Truth-Basic view on reality

[arkain101]

This topic is about increasing our perceptions of reality, while including the well known debate of Evolution versus Intelligent design or creation aswell. But before you say not another one, I mean to point out firstly it is a new and different approach.

 

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis.htm is something I came across that I found quite interesting. Not only because it (the audio lecture) was very clearly explained with open mindedness, but also because the approach using basic principles. I have mentioned this concept before in other topics as some may have noticed. The basic principles, designed for positive intent with productive results, and I've been refering to this as truth-basic mannerism.

 

In this lecture, Perry Marshall, the speaker, makes some very clear points on some very basic principles. He does throw in his own opinion, but with or without it, the points still stand as basic potential truths.

 

I encourage you to listen in, or get what you can from the summery for interest sake and for possible future discussion in this topic.

 

I plan for this topic to be a purpose intended discussion to find facts and answers towards questions of our reality, and to try and avoid the purpose to become related to defending, proving, or disproving a particular theory, and strive for the purpose of pointing out logistic facts in relation to our existence and the universe and how it is that it is here.

 

So enjoy the audio for the time being and I will get to work on some of my own information to share.

 

The result is not to have a winning side but to empower our perceptions.

[Boerseun]

Arkain, I'll have to say "Oh hell - not again."

 

I followed the link, and nothing new was forthcoming, except the rock-hard belief in the common fallacy that information 'can't be generated naturally'.

 

The 'code' in our DNA is the result of a feedback loop, that has only one requirement: The ability to procreate and live in a given environment.

 

I have written a spreadsheet to generate random letters, picking those that 'fit' the environment, and leaving the rest.

 

Here's the output: (Underscore is SPACE)

 

Q

D

W

C

F

Q

F

K

O

P

B

Z

D

V

P

R

Y

V

O

M

N

N

R

_

D

J

_

Q

F

X

R

F

W

U

A

_

D

A

Z

P

A

Q

Z

J

V

B

V

S

D

A

L

Z

F

O

Q

J

J

I

G

S

D

A

A

M

D

G

T

X

U

T

J

S

D

A

J

W

G

J

A

V

U

C

A

S

D

A

Y

W

X

J

R

H

U

Y

B

S

D

A

F

W

M

R

O

F

U

I

B

S

D

A

M

W

J

Q

Y

H

U

J

V

S

D

A

_

W

T

B

T

E

U

H

H

S

D

A

K

W

Y

G

N

W

U

Z

E

S

D

A

H

W

Q

A

X

R

U

S

E

S

D

A

I

W

X

J

U

R

U

W

E

S

D

A

A

W

Z

G

S

R

U

D

E

S

D

A

E

W

T

Y

I

R

U

O

E

S

D

A

M

W

X

H

D

R

U

P

E

S

D

A

R

W

E

U

L

R

U

D

E

S

D

A

R

W

O

W

E

R

U

_

E

S

D

A

R

W

C

J

U

R

U

W

E

S

D

A

R

W

L

Z

G

R

U

F

E

S

D

A

R

W

G

_

N

R

U

I

E

S

D

A

R

W

P

W

X

R

U

_

E

S

D

A

R

W

X

D

K

R

U

B

E

S

D

A

R

W

T

F

P

R

U

P

E

S

D

A

R

W

K

O

E

R

U

E

E

S

D

A

R

W

D

N

K

R

U

H

E

S

D

A

R

W

X

N

T

R

U

W

E

S

D

A

R

W

Z

N

_

R

U

J

E

S

D

A

R

W

J

N

_

R

U

O

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

X

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

R

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

T

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

K

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

R

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

V

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

B

E

S

D

A

R

W

I

N

_

R

U

L

E

S

 

This have created the sentence "DARWIN RULES" in only 39 'generations', using an environmental feedback loop.

 

Nature seems to be able to generate information. The environment decides what works, and what doesn't, granting those that do the opportunity to procreate, and discarding the rest.

[Boerseun]

**** - how do I get it in tab format??!?!?!

[arkain101]

This have created the sentence "DARWIN RULES" in only 39 'generations', using an environmental feedback loop.

 

Nature seems to be able to generate information. The environment decides what works, and what doesn't, granting those that do the opportunity to procreate, and discarding the rest.

