- Active Posts:
- 12 (0 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Biology (9 posts)
- 14-July 05
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Oct 03 2005 02:55 PM
- Member Title:
- Age Unknown
- March 10
- Not Telling
- Click here to e-mail me
Posts I've Made
04 August 2005 - 05:39 PM
Dark Mind said:Actually, I believe both statements are incorrect...
I believe my model would need no outside intervention (other than construction), and it would go forever (if left untouched) .
Both of you are on the right track and the same page. But your discussion seems to be culminating in the old, "which came first, the chicken or the egg" argument. The point is, neither can exist with outside intervention at some point. Whether the results of outside intervention outlaw the feasibility of a PMM or allow humans the ability to set one in motion, does not put into question that outside intervention is a prerequisite to both scenarios.
By the way, I really like both of your chosen signature quotes (Dark Mind and Guadalupe) and intellectually cherish the concepts behind them.
04 August 2005 - 04:27 PMMy friend warned me that online forums can be addictive and he was correct. I just don't have the time to commit to this somewhat positive addiction. I resolved the perceived contradictions I had between my religious faith and scientific understanding about a week after starting the thread, but I kept on posting. Thanks to all for sharing your knowledge and opinions. This is my last post.
First of all, my personal comments about you were out of line. I am sorry. My attempt to "psycho-analyze" you was a demonstration in transference. I possessed and, to a certain degree, still possess the very same character flaws I accused you of. I was accused of having these flaws several years ago, so I have taught myself to over-ride and hide them to the best of my ability. By abusing your admission that you are striving to better yourself socially (in your Addendum), I was a dick.
As noted above, I just don't have the time to generate scientifically valid answers to your questions. I do not possess adequate knowledge to be confident in my off-the-cuff answers, and I don't have the time or motivation to research the individual topics. I'll give you one off-the-cuff response, though.
I believe an "unbounded set of universal possibilities" requires an initial state of negative entropy, a state of maximum organization. I don't think that the origin of life or the existence of man defies the law of ever-increasing entropy. However, I think both the origin of life and the existence of man required a degree of organization manipulation that cannot occur naturally (similar to the existence of the internal-combustion engine). From an engineering perspective, the existence of humans has much in common with an engineered-system. I cannot design a system that will not eventually fail, so I consider the economics and useful life of the system at hand (for me it is building systems and 50 years is a general rule of thumb). I think God created humans in His own image, with this ability to manipulate entropy as we deem fit (unfortunately, this ability was not accompanied by His infinite wisdom). I think God set in place an initial state of maximum organization. I think He chose at some point in time to manipulate the organization He created, allowing life to exist and giving it the instinct to procreate and survive. Modern technology and the negative, irreversible impact it has on the environment is evidence that man is accelerating the progression from a state of negative entropy to a state of zero organization at an unprecedented rate. I think that God allowed for life and created man with the understanding that these systems will fail at a point in time that He has predetermined.
03 August 2005 - 02:17 PM
damocles said:I have enough enemies.
A series of questions.
What do you know about unbounded continuity?
What do you know about discrete continuity?
What do you know about point space?
What do you know about the mathematical hypothesis that declares that all possible or potential solutions are actually existent?
What do you know about the multiple universes hypotheses?
Which ones do you consider possible?
Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.)
Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].)
Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)
Do you believe in first cause finity?
Do you believe in original design?
Do you insist on a pattern maker or do you believe that systemic order can spontaneously organize out of competetive states of being?
In short before you accuse me of brevity, do you realize that everything I just wrote is implicit in my, as you concluded, all too brief and incomplete conclusion?
Its what I certainly considered when I wrote it.
I've been accused of being long winded and pompous in writing style. So I'm trying to work on brevity, clarity, and humility. D.
I don't have any enemies and I was not trying to create one. I just don't think either of your posts are of any benefit to anyone. In fact, your first post only served to stiffle discussion. Forgive me for being blunt, but your two posts come across as "pompous" ego-grooming exercises. The only part of either post that benefited anyone was,
"Multiple locii, common bounded frame.(Infinite bubbles expanding in the same flatspace oververse at the same time.) Contiguous(Infinite numbers of universes sharing the same volume point for point but separated by a coincident event horizon but erupting simultaneously from the flatspace and fading away at differing expansion rates[or maybe the same rates, who knows?].) Singular eruption intervals from flat space in discrete intervals(Erupting Universes that inflate and fade to nothing from flatspace in a soup of no-time one right after the other like a sine function for example.)"
I understand the vast majority of the terms you used in your series of questions but I do not know exactly how you relate them to the topic at hand. I readily admit I am not a guru on the topic and that is exactly why I am here. "You know more than me and I think you are very, very smart!". I think that is the response your subconscious eagerly seeks, resulting in said enemies and accusations of pomposity. The anonymity of Internet posting encourages people to ignore social standards and allows subconscious motivations to control the mood and content of a post. You can learn something from everyone. I don't think you believe this, so I conclude responding to your questions would be a waste of my time. I will, however, research the brief topics you have presented, so I thank you for that.
02 August 2005 - 05:37 PM
damocles said:From a mathematicall viewpoint?
Why not? All that is required is a state>O; not sentience. After that, it is vacuum eruption from flat space and the uncurling of binding forces' particle wave interactions, to give shape and volume to a point space.
Clarification is required on your part for me to respond to your post. You obviously have a definite position on the topic. Present the logic that lead you to this brief and incomplete conclusion. I prefer not to respond to posts that require me to assume the poster knows what he/she is talking about. A clear explanation of logic (not personal intellectual brevity) results in a solid post worth responding to.
28 July 2005 - 02:50 PM
Harzburgite said:No, it isn't. a) it can be proven. until it is proven it remains the best game in town, so I subscribe to it for that reason c) tell me where the faith is involved.
c) = a) +
The term "can" in part a) suggests that you believe and are 100% positive that your explanations are correct and factual. I am not exactly sure what your "explanations" are, but your postings suggest strong convictions in evolution and atheism.
In part you use the term "until". By admitting that your explanations HAVE NOT "yet" been proven, you defined part c) for me. My understanding of "faith" is believing in something that has NOT been scientifically proven. Your belief in something that has NOT "yet" been proven, is "where the faith is involved".
Also, science and math is only LAW within the specific set of parameters determined by the humans that establish it. During the first few semesters of my undergrad education, I was taught the scientific LAWS that govern motion and energy. I was taught that these LAWS only hold true under ideal conditions that never occur in reality (due to entropy, friction, turbulence, no steady-state conditions, and so on). During the next couple semesters I was taught how these LAWS were modified and expanded upon to account for conditions presented by reality (for example, basic Bernoulli to Extended-Bernoulli). During the last few semesters, I was taught how to apply what I had learned to physical systems. To apply these laws to reality, requires the ability to recognize and accurately identify all system parameters. Part of these parameters are assumptions. My professors required us to make an "Assumptions" heading and list every one of them before attempting to analytically solve a problem. The more complex the system or problem, the more assumptions are required to arrive at an answer/conclusion. As the number of assumptions increases so does the possibility for error and oversight. Life is the most complex system science has ever attempted explain.
zmweaver hasn't added any friends yet.