingling with each-other in a rainbow-like spectrum.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Humans invent these concepts, they are meaningless without us


Going to a different place in the spectrum of light does not mean that the concept of one or star is lost. The star might look different but is still part of reality. When you look at the night with night vision goggles the landscape looks odd, but still is there.

So how many quantum fluctuations would you call 1 fluctuation in the absence of intelligent life?
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
The concept of "star" and the concept of "one" are meaningless absent of conscious life. The universe exists as a sea of energy


I would just have said 1 star.


But it's not "1" and it's not "star"... these are human concepts. You are missing the point entirely.
Calenur
5 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything...


Allow me to provide evidence to the contrary; You're a moron.

The arrogance of a christian is the same as the arrogance of the bible. Assuming the universe and all of its complexities are simply a canvas for you and your kind. There's no argument which will have any impact on you, because of your complete inability to give an inch. I believe I'm correct in saying any of us are willing to admit the possibility of a god, however you'd never admit to the possibility of a godless universe. I doubt I could get you to admit to even a mundane facet of the argument for evolution. If there is a god, it isn't your god. If you're a representation of any god, then I want nothing to do with it, and my life will change very little.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2012
@Henrik So how many quantum fluctuations would you call 1 fluctuation in the absence of intelligent life?
Over what duration? Over what frequency band? Over what degree of precision? How many samples? All theses factors must be decided by brains before the meaning of "1" can be consistently understood.
@Henrik In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.
That's the price we pay for correctness. Happy to pay it. You may prefer prefer being a fundie "champion" where it doesn't matter if you're wrong.
Henrik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
I believe that reality is real independent of observation


In the absence of an intelligent observer, the concept of "universe" would also be meaningless, just as the concept of "existence" or "truth".

But if there is an objective truth as you say, this implies there is only one truth, just as one universe is in existence, which proves your assertion about concepts is self-contradictory.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
There are only waves


So, in the absence of intelligent life, how many concepts of "wave" are there in the universe?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
In the absence of an intelligent observer, the concept of "universe" would also be meaningless, just as the concept of "existence" or "truth".
Universe requires wave function collapses to bring about the cosmological scale. No observer required. Observers spend an inordinate amount of activity synchronizing themselves to their milieu, not the other way around. Except in the case of fundies, apparently. Somewhere Henrik there may be a universe just for you. One thing is certain: this universe isn't it.
Henrik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
then I want nothing to do with it, and my life will change very little


That is your free choice. Your life will change however when you are dead. You are dead much longer than you are alive you know, unless you do not believe in the human concept of death like your friends here. I would think they are wrong, and death will become a reality for all of us one day.
GDM
5 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
People, just walk away from the keyboard. Arguing with a psychotic like Henrik is the definition of insanity. It does no good, utilizing any philosophical definition of "good" you may choose. He may claim that you lose the argument by walking away, or that you are a coward, or that walking away is a sign of weakness, but he is, and has been totally insane. The ravings of an insane person are of no import. Walk away, and report his bible thumping to the moderators - it is specifically contrary to the rules of posting on this website.
Calenur
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
That is your free choice.


Interesting choice of words, considering your god knows all, sees all, and has planned everything out, thus eliminating free will/choice. Just as I'll be dead much longer than I was alive, the universe has been around far longer than your dogma. Neither I, nor christianity, will have any lasting impact, and in that I do take comfort.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Jan 25, 2012
You religion is based upon worshiping a geometric object with 72 vertices
Whatever helps you get through the night buddy. Keep taking the tablets and you will make it.
Ha you just proved you don't even know the bible. On the first page of bibles it states that it is the book of the Tetragrammaton. In ancient illustrations it is a tetrahedron sitting on the throne, not an old man. Your religion is simply misunderstood properties about an ancient object called the Flower of Life, carved into the walls of many temples beginning with the Temple of Osiris 10,000 years ago. You don't know geometry or even your own bible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2012
"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit."


That definition cannot be found in the Bible...Not all Christians adhere to it however. The Bible says simply that God is one, without division. God refers to Himself as "I" (Yah).
He also refers to himself as 'we' BEFORE he started using 'I'; I think this was back when he had a wife, asherah?

Your book is full of unresolvable dichotomies and loose ends. Such is the case when concocting a dogma and attempting to please everybody.

But this is not a problem if you preface everything with the pronouncement that god is perfect; and that if he does not appear to make sense then it is our fault for being sinners yes?

And yet he invented logic didnt he -?

So many obvious mess-ups... How do we explain the phoney ending tacked onto mark? God forgot to make it turn out right the first time?
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
Your book is full of unresolvable dichotomies and loose ends. Such is the case when concocting a dogma and attempting to please everybody.
I hasten to add the bible contains anchient geometric knowledge about the structure that forms matter from space. Unfortunately billions of nitwits like Henrik have twisted the old knowledge like taffy to the point where the codex is essentially destroyed. But some men had 50% more brain capacity 10,000 years ago and I suspect they saw the world in fundamentally different terms. Teaching us what they knew sadly is like herding cats.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2012
Ha you just proved you don't even know the bible. On the first page of bibles it states that it is the book of the Tetragrammaton. In ancient illustrations it is a tetrahedron sitting on the throne, not an old man.
"Lay thy hand on the neck of thine enemies.
Devour their flesh with thy sword.
Bring down the slain from among thine adversaries.
They shall fall to rise no more.
Tetragrammaton.
Thy wrath inflame my passion.
Tetragrammaton.
Against all sinful flesh."
http://www.youtub...VHTQUiPk
8-O
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
I believe I'm correct in saying any of us are willing to admit the possibility of a god


A god-like entity may exist, but not the one described by the judeo-christian religions... that specific entity is self-contradicting.

