Science of Destiny?

[Kumar]

Hello,

I was not sure, whether this topic is relevant to science or R&P forum. Anyway..

Very simple question may need simple & non-contradicting replies.

Can there be some scientific validity in very popular aspect- destiny esp. if universe ( or atleast our Solar system) is fine-tuned & even a slight unnatural disturbance can effect universe which can be related to change in one's destiny on different level/time?

Few wikipedia definitions:-

Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events.[1] It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the cosmos.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[1]

Disturbance (ecology) a disturbance is a temporary change in average environmental conditions that causes a pronounced change in an ecosystem. Outside disturbance forces often act quickly and with great effect, sometimes resulting in the removal of large amounts of biomass.

Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns.

The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1]

Dharma Jainism: *snips*"Universe and its constituents are uncreated and everlasting. These constituents behave according to the natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. "The intrinsic nature of a substance is its true religion." Religion is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect."

Entropy, Enthalpy, Butterfly effect...???

Best wishes.

[Mojo]

"...the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect."


Nope. Hot water does not have a cooling effect.

[Kumar]

Nope. Hot water does not have a cooling effect.

Welcome. Due to nature vs. unnature. Nitpicking clue; hot water springs.:)

[Mojo]

Welcome. Due to nature vs. unnature. Nitpicking clue; hot water springs.:)


Are you claiming that hot water from hot springs has a cooling effect, or that hot springs are unnatural?

[Mojo]

...if universe ( or atleast our Solar system) is fine-tuned...


Actually, I'll have to stop you there.

[Hecubas]

So before one starts an experiment in destiny, how do you propose one measure it? What method would you use to determine the destiny of an individual? Fortune cookies?

[dlorde]

So before one starts an experiment in destiny, how do you propose one measure it? What method would you use to determine the destiny of an individual? Fortune cookies?

Isn't it the case that 'destiny' can only be assessed in hindsight? i.e. it requires that the events that have occurred were inevitable, and - assuming a deterministic universe - is therefore trivially proven...

[prewitt81]

Hello,

I was not sure, whether this topic is relevant to science or R&P forum. Anyway..

Very simple question may need simple & non-contradicting replies.

Can there be some scientific validity in very popular aspect- destiny esp. if universe ( or atleast our Solar system) is fine-tuned & even a slight unnatural disturbance can effect universe which can be related to change in one's destiny on different level/time?

Few wikipedia definitions:-

Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events.[1] It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the cosmos.

Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.[1]

Disturbance (ecology) a disturbance is a temporary change in average environmental conditions that causes a pronounced change in an ecosystem. Outside disturbance forces often act quickly and with great effect, sometimes resulting in the removal of large amounts of biomass.

Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.

Physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns.

The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1]

Dharma Jainism: *snips*"Universe and its constituents are uncreated and everlasting. These constituents behave according to the natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. "The intrinsic nature of a substance is its true religion." Religion is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect."

Entropy, Enthalpy, Butterfly effect...???

Best wishes.

Nope

[Kumar]

Are you claiming that hot water from hot springs has a cooling effect, or that hot springs are unnatural?

Whatever but it is not normal & due to admixture or process.

Concentrate on subject. Do you know any concept in scientific understanding, that can be directly or indirectly relevant to destiny, natural law, fine tuned universe and causality?

[Kumar]

Actually, I'll have to stop you there.

Why?

[Kumar]

So before one starts an experiment in destiny, how do you propose one measure it? What method would you use to determine the destiny of an individual? Fortune cookies?

Simply, if universe/solar system if fine-tuned as such, if ony odd disturarbance can effect fine tuning?

[Kumar]

Nope

Universe has existing & working since very very long time and kept us existed. There have to be some discipline in achieving it....somewhat nature balances itself, one who dig pit for others fall into it himself, survival of fittest etc.

[AdMan]

Universe has existing & working since very very long time and kept us existed. There have to be some discipline in achieving it....somewhat nature balances itself, one who dig pit for others fall into it himself, survival of fittest etc.


If you are repeating the argument that the universe is "fine-tuned", the answer, again, is no, it isn't.

[Kumar]

If you are repeating the argument that the universe is "fine-tuned", the answer, again, is no, it isn't.

Is there any persistence in existence & working of universe/Solar system, as such that minor change can cause profound reactions?