 

I assume what you were showing didnt post properly. Could you enlighten me on what an envirmental feedback loop is?

 

I wonder..

[arkain101]

Lets look at the universe in a very fundamental manner.

 

Lets look at evolution.

 

Evolution in the theory sense on life, is a process that describes life forms starting from an original fundamental state and eventually mutating into a new form of itself that is better suited for things relavent to its survival. For example, we start with a bacteria. It eventually evolves into a bigger multi celled organism that can dominate over other single cell creatures to ensure its survival, and have better ability at moving around, for both fleeing and chasing down other forms of life. Or, A monkey for example that eventually grew the body shape that was better suited for walking on two legs and then mutating a more complex brain design for better problem solving.

 

This is evolution the theory in life, Darwin.

 

There is also the reference to evolution of the species without it changing into a better suited physical mutation (not mutation in a bad sense, mutation in evolution is equal to bettering its survival capabilities). This type of evolution relates to a species not changing but the evolution of the species in its behavioral way. We look at our human race for example. In the past 5000 years we are still physically more or less the same but we have evolved as a species to different knowledge, reality, consciousness, society, communication etc.

 

So when we are refering to something having evolved, we see where there is the different references to the statement, and possible chance for being misunderstood.

[arkain101]

DNA.

 

The statements Perry Marshall made about DNA are rather intriguing.

 

The scientist (s) who won the nobel prize for the study on DNA won it under the discription of Unlocking the DNA 'code'.

 

DNA is a code. It is a language, then language of life. I understand there is four different Letters in the DNA code alphabet. The 'letters' are molecules and there is four kinds. So in each code of your dna, these four letters spell out who you are in a symbolic form. The (M) Matter and (E) Energy that make up this DNA double Helix are organized in a language that symbolically (like words you are reading now are symbolic for meanings, and pictures, and sounds etc) spells out everything that you are. So we know that we are designed when we look at this fact. We start as a DNA strand that contains a huge comination of molecular code, that will draw who we are to become. The designer could be evolution, chaos, or what else have you. But, when we are born we will become what our design plans us to become.

[arkain101]

Connecting, Evolution, DNA, Language, and Design.

 

So what is evolution?

 

What happens at the fundemental parts of the life form. We understand that the life form is what it is from writing out a special Paragraph using the 4 letters in DNA code (these are Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine, and Guanine). Lets make these letters, A, H, O, P for a hypothetical situation.

Lets imagine that a Fish is spelled in DNA code like so.

 

"HOPA PAPA HOHO AHHH"

 

Now studies have be done that tried to manipulate the spelling in a life forms DNA structure from the use of radiation. They have tested on fruit flies, and other insects trying to re-spell something in the code that might cause the fly to develope into a new species, or develope some new function that would act benefical to it.

 

So if we use some technology to mess with the spelling for the fish to mutate its DNA, and try to cause it to evolve, we will change "HOPA PAPA HOHO AHHH" to something else like "HOPA PAHA HOHO AHHP" But it will not spell fish and it will not spell our a new species that seems capable to survive.

 

I have read that in no test or observation is there data that actually proves a mutation in the DNA of a life form can lead to a new species. Which is exactly what Evolution Theory is all about.

 

Now, acceptably, we can expect all evolution to be caused by mutation. We can assume that a lifeform evolved from adding to its dna code and not just altering it. This is thought to happen from need to survive. For example, a Creature needs to evade its enemies so it learns to run fast and developes dna alterations that give it longer stronger legs, eventually it learns to jump and its dna alters to grow some webbing between its limbs and body to glide from large leaps, then eventually it wants to keep gliding so its dna alterates for it to grow feathers so it can flap its webbings and make use of the Wing "lift" effect. And finally its dna alterates so that it becomes a bird and can avoid its enemies all together by hanging out in trees and soaring in the air.

 

Although, Studies have been done to see if the actions and intent a life-form performs throughout its life time will have any effect or alterations on its reproductive DNA and found no evidence any learned memories or intent could be passed through the DNA into the offspring of the life-form. To give you an example of one of these studies. Scientists used rats to practice mazes untill they had them very well memorized and capable of more quickly solving new mazes, and checked to see if it had any effect on the next generations, and on to the next generations and etc. No significant result of DNA re-coding was apparent.