There is no evidence to support a rational belief in such an entity though.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012
That is your free choice. Your life will change however when you are dead. You are dead much longer than you are alive you know, unless you do not believe in the human concept of death like your friends here. I would think they are wrong, and death will become a reality for all of us one day.


Death is a permanent loss of consciousness... it is the least significant thing that will ever happen to you. You will not know it happened, and it will never matter to you.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
@Henrik That is your free choice. Your life will change however when you are dead. You are dead much longer than you are alive you know...
I was dead for about thirteen billion years, so it's nothing new. Kind of a relief in fact being away from ignorant people. I'll get over it.
Calenur
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
A god-like entity may exist, but not the one described by the judeo-christian religions... that specific entity is self-contradicting.

There is no evidence to support a rational belief in such an entity though.


Agreed, however I'm holding out hope for Q from Star Trek. It's more plausible than the christian god, and we'd get to have cool civil war style battles in the continuum.
animah
5 / 5 (5) Jan 25, 2012
Heaven with a guy like Henrik would be hell. Therefore heaven does not exist.

:-)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 25, 2012
Your life will change however when you are dead.
THAT is so...Profound.
You are dead much longer than you are alive you know
That too.
death will become a reality for all of us one day.
Xians need to have reward and punishment SO much. Looking forward to when the people who dont agree with them are suffering, means just as much to them as their anticipated reward.

The desire for revenge is also long-lived in some animals like elephants and orcas? But in many humans it can burn for a lifetime.

This is one more unfortunate side effect of the long memories and imaginations which enabled us to prevail over enemies but now plagues us with distraction and obsession.

The bible panders to this. Psalms are full of 'youll get yours'

"The righteous will be glad when they are avenged, when they bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked"

"21 They will hunt after the soul of the just, and will condemn innocent blood. 22 the Lord our God will destroy them."

-and so is hendrik.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012
*edit* Never mind, I don't know why I am enabling him.
Henrik
1 / 5 (8) Jan 25, 2012
Now that the dust has settled we can see that the cosmological argument still stands. None of the premises have been convincingly refuted:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. From 1 and 2 it flows that the universe has a cause
4. The universe cannot be it's own cause
5. The cause for the universe must be uncaused and exist outside of space, time and energy.

The only viable cause would be an immaterial, timeless, uncaused, intelligent and ominpotent Mind or Consciousness. The cause would also be personal and self-willed. These attributes are consistent with the definition of God. God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 25, 2012



By definition God is uncreated, timeless and immaterial. This is reflected in His Name: I Am (Yahweh). The universe (time, space, energy) was created.


I love how creationists make their god existing and uncreated BY DEFINITION! You can't define something into existence. Okay, let me try: There exists many "energy singularities" which expel unlimited energy needed to form Big Bangs. They are undetectable and have always been existent by definition. And the bible predicted string theory? You're an idiot of the highest caliber. There is no polite way to say it. Moron.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2012

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) From 1 and 2 it flows logically that the universe has a cause.

Most likely, the creation act by God co-occured with the big bang on t=0, so there is no need for a- or pre-temporal causality.

(4) That cause cannot be the universe.

Something cannot create itself, for then it must already exist.

(5) The only viable cause is therefore outside of the universe, outside of space, time, causality and energy, and must be God.


(5) is a stretch. Why god? Your argument works for universe creating dwarfs, unicorns,etc. Or I can say therefore there is a particle that is timeless, undetectable, everlasting, unchanging, etc. and causes Big Bangs to occur randomly. This is special pleading unless you can list other things that are uncaused. What other things do not begin to exist? If the uncaused cause set contains only god then it is equivalent to "everything except god needs a cause".
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist


You needn't go any further, your logic is already garbage.

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption. Like I've already told you, we have NEVER witnessed the creation or destruction of matter/energy. All of the evidence points to these being eternal.

Your logical constructions (and you have attempted to make several of them in this thread and others) are always flawed right from the very beginning by an unfounded assumption.

You don't seem to understand this and that's why you keep babbling away nonsensically, without an end in sight.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2012
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist


You needn't go any further, your logic is already garbage.

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption. Like I've already told you, we have NEVER witnessed the creation or destruction of matter/energy. All of the evidence points to these being eternal.


agreed, he is using the fallacy of composition. Everything in the universe begins to exist, therefore the universe began to exist. The components of an airplane cannot fly, therefore an airplane cannot fly. Items in the universe are members of a set called "the universe". The universe need not have those properties.

Additionally, the things in the universe that began to exist were not created Ex nihilo, as you have stated.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
@Henrik 2. The universe began to exist...God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.
Fundies always ultimately resort to the "something from nothing" argument, as if that requires a miracle. On the contrary, "nothing" has never been observed. This mysterious "nothing" fundies involve is every bit as mysterious as their hermit god. Indeed as their arguments are constructed, their god's existence rests on the existence of nothingness. Neither of these things have been observed in rigorous conditions. Indeed "nothing" is an oxymoron, for if you had some "nothing" then it would be something. Hence "nothing" does not exist, and therefore neither does the god which depends on it.

I find the xtian use of "nothing" dull and the Buddist search for it enlightening.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
These laws exist independently of human brains.
They exist period. Independent of everything. In principle.

Atheists would say they are chemical reactions in the brain. But that is self-defeating.
Don't know how many Atheists would make that mistake. This Agnostic never would.

The rational approach is to assume that laws of logic are not random reactions in the brain
Clearly random is not involved here but logic is independent of ANY mind. Independent of any god.

but immaterial laws that prove a higher form of intelligence than humans.
Nonsense. They are principles that do not any intelligence for existence. Heck the god of Genesis is often utterly bereft of logic. That god sure didn't create logic.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
DC
No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities.
Logic is a set of principles that are independent of consciousness.

Do not make the mistake that everything Henrik says is wrong. NEARLY everything is wrong. This may be the only thing he has right yet.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
DC
No they don't. Concepts cannot exist independently from conscious entities.
Logic is a set of principles that are independent of consciousness.

Do not make the mistake that everything Henrik says is wrong. NEARLY everything is wrong. This may be the only thing he has right yet.

Ethelred


I distinguished a property of the universe from the human invented concepts that refer to those properties. When Henrik referred to logic I was assuming he was referring to the human invented concept of logic, rather than the physical properties of the universe to which that concept refers.

Logic is a single word that is used to refer to many independent properties of reality. Since it is a single word that refers to many physical things it is a concept, and humans invent all concepts. Concepts do not exist independent of consciousness.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2012
The laws of nature manifest through the physical world, but that does not mean these ordering principles, like the law of gravity, do not have their own existence.
And there you had several posts in a row that weren't brain dead. Then you had to go an ruin the streak.

The laws of nature are specific to this Universe. Logic can and has produce many laws or ways of doing things. Only experiments have told us which laws are correct for this Universe.

Stephen Hawkings entire cosmology depens on the existence of the law of gravity independently from matter.
The law of gravity only has meaning in terms of matter/energy so that is nonsense.

The Bible says God is one, not three.
So Henrik is likely a member of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Oddly enough they are right on this. The Trinity seems to have been invented for political reasons.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
DC just wrote:
ather than the physical properties of the universe to which that concept refers.
They are not a physical property of the Universe. They are independent of any universe or intelect.

Wait for the rest please. There is lot more coming.

DC
but concepts like "contradiction" and "logic" do not.
Contradiction is a principle of logic not a mere concept. Logic is the set of principles. That is our definition of them but they exist without our defining them.

There is nothing that is not physical.
Logic is not physical. Math is an aspect of logic. Neither are physical.

Not only that, but Henrik is also wrong that information can exist absent of physical reality.
Now that I agree on.

Numbers are human invented concepts
The actual symbols are. But the concepts are based on principles that are inherent in logic.

Nothing in reality is identical.
Tell that to an electron. Other than position and momentum they are identical.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
This even works with subatomic particles because they each at least have dissimilar positions in space time.
Tell that to a photon. They can occupy the same space and vector.

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.
Only the symbols are. They are based on principles that are independent of any intelligence. Yes Henrik ANY. Jehovah included.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
For example, a property of our universe that is included in the concept of logic may be that of unique identity. Everything is unique, there does not exist two identical copies of anything, and even if there were it would be fundamentally undetectable as they would occupy the same position in space-time. That property of the universe alone gives rise to all sorts of consequences that are included in the concept of "logic" (A = A, if A = B and B = C then A = C... etc).

Another example might be the arrow of time, that time progresses in one direction and never in the reverse also gives rise to many consequences that we refer to with the concept of logic.

You have to realize though that these properties of the universe must be referred to individually and specifically, otherwise if you refer to the collection of them using the word "logic" you are talking about a human invented concept that groups these physical properties together based on their similarities.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
Nothing in reality is identical.
Tell that to an electron. Other than position and momentum they are identical.>>


I stated this already, I used that exact example, and no they are not identical, so you agree with me.

You have to be precise if you want to discuss these things.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
God refers to Himself as "I" (Yah).
Sometimes the Bible uses Elohim which is a plural form of god. This is one of the after the fact reasons given to support the Trinity. As far as I know it is the only one that is even remotely supportive of multiple gods or the triune god of Trinitarians. Seems to have come from a need to make Jesus a god, possibly to support Constantin's political needs.

So who or what is responsible for it's existence, and why does it have the form it has?
No one. It is a mathematical principle that need not be manifest but is for this universe. It has the form it does because that form is consistent with the rest of the laws of the laws of the Universe. Many others are possible but we are only compatible with this one because we evolved to fit the conditions of this Universe.

There would be 1 of each.
And in principle they could be added together to make seven. Not need for hominids to be involved in the principle.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
This even works with subatomic particles because they each at least have dissimilar positions in space time.
Tell that to a photon. They can occupy the same space and vector.


If there is no difference between them then there is no difference between the existence of one or many of them, so it is accurate to say that there is only one of them.

Numbers, counts, mathematics, etc are human invented concepts.
Only the symbols are. They are based on principles that are independent of any intelligence. Yes Henrik ANY. Jehovah included.


I disagree. In reality there is never a "count" of anything. Counts are required for mathematics to be meaningful, and counts exist only because of human invented systems of classification.

And in principle they could be added together to make seven. Not need for hominids to be involved in the principle.


No, not without classification. They are not seven, they are each unique.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
Not only are there not "seven" stars, since each is unique and cannot be grouped with the others without a human invented system of classification, there are not even any "stars" because "star" is a human invented concept that groups together an area of specific energy density and properties based on a set of identified criteria.

Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.

I know this is difficult to understand, you have to overcome your human bias and realize that there is only something special about the boundary between the edge of a star and space because we humans say there is based on our unique perception of reality.
Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
DK
I don't understand how you can think the way you do.
Brain damage from too much Christian Apologistics. The contradictions and rationalizations require a highly compartmentalized mine where no idea can be allowed to be compared with any contradictory idea. Such as Genesis One and Two.

Ethelred
Deathclock
3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
DK
I don't understand how you can think the way you do.
Brain damage from too much Christian Apologistics. The contradictions and rationalizations require a highly compartmentalized mine where no idea can be allowed to be compared with any contradictory idea. Such as Genesis One and Two.