 

I am not ruling out anything, I understand there could be more recent studies showing postitive results of DNA alterations, and would gladly like to have them added.

 

So everything that is life is blue printed, coded, or designed with an informational language from some kind of intent and reason, through its DNA.

 

But where did language, information, intent, come from?

 

Was the code a result of evolution, or was evolution the result from the code...

[Boerseun]

Hi there. Sorry about the last post, it was supposed to be in tab form, but came out linear instead.

 

What I did was take a random set of letters,

AFGTIFPTKINW

Then, I wrote a spreadsheet to randomly generate a new set.

This came out:

SERTUBPOGJRD

Working as evolution does, to keep what works (those that don't, simply die off) and our requirement to fit this imaginary 'niche' is the sentence "DARWIN RULES", it seems as if the third letter fits the bill. So now, we keep the 'R' and randomly generate the rest. And after only 39 "Generations", the full sentence appeared. I suppose I should run the experiment a few million times to get the average for generating the sentence that'll fit the 'niche', but this serves to illustrate.

 

Intelligent Design buffs will, of course, say that the outcome was pre-determined, and therefore 'designed' via 'intelligence'. That is not so. The only 'design' that could be inferred here, is the ability for the organism to suit that which is dictated by the environment, in this case, fitting the proper sentence.

 

Intelligent Design guys suffer from the fallacy of the enumeration of favourable circumstances. They look at nature and say that everything is as it should be because it was designed. The unfavourable examples they tend to ignore. Such as anaerobic bacteria that harkens back to a oxygen-free atmosphere. These little buggers are old, and predate even plants, those pesky bastards that poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen. The only reason they are still around is because there are indeed still niches left for them to invade, like certain human bodyparts that might suffer from such unmentionable and uncomfortable conditions like yeast infections.

Other examples is rabbits which were so stupidly designed that they have to eat their own feces in order to get any nourishment. Their guts are too short.

 

Nature is not perfect, not by any means. And organisms continuously evolve to better fit into the environment, while the environment itself keeps on changing. Long-lived animals like sharks, which have been around for hundreds of milions of years, doesn't point to a good design - it simply points to a very constant environment.

Dinosaurs, again, points to an environment that changed faster than evolution could keep up.

 

These guys trying to use information theory to prove intelligent design simply don't understand the issue at hand.

 

They are wrong.

 

Thus Boerseun spake.

[Racoon]

How the heck did the Platypus evolve? :hyper:

 

are you saying that it isn't intelligent Design?

or was it dumb design by nature.

 

Platypuses are Gnarly Rad! :hihi:

 

Couldn't nature "design" creatures in a manner that seems "intelligent" by our reasoning abilities?

oh, that would be evolution.:Alien:

[arkain101]

What I did was take a random set of letters,

AFGTIFPTKINW

Then, I wrote a spreadsheet to randomly generate a new set.

This came out:

SERTUBPOGJRD

Working as evolution does, to keep what works (those that don't, simply die off) and our requirement to fit this imaginary 'niche' is the sentence "DARWIN RULES", it seems as if the third letter fits the bill. So now, we keep the 'R' and randomly generate the rest. And after only 39 "Generations", the full sentence appeared. I suppose I should run the experiment a few million times to get the average for generating the sentence that'll fit the 'niche', but this serves to illustrate.

 

So now, we keep the 'R' and randomly generate the rest.

 

I understand your point. Although it appears, at least to me, that you are the intelligent mind and designer behind this "random generater". If it has intent, it has intelligence. In other words, try spelling darwin rules, with complete random chaos. If your mind is involved or the program is 'designed' in such a way to accomplish something, a form of intelligence should be agreed to have pre existed the creation of your random generation, should it not?

[ughaibu]

The process of selection initially selects itself, no design is implied.

[Boerseun]

Although it appears, at least to me, that you are the intelligent mind and designer behind this "random generater". If it has intent, it has intelligence. In other words, try spelling darwin rules, with complete random chaos. If your mind is involved or the program is 'designed' in such a way to accomplish something, a form of intelligence should be agreed to have pre existed the creation of your random generation, should it not?

No. That is exactly what I said in my post. Me saying I want the sentence "Darwin Rules" from a random generator, is analogous to the environment dictating what requirements the animal should meet, simply by killing those that don't. No design is implied, or needed. We breathe air and live kinda comfortably on Earth, because that is the environment our ancestors were exposed to. Those that didn't dig the circumstances, died.