Ethelred


This we can agree on.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 26, 2012
You are confusing semantics with the existence
Now if only you would stop doing that with bogus definitions.

The coded system still demands an explanation, because it cannot exist by chance.
Indeed the code of the DNA does not exist by chance. It evolved through natural selection though that may have taken place with RNA before DNA came into use.

. We know they contain information but just cannot interpret them.
They are still meaningless at present. Exactly like Linear A except Linear A may never be translated. The original language is gone unlike Mayan.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
DC
Nature is not concerned with classification or categorization,
It just does it. It has no concerns but it sorts, bonds, un-bonds, fuses, fissions, and many other things according to the properties of those things. Whether labeled by Man or not does them. Which is why life can evolve without a intelligence being involved.

You are going down the path DC. That is why Henrik argues with you and, so far, has scarpered rather than engage me.

Henrik
The logical position would be that the concept of 1 exists independently of human opinion or existence.
Or a god. 1 and 1 is two which implies 3 and four and they imply fractions. None of which needs a god.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
DK
No, and stop asserting what is and is not logical, your concept of logic has, repeatedly, been demonstrated to be in serious error.
On this it is you who are being illogical. Logic does not need you or humans or gods. It is the set of principles that exist without the existence of anything else.

DK
but those concepts are meaningless in nature.
The concepts yes. But nature still distinguishes between things that produce heat and things that don't. Whether anyone notices or not.

DK
I said this VERBATIM already.
You should have quit after that. You seem to have forgotten the point of this. The universe DOES distinguish these things. That is way self sorting and self assembly can happen. Why metabolism did not need a designer.

You need to stop disagreeing with Henrik simply because he is an ass.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
It has no concerns but it sorts, bonds, un-bonds, fuses, fissions, and many other things according to the properties of those things. Which is why life can evolve without a intelligence being involved.


I'm not sure you understand what I mean... I am not saying that anything physical changes with or without conscious awareness of it. I know that stars still exist even if humans do not... but they exist as the ACTUALLY do, as an energy density gradient in the sea of the universe... they are a roughly spherical area of higher energy density than the space surrounding them... that is all. The difference in energy density is significant to humans due to how we perceive reality, that is why we give a label to such things... "star". Absent of humans to perceive it that energy density differential is no more significant than any other... it is just a part of reality. "Star" is a concept that refers to those specific energy density gradients. It only has man-made significance.
Deathclock
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
Ethel, you are talking past me and not understanding me...

I am not saying that anything real changes in the universe whether humans exist or not. I am saying that what is real is SPECIFIC, and a concept that refers to many different real properties of the universe ("logic") is not specific, it is simply a categorization that groups many of these real things together.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.
Lie. Well I can but I am an Agnostic.

And you keep running away from me. Won't answer simple questions.

Like

What are last words of Jesus on the Cross?

Where is the physical evidence showing there was a Great Flood?

When did this Flood occur according to the Bible in your opinion?

Has anyone ever seen the face of Jehovah?

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
It's okay, so few people can understand and overcome the bias of human perception. You have to understand that the way we perceive reality is not accurate, at all. Where we see/hear/touch/taste/feel nothing there is a wealth of things that exist. When you look out the window and see a tree you give significance to that tree because you can see it but not the air between it and your eye... but that air exists. At the most fundamental level it is energy, just like the tree, and it exists between your eye and the tree. In that air is variations of energy density, the "tree" is just another variation of energy density. You give significance to one and not the others based on your human perception of reality.

At the most fundamental level the ONLY distinction between anything is the density of energy in a given area...
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The cause for our Universe is that is can exist mathematically.

2. The universe began to exist
Of course. It can so it does. The principles of math/logic have no beginning or end.

3. From 1 and 2 it flows that the universe has a cause
Redundant. But math/logic covers it.

4. The universe cannot be it's own cause
It can be the cause of another universe and the result of previous one. This does not need a beginning but then with math/logic giving them validity they can have a beginning.

5. The cause for the universe must be uncaused and exist outside of space, time and energy.
That does not follow from the previous. The Universe could be caused by the laws of space-time and energy of a previous or even still existing but mostly empty universe.>>
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
The only viable cause would be an immaterial, timeless, uncaused,
Yes. Math/Logic.

intelligent and ominpotent Mind or Consciousness.
No. That would need a cause.

These attributes are consistent with the definition of God.
Not the Christian one. That god is unchanging. Creating a universe would change it.

God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.
No. Math/Logic is. A god would need them but they don't need a god.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
Consider for a moment that the spatial dimensions of the universe are discrete and not infinite in resolution. In that case reality could be represented by a n-dimensional array of binary data. Consider the three spatial dimensions as a 3D grid, each cell containing a 1 or 0, representing a unit of energy or no energy. If you exist as the size of a single cell and you can fly around in this grid you see some 1's and some 0's and some places there are more 1's than 0's and other places there are more 0's then 1's, but that's about all you can tell about it... Now zoom WAAY out so that you can't even see individual 1's and 0's anymore. Now, in places where the density of 1's is too low you can see through them, but where the density of 1's are high they block your vision... suddenly "objects" come into view, a "tree" would be specific shape defined by areas where there are mostly 1's and very few 0's... "Air" would be areas mostly filled by 0's... Remember, this is only an analogy
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
Ethel, you are talking past me and not understanding me..


I asked for you to wait FOR A REASON. You didn't, so now you are responding as if I was ignoraing you when you simply weren't patient. The crossing is your doing.

Heck in another thread you called me a Christian.

Patience is a virtue that needs to be practiced.

DK
You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption.
It follows from the BB but the BB isn't certain and other ways of getting to the CMBR exist. So while it is an assumption it is a reasonable one well within our present experimental knowledge.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
I asked for you to wait FOR A REASON.


Who are you to tell me to wait? You can reply to me at your leisure, don't feel rushed...

You don't know that the universe "began to exist", that is an unfounded assumption.
It follows from the BB but the BB isn't certain and other ways of getting to the CMBR exist. So while it is an assumption it is a reasonable one well within our present experimental knowledge.

Ethelred


The big bang makes no statement about what may or may not have existed before it. The evidence gets us to within a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the event, and we know nothing about the instant of the event or any instant before it, if that is even meaningful.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
Remember, this is just an anology.


Cont'd.

Reality is represented by the former, human perception of reality by the latter... there is nothing significant about a "tree" or a "star", they are just another energy density gradient. Humans give them significance and names because of our perception of them, and our lack of perception of everything around them.
kaasinees
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.
Lie. Well I can but I am an Agnostic.

That is not a lie according to science. Even thought it is easy to falsify the "words of god". It is not possible to falsify a possibility of a god. Therefore atheim (and theism) is self-defeating
Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.

Deathclock now earned the title most intelligent person on physorg in my book.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
In the end atheism is yet again self-defeating because it cannot make any valid statement about anything.
Lie. Well I can but I am an Agnostic.

That is not a lie according to science. Even thought it is easy to falsify the "words of god". It is not possible to falsify a possibility of a god. Therefore atheim (and theism) is self-defeating
Absent of humans the universe is a sea of energy, it does not distinguish one area of energy from the other and give names to them.

Deathclock now earned the title most intelligent person on physorg in my book.
How does the presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'? Your statement has earned you the title of far less than most intelligent person on physorg. In my book.
kaasinees
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2012
How does the presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'? Your statement has earned you the title of far less than most intelligent person on physorg. In my book.

1. Who said anything about "presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'".
2. If humans didnt exist in this universe obviously the 'sea of energy' would look different or humans dont use energy?
3. You obviously idnt get the point he was trying to make.

Served.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
1) If i spit in the atlantic this has no effect whatsoever on the atlantic.
B) You obviously didnt make a very good point?
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
How does the presence or absence of humans in the universe affect this 'sea of energy'?


It doesn't in any non-obvious way. I didn't mean to imply that it did. My point was that what humans consider important is shaped by our perception of reality, what we easily perceive and what we do not easily perceive. This leads us to assign importance to areas of the universe that have energy densities high enough to be visible to us, or to feel "solid", and to not assign importance to areas of the universe that are invisible to us, or that we can pass through easily (air, space). The boundaries between these "important" areas of the universe and these "unimportant" areas define what we consider to be "objects"... which are also conceptual.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
Neil deGrasse Tyson absolutely DESTROYS intelligent design http://www.youtub...6j7BF02Q
animah
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Kaasinees:

> It is not possible to falsify a possibility of a god

It is not possible to falsify a possibility of ghosts, or UFOs, or aliens, or Allah, Icelandic fairies and Irish trolls.

Your statement is meaningless. Look up "negatif proof".

In fact your logical standards are so loose that based on your ramblings, there is more evidence for ghosts and aliens than for your god.

I mean, millions feel it's true. Pseudo-science ensues. But at least we thousands of sightings on Youtube!

Ethelred, I think you're a little tough on DC. After all:

- Celestial objects do look vastly different based on which wavelengths you observe them with.

- Classifications are indeed arbitrary. That's what anti-evolution dimwits don't see: They think of this or that species and the one in the middle instead of the continuous change evolution really is.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Celestial objects do look vastly different based on which wavelengths you observe them with.
Yes but that has nothing to do with this, at least that I can see.

Classifications are indeed arbitrary.
NAMES are arbitrary. If the classification is the it wasn't done well. Life classifies itself through speciation. Energy/matter classifies itself through the process we call, but exists whether we do or not, self assembly.

We are irrelevant to these process in most instances and going on an on about what the words means and the whichness of why and other philosophical nonsense just plays into the hands of people that don't give a damn about facts.

Notice who Henrik was playing with the head of. Notice how DC was getting flustered. Notice that Henrik has not replied to me but did to DC.

Argue with facts not philosophy UNLESS it is a purely philosophical discussion. This was about evolution and Henrik got away with avoiding it on all points.

Ethelred
Deathclock
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
Yes but that has nothing to do with this, at least that I can see.


It has to do with the subjective nature of the classification of "objects". What we call an object is dependent on our unique perspective of reality. Beings with other perspectives might not even have a word for "star" because that particular energy density gradient may not be important to them, they may not even naturally sense light or heat...

Classifications are indeed arbitrary.
NAMES are arbitrary.


No, classification is arbitrary. Humans determine which traits are important and which are not important and use those to create systems of classifications. There is no right or wrong answer about what is important and what is not in order to group similar "important" traits and ignore dissimilar "unimportant" traits.

Notice who Henrik was playing with the head of. Notice how DC was getting flustered.


I become highly annoyed and agitated by ignorance
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
This way the trolls can continue to post all they want but once enough people give it one star it will become collapsed/hidden.
Such solution would support voting trolls instead. I do agree, the posts of uncomfortable posters should become filterable - but such setting should be applied at the strictly personal basis only. For example, if I do perceive the posts of Henrik as a waste of my time, I should have a possibility to filter out all his posts from current and/or all threads for ever. But such posts should still remain visible for another readers, who can have less biased opinion about it. In addition, the personal blacklists could be shared and imported to private profile, which will accelerate the setup for new readers.