[arkain101]

More on some basic principles.

 

The universe can NOT operate on a infinite Time scale with the big bang theory of operation, when considering such an event under operation with our current known view on the physics of this universe.

 

The entropy of the universe is estimated to be in the range of about 1 billion. This means that it does not have very efficient bounce back mechanics. Since the universe has been measured unable to achieve infinite big bangs, we can confinently agree that unless it was perfectly 100% efficient the universe would eventually shrink into smaller and smaller bangs and into nothingness. Infinity requires 100% efficiency. Since we are in a universe that is not collapsed into a nothingness, we can let go of the possibility of an infinite timeline universe.

 

Some arguments are that we may be in the right bang in order for the universe to be like it is. The arguments are discredited due to the fact there would be infinite past bangs in an infinite realm and it is IMPOSSIBLE to claim if you are near the begginning or the end in a realm that has neither.

 

This directly explains that the universe can not exist in an infinite timeline. With that cleared we can move on to agree the universe must have been created and has been measured to have been created rather recently as time scale goes in respect to the universe. AKA, the universe is still pretty young. This is measured in several ways. The slowing down of the expansion, the velocity, the de-acceleration and the forces involved can explain just how long it should have been in motion. Aswell as other details such as, heavy materials still exist naturally in the universe. Heavy materials that are unstable like uranium for example.

 

So the universe is a One time deal. It is extremely finely tuned. It was created and not only that, but TIME was also created along with the creation of the universe. As far as current theory goes time is as much as a physical part of the universe as anything else. It is a dimension, just as is our space. So it too was created.

 

We have hopefully at this point reached agreement the universe was created and not infinite random chaos.

This creation was a first time one time deal (in respect to this current universe).

 

In this creation, matter, energy, and time were created and designed with intent as for it to function with precision and purpose and together these parts are meshed together to form its operation.

 

If we agree on these points we can move on to this next point. Where and how can you take a bunch of zero's / 0's and make a 1?

Since the universe was created as a beginning in respect to physical and its time, where or what was prior to this existence? this 1?

 

Logically, Mathamatically, or Scientifically it would seem that some thing had to have pre - existed seperate from this realm where this 1 appeared from a 0. The 0 must be named or responsible. It has properties outside of our ability to think, but is what must have pre-existed the creation of time and space and would need to contain Information in order to design, intelligence in order to design.

[Boerseun]

The fact that the universe exists as it is, points to one thing only: It exists as is, because if it was any different, we, the observers, wouldn't have known any better, and thought that the different way is the way. We wouldn't have noticed anything different. If it was so much different that our existence would have been impossible, well, then we wouldn't have been here to notice. Fact is, the Universe actually don't care.

 

This universe might be the latest incarnation of a 'pulsating' universe, in which stuffs expands from the initial explosion, and then reach a point where everything falls back in on itself, and creates a massive black hole which then explodes again, forming the next universe. In which case the universe is ageless, and the question of a beginning or end becomes meaningless.

 

The visible universe might just be a small speck in a gigantic multiverse, in which a foam of universes constantly come into being, without ever intersecting each other. This multiverse is timeless and boundless, and to worry about the origins of the local universe in this scenario is like saying a television needs a factory, 'cause it was obviously 'made' - and then to forget about the hundreds of people who put the factory together. The factory is not the end of the line, if we trace the origins of manufactured products back - someone had to build the factory. Same with God.

 

You can logically deduce a God as the instigator of the Universe, but as I have shown above, there are possible forms of the Universe that simply don't need one. We have to determine the form of the universe first before we can infer any supernatural beings to its origins.

[arkain101]

First I just want to point out my opening statement.

 

The universe can NOT operate on a infinite Time line with the big bang theory of operation, when considering such an event under operation with our current known view on the physics of this universe.

 

I was refering directly to this theory to avoid this exact situation we find ourselves in with this argument of yours where we stray off topic. This topic in general is meant to remain on the basics. This particular post was to single out the big bang theory and describe its incapabilites and capabilites.