The contemporary praxis is, just the massive downvoters have all their filters disabled, which allows them to downovote uncomfortable readers more easily. This is wrong. If you really don't like someone, this user should be hidden for you with no mercy.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Also, I understand your criticism about philosophy, but this isn't philosophy, this is reality. It takes a bit of a mental leap to overcome your human bias and to understand that your perspective is not the only perspective. That which we define to be an object and what we do not define to be an object is based purely on wavelengths of light that we can perceive, on energy densities that feel solid to us, on the temperature ranges that feel warm or cold to us (which is itself based on our body temperature) and many other things that are not necessarily shared across all life forms. Other (speculative) life forms may not experience the universe in the same way that we do, their perspective may be so different than our own that communication would be impossible.

The point of all this begin with the fact that there isn't two of anything in reality, so you cannot count anything without inventing a system of classification. Since mathematics depends on countable values mathematics...
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
cont'd.

Since mathematics depends on countable values and countable values are impossible without invented systems of classification then mathematics depends on human invention (and thus is a human invention, albeit an unintentional one) and has no meaning in reality.

The consequences of classification are enumeration, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc... without classification none of this is possible because you cannot count things that are each unique, and all things in reality are unique.
jsa09
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
@henrik
Now that the dust has settled we can see that the cosmological argument still stands. None of the premises have been convincingly refuted:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Maybe. It depends on the agreed definition of cause. Certainly I would agree that everything that begins to exist must have a beginning. What went before is followed by what came after. Did the "before" cause the "after"? Everything we know from our own experience had "before" followed by "now". But it takes a great deal of analysis to work out what of all the things in "before" lead to the "here and now". It may not be known or even knowable.

From our experience it takes many events in before to create the now. I think this is covered in chaos theory.
jsa09
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
2. The universe began to exist


Only in the sense that whatever we see now was different before. The universe beginning is shrouded in an unknown and perhaps unknowable distance in the past.

We can make no absolute definite knowledge about what went before. Yet.

3. From 1 and 2 it flows that the universe has a cause

From 1 and 2 we have broad statement saying that things can begin from went before. Including the universe. This might better be expressed as.

1,2 and 3) Nothing ever stays the same.
or) Things change.
jsa09
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
@henrik continues
4. The universe cannot be it's own cause

I guess. Depends what you mean by that statement. It doesn't mean anything to me at all.
5. The cause for the universe must be uncaused and exist outside of space, time and energy.

A little confused about this.
Are you saying that whatever was before must have been able to change into what exists now?
And are you also thinking of B.B in that apparent creation of the universe coincided with creation of dimensions for universe to exist?
Universe beginning is unknown and may not have a before. This would tend to indicate eternal state of change.
jsa09
5 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
@henrik continued
The only viable cause would be an immaterial, timeless, uncaused, intelligent and Omnipotent Mind or Consciousness.


Now we are jumping to some really way out conclusion. Up till now you did not need an entity to make anything happen. Suddenly you do. Where did this come from? And you have imbued this entity with Omnipotence as well? And given it a Mind and Consciousness? Not one of these 4 things follows. this is a giant leap in a new direction.

The cause would also be personal and self-willed.

Why? It is bad enough to pull 4 attributes out of thin vacuume but now you want to add a couple more?

These attributes are consistent with the definition of God.

No argument but so what?
God is the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.


You mean you have decided this based on your wild speculation above? Well O.K. I am sure I am convinced. NOT.
Tausch
2 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2012
The point of all this begin with the fact that there isn't two of anything in reality - DC


Doesn't QM assert that two possible QM states give rise to the same reality - to the same physical events - as far as measurable physical parameters and the information content are discernible for humans?

I realize QM has nothing to do with reality. QM's description describes reality successfully to date.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2012
QM is a model of reality, not the reality itself. After all, like every other formal theory. But it doesn't mean, it has nothing to do with physical reality - in such case its coincidence with it would be a much weaker. AWT compares the QM to the perspective of observer, which is floating like the bubble at the water surface and observes small objects at the water surface with using of the surface waves, which are blurred with omnipresent Brownian motion of underwater.
Berry
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
@Henrik. Pl-eeee-se. Get a good science education before making comments here. To anyone who has such an education you sound embarrassingly ridiculous.

You keep making statements and assertions that are non-sensical, demonstrably false and based on imaginative speculation with no valid or reliable supporting evidence.

For example:

* The "definition" of "god" (your particular variation of your particular religions version of the supernatural) is based on unevidenced speculation by ancient philosophers who were debunked centuries ago. Neither they, nor you, can provide any proper evidence that these speculations are based on anything other than wishful thinking.

* You confuse "evolution" with "abiogenesis". The first is about biological change and studied by biologists. The second is about the chemical precursors of life on this planet, and is studied by chemists. This is pretty elementary. Please take the time and effort to improve your level of science education.
Berry
Jan 29, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Silverhill
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
Berry, re: Henrik
You keep making statements and assertions that are non-sensical, demonstrably false and based on imaginative speculation with no valid or reliable supporting evidence.
As Ethelred said,
This was about evolution and Henrik got away with avoiding it on all points.
Henrik's practice of avoiding direct questions about the main topic is well known in this and other threads. Don't expect any substantive or to-the-point response from him; his "reasoning" is expressible as, approximately, "God is [insert 'omni-' characteristic here] because the Bible says so, and that's true because the Bible is the True Word of God -- because the Bible says so."
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Callippo
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jsa09
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
Troll's gonna troll.

Guys... if anyone is still reading this tripe... report this guy, I don't what people like this on this website, do you?
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Silverhill
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
roboferret
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
roboferret
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
roboferret
not rated yet Jan 31, 2012
How about your off topic comments? In the article about the antimatter experiment you launched straight into a diatribe against athiests. That was unprovoked, off topic rude trolling. It has been deleted now, as it was flagrantly in breach of the guidelines and simple politeness. you are in no position to complain about etiquette.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
they are a roughly spherical area of higher energy density than the space surrounding them... that is all
And how is that different from the way are with us around?

Absent of humans to perceive it that energy density differential is no more significant than any other... it is just a part of reality.
As it is with us around. Either way the Universe DOES make a distinction between a vacuum and the center of a star. The self assembly goes on with or without labels and ranting about the labels does nothing in a discussion with a religious crank. Or in a science discussion UNLESS the labels are getting in the way of the facts.

"Star" is a concept that refers to those specific energy density gradients. It only has man-made significance.
Nonsesne. Stars have significance to all that is affected by them whether men notice or not. You are mistaking labels for reality.

I was talking about reality and your silly insistence of going down a purely label route.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
Ethel, you are talking past me and not understanding me...
No. You were replying to stuff I had asked to wait to the end of and acting as if I was replying to your new posts. Which is why I asked you to wait.

You have to understand that the way we perceive reality is not accurate, at all.
You have to understand that we can test that sort of thing.

At the most fundamental level it is energy, just like the tree, and it exists between your eye and the tree.
No shit. But the tree still evolved and still classifies other SPECIES of tree by the process of NOT interbreeding with them. Labels matter not. The trees are what made the species and the AIR carried the seeds.

At the most fundamental level the ONLY distinction between anything is the density of energy in a given area...
And the laws governing them which results in self assembly and in the case of life results in speciation no matter label we might give the process and results.>>
Deathclock
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2012
And how is that different from the way are with us around?

As it is with us around. Either way the Universe DOES make a distinction between a vacuum and the center of a star. The self assembly goes on with or without labels and ranting about the labels does nothing in a discussion with a religious crank. Or in a science discussion UNLESS the labels are getting in the way of the facts.

Nonsesne. Stars have significance to all that is affected by them whether men notice or not. You are mistaking labels for reality.

I was talking about reality and your silly insistence of going down a purely label route.


Eh, I fear you've lost sight of the forest for the trees... I was explaining why you can't count absent of invented systems of classification. I never intended to suggest that the universe is physically different if conscious beings don't perceive it, just that our perception leads to classification which leads to enumeration which leads to mathematics.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
Consider for a moment that the spatial dimensions of the universe are discrete and not infinite in resolution
That is an assumption. I happen to think it MIGHT be true but it is still an assumption.

In that case reality could be represented by a n-dimensional array of binary data.
Crappy way to look at it. Using a rigid array puts it outside of the reality of the Universe.

Remember, this is only an analogy
You might think that I have had these sort of thought and found them a bit naive. Its that grid that makes it naive.

Who are you to tell me to wait?
Who are you to misquote me? TELL is not ASKED.

You can reply to me at your leisure, don't feel rushed
You acted in a rush.

The big bang makes no statement about what may or may not have existed before it.
That is an assumption. It may be true. Dr. Penrose thinks he MAY have found some evidence. I think its an artifact but he is a lot smarter than I am.>>
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Consider for a moment that the spatial dimensions of the universe are discrete and not infinite in resolution
That is an assumption.


I stated it as one...

In that case reality could be represented by a n-dimensional array of binary data.
Crappy way to look at it. Using a rigid array puts it outside of the reality of the Universe.


If the spatial dimensions are discrete and finitely divisible it's the only way to look at it...

The big bang makes no statement about what may or may not have existed before it.
That is an assumption. It may be true. Dr. Penrose thinks he MAY have found some evidence.


It's not an assumption, the actual big bang theory is about the event itself, not what came before it. The evidence is evidence for the event, not for anything before it.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
I see that you haven't yet learned to wait for the end of a multipart post.

The evidence gets us to within a tiny fraction of a second AFTER the event,
No. It only gets us back to the last scattering event. The rest is just math based on that evidence and the redshift data.

and our lack of perception of everything around them.
Speak for yourself. Biologists are aware of air being a transport mechanism. So am I.

I am putting this in to show what is going on between us.
Kaassinee
3. You obviously idnt get the point he was trying to make.

Served.
Kaassinee and you have obviously both missed my point. Our labels are based on how the Universe sorts things out. Species are REAL and not just labels.

My point was that what humans consider important is shaped by our perception of reality, what we easily perceive and what we do not easily perceive.
And what we go to a great deal of effort to perceive.>>
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Kaassinee and you have obviously both missed my point. Our labels are based on how the Universe sorts things out. Species are REAL and not just labels.


Our definition of "species" has changed more times than I've had blow jobs... in reality every single organism is unique, and it is true that some can interbreed and some cannot... but that is not what makes them a species. What makes them a species is that most recently that is how we have chosen to define the word.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
My point was that what humans consider important is shaped by our perception of reality, what we easily perceive and what we do not easily perceive.
And what we go to a great deal of effort to perceive.>>


Not until VERY recently, and not by anyone but the intellectually elite. We are still very biased due to our limited perception, albeit some of us much more so than others.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
The boundaries between these "important" areas of the universe and these "unimportant" areas define what we consider to be "objects"... which are also conceptual.
Which are also real and have effects and are effected whether we label them or not.

It has to do with the subjective nature of the classification of "objects".
Which is based on the sorting of 'energy' by the laws of the Universe.

Beings with other perspectives might not even have a word for "star" because that particular energy density gradient may not be important to them, they may not even naturally sense light or heat...
They aren't getting off their planet then.

No, classification is arbitrary
Nonsense. Classification is based on reality.

Humans determine which traits are important and which are not important and use those to create systems of classifications.
You are mistaking Linnaeus for all of humanity AND for the other SPECIES that can't interbreed with each other.>>
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
No, classification is arbitrary
Nonsense. Classification is based on reality.