 

The fact that the universe exists as it is, points to one thing only: It exists as is, because if it was any different, we, the observers, wouldn't have known any better, and thought that the different way is the way. We wouldn't have noticed anything different. If it was so much different that our existence would have been impossible, well, then we wouldn't have been here to notice. Fact is, the Universe actually don't care.

 

I understand this argument. I have considered the same argument. But it seems to be an argument that is senseless, as it seems too commondly used on both sides of these debates. By straying off the subject, which was targeted on the big bang idea, a defense is made by bringing up wild alternative ideas, which do nothing more than attempt to immediatly debunk the others idea to no avail and confuse the discussion.

It is obvious that the universe exists as it is because thats the way it is. This is stating basic truth. It doesnt accomplish much in the task at hand.

 

As you listed,

 

This universe might be the latest incarnation of a 'pulsating' universe, in which stuffs expands from the initial explosion, and then reach a point where everything falls back in on itself, and creates a massive black hole which then explodes again, forming the next universe. In which case the universe is ageless, and the question of a beginning or end becomes meaningless.

 

Thats right it could be any one of these ways. As you said,

 

It exists as is, because if it was any different, we, the observers, wouldn't have known any better, and thought that the different way is the way.

 

And so the same argument can be made that alternative ideas like infinite universe in a foam of infinite universe, are of no use to the subject of discussion, because it is the reference to this universe that is important.

 

By no means am I trying to suggest a god or a theory or take a side. I am opening up the basic principles of observation. It is up to the readers and participants in this topic to make up there beliefs and opinions on their own. The actual posting is for notes, text, evidence, and logic on the subjects.

 

back to this quote again.

This universe might be the latest incarnation of a 'pulsating' universe, in which stuffs expands from the initial explosion, and then reach a point where everything falls back in on itself, and creates a massive black hole which then explodes again, forming the next universe. In which case the universe is ageless, and the question of a beginning or end becomes meaningless.

 

This is like the big bang theory that pulsates. I am pointing out that due to scientific study, this is from what I have been informed, to be a impossibility. Mass turns into energy, and not all energy is captured. The universes Entropy is very high, 1 billion, according to scientific references, this is saying that its ability to bounce back, or explode back out is not quite possible. Just imagine all that electromagnetic energy that is radiating off and not being absorbed. This is what I was pointing out that we can forget the pulsating idea, of ever lasting universe becuase we know for a fact that the universe loses alot of energy all the time, and eventually if it were to collapse and blow up it would die out. This concept operates on a infinite time line. Forever pulsating. But it is very simple to understand that we can immediatly exclude this thought because it would need to be able to capture itself over and over again wit 100% efficiency or else it wouldnt fit into infinity.

 

You can logically deduce a God as the instigator of the Universe, but as I have shown above, there are possible forms of the Universe that simply don't need one. We have to determine the form of the universe first before we can infer any supernatural beings to its origins.

I am not refering to a god. I am revieling what is here, now, what is, as you said it.

Your statements in my opinion can be tossed about from either side.

If a person of faith were to say god made the universe, an athiest could imediatly respond by coming up with a idea that doesnt require a god, a foam of infinite universes as it were.

If an athiest tells a person of faith, there is no god, there was a big bang. The person of faith can say, who needs a big bang when there could a foam of infinite universes.

 

In order to make some headway we have to exclude the concept of trying to disprove or prove a particular belief of faith. On the contrary, we take a belief, or theory, open it up and show with basic principles whether or not its logically correct and worth our brain space.

 

Big bang theory can NOT work in infinite time line.

 

If big bang turns out to be Correct, it will have to be considered a creation, this is because of the reasons explained in this post and te previous.

[ughaibu]

If you have a created universe, you can throw out the "intelligence" of design. This planet experiences prolonged droughts and pluvial periods, ice-ages, volcanic explosions and meteor strikes. You wouldn't design such a place as a kennel for your dog or a corral for your horses, would you?

[arkain101]

Let us delve into that area if you would like.

 

I obviously do no refer to intelligent design as you appear to. I agree I should stick with creation over Intelligent design.

 

I am not so much concirned with our planet as I am the unfolding of existence in this universal realm when I speak of design.

 

The universe is a reality that functions with constants and laws, this is commonly understood. If big bang is proved, then it was created, and the next step is to decide how so. Either with amazing intelligence outside space and time or what..