It's based on reality but there is no right or wrong answer... What we choose to group things by is up to us to decide, for whatever our purposes are in doing so. Maybe I am using the wrong word, maybe not arbitrary but there is no objective standard of classification, we can classify things however we want, there is no objectively correct way to do it.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
There is nothing arbitrary in species if it is defined in the way that they do or do not interbreed.

There is no right or wrong answer about what is important and what is not in order to group similar "important" traits and ignore dissimilar "unimportant" traits.
Of course there is. Linnaeus did the best he could since he didn't know about evolution. We do the trait that is important is the interbreeding and the past events of that interbreeding.

I become highly annoyed and agitated by ignorance
Waste of time and hormones. Causes people to make mistakes as well. Like concentrating on bleeding labels instead of actual facts.

Also, I understand your criticism about philosophy, but this isn't philosophy, this is reality.
No its philosophy. The reality is that species exist no matter what we label them with. Stars exist whether we notice them or not. The label is irrelevant except for the purposes of communication.>>
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
It takes a bit of a mental leap to overcome your human bias and to understand that your perspective is not the only perspective.
So how about you do that. And notice I am trying to use reality as a perspective. Species really exist.

and many other things that are not necessarily shared across all life forms.
All life evolved to fit the Universe.

Other (speculative) life forms may not experience the universe in the same way that we do
Which won't make stars go away.

their perspective may be so different than our own that communication would be impossible.
Possibly. But they will still be subject to the laws of the universe which do not depend on perception. Thus they and we will be dealing with the same reality. AND the same math no matter how what symbols we use.

The point of all this begin with the fact that there isn't two of anything in reality,
Electrons are still in disagreement with that statement. Indeed they pair up fairly often.>>
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
There is nothing arbitrary in species if it is defined in the way that they do or do not interbreed.


The fact that we define it to mean that is arbitrary... we can group organisms by whatever metric we choose to and no way is more correct than any other because each organism is, in reality, unique. The grouping is our invention.

There is no right or wrong answer about what is important and what is not in order to group similar "important" traits and ignore dissimilar "unimportant" traits.
Of course there is. We do the trait that is important is the interbreeding and the past events of that interbreeding.


Right, so you agree with me, we group things based on what is important to us for our purposes (understanding, communication, etc.)... That's what I am saying.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
so you cannot count anything without inventing a system of classification
Which will still be based on the same principle of math that everyone else will have to use no matter what they count on. The Mayans counted on their toes and fingers. They still had numbers and one object plus another object of whatever classification still became two objects. It will be no different if we meet another intelligent species that do math. The differences will be the symbols and not the principles.

Since mathematics depends on countable values and countable values are impossible
Nonsense. You are mistaking the symbols for the principles. All cultures have the same principles behind their math.

and has no meaning in reality.
Tell that to paired electrons. They are paired with or without a human label.>>
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
So how about you do that. And notice I am trying to use reality as a perspective. Species really exist.


Individual unique organisms exist, and some can breed with each other and some cannot.

Other (speculative) life forms may not experience the universe in the same way that we do
Which won't make stars go away.

Not their physical reality no, but their meaningfulness in order to be labeled, possibly. Depends on which you are referring to.

Thus they and we will be dealing with the same reality. AND the same math no matter how what symbols we use.


Math requires classification. In reality everything is unique, we invent systems of classification that allows us to group dissimilar things together and "count" them. That count is the basis of mathematics.

Electrons are still in disagreement with that statement. Indeed they pair up fairly often


There is no difference between the existence of two things that are exactly the same and only 1 of those things
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
Which will still be based on the same principle of math that everyone else will have to use no matter what they count on.


Of course, the point is they have to COUNT... you cannot count if you do not classify.

Nonsense. You are mistaking the symbols for the principles. All cultures have the same principles behind their math.


No I am not. Counting is impossible if nothing is the same. To be able to count to 2 you must have 2 identical things (which is impossible) or you must classify one unique thing and another unique thing into a group and ignore their dissimilarities.

and has no meaning in reality.
Tell that to paired electrons. They are paired with or without a human label.>>


There is no difference between the existence of two identical things and the existence of only one of those things. They would occupy the same point in space time and would be non-differentiable. There is no practical difference between 2 of them and 1 of them.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2012
without classification none of this is possible because you cannot count things that are each unique,
Nonsense. Apples and oranges can be added. It is done all the time.

and all things in reality are unique.
And that is both false and irrelevant to the principles of mathematics.

Ethelred
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
without classification none of this is possible because you cannot count things that are each unique,
Nonsense. Apples and oranges can be added. It is done all the time.


Wow you are so not getting this... if you count "apples and oranges" you have classified those things into the group "apples and oranges"...

and all things in reality are unique.
And that is both false and irrelevant to the principles of mathematics


It is not false and I can prove it. There is no practical difference between the existence of 2 identical things and the existence of only 1 of that thing. If anything is identical to anything else they occupy the same point in space-time and exist "on top of" each other and are non-differentiable... the pratical difference between the existence of 1 or 2 or 10 or 1 million of them is ZERO.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
If I hand you a ball and tell you I just handed you 15 trillion identical balls what would think? They are identical so occupy the same point in space time and they are affected in exactly the same way by all physical forces, they can NEVER be separated, they can NEVER be uniquely perceived. You have no way of telling if I handed you 1 ball or 10 identical balls or trillions of identical balls... all the way to the subatomic level and beyond, because for them to be identical all constituents of them must also be identical, meaning all atomic, subatomic (and beyond) components of each must also exist in the same point in space-time.

Hence if two things are identical they are EQUIVALENT to the existence of only 1 of those things.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.