[nvidiot]

Kumar, nature doesn't give a flying fig about you, or anyone else for that matter. Nature is just a fancy word for the universe as we see it.

You are attributing anthropomorphic tendencies to inanimate physics.

There are still a few who think that a deterministic universe is potentially understandable, but it seems that the very nature of the universe contains unknowable variables at the most basic level which cannot be excised from the system. At some level we can "predict" what will happen, but once you get down to the nitty gritty of the atomic and subatomic particles it appears that random chance plays a very large part in determining what happens when.

Ultimately though, it comes down to the universe just doesn't care about you, or me, or anyone else. It just IS. Attempting to elicit meaning from it according to what you perceive as "fair" or "just" or "destined", is merely a convenient window dressing to make you feel better about the stark view outside.

[AdMan]

Is there any persistence in existence & working of universe/Solar system, as such that minor change can cause profound reactions?


If by this you mean whether any minuscule change in the physical laws governing the universe can cause profound change, of course that is the case.

But that is not an argument for the universe being fine-tuned for anything.

[PixyMisa]

Can there be some scientific validity in very popular aspect- destiny
No.

[Kid Eager]

There is no science in destiny, and no destiny in science.

Is there any rabbit fur in gelato?

[PixyMisa]

If it's rabbit-fur gelato, yes.

[hgc]

Destiny refers to a predetermined course of events.[1] It may be conceived as a predetermined future, whether in general or of an individual. It is a concept based on the belief that there is a fixed natural order to the cosmos.


You'll get partial credit for this one, as long as you're willing to replace "Destiny" with "Predictability," and understand that it's a probabilistic game, using theories given rise from physical evidence. Oh, and you can't rely on revealed knowledge. Don't forget: no non-material evidence. Also, don't expect to achieve 100% certainty. Oh, and that predetermined part, that can't really be intentional determination by an intelligent inanimate entity. You know that, right?

OK, go forth and do science!

[RobDegraves]

Can there be some scientific validity in very popular aspect- destiny esp. if universe ( or atleast our Solar system) is fine-tuned & even a slight unnatural disturbance can effect universe which can be related to change in one's destiny on different level/time?

How can you have something unnatural to the Universe?

[Kumar]

How can you have something unnatural to the Universe?

Global warming. Casuality...

[Mojo]

Concentrate on subject. Do you know any concept in scientific understanding, that can be directly or indirectly relevant to destiny, natural law, fine tuned universe and causality?


No. "Destiny" and "natural law" are man-made concepts that have nothing to do with science, and there is no evidence that the universe is "fine-tuned"; it is the way it is, otherwise we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. In a universe with life, the probability that the universe is capable of supporting life is 1.

[Mojo]

Global warming. Casuality...


Global warming, even if caused by mankind, is the product of natural processes because mankind is the product of natural processes.

[Kid Eager]

If it's rabbit-fur gelato, yes.

Nom... make mine a double!

[Aitch]

If it's rabbit-fur gelato, yes.

Nom... make mine a double!

Waiter, there's a hare in my gelato! ;)

[phelix]

Isn't it the case that 'destiny' can only be assessed in hindsight? i.e. it requires that the events that have occurred were inevitable, and - assuming a deterministic universe - is therefore trivially proven...

Aww. Everyone else passed over your post, but I appreciated it :D Was going to post something similar. Although... I have heard a philosopher on a radio 4 program defending determinism while dismissing predestination. I don't quite see how these two views can be compatible.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Global warming, even if caused by mankind, is the product of natural processes because mankind is the product of natural processes.

Apart from that, global warming does exactly nothing in the universe.
Its a perfecly valid redistribution of a infintessimally small portion of the energy present in the solar system.

[Kumar]

No. "Destiny" and "natural law" are man-made concepts that have nothing to do with science, and there is no evidence that the universe is "fine-tuned"; it is the way it is, otherwise we wouldn't be here to have this conversation. In a universe with life, the probability that the universe is capable of supporting life is 1.

Do you want to say that universe & solar system do not go into a specific way, but it just go in random manner? Big bang theory?

[Kumar]

Global warming, even if caused by mankind, is the product of natural processes because mankind is the product of natural processes.

Free will of mankind may not be natural.

[Kumar]

Apart from that, global warming does exactly nothing in the universe.
Its a perfecly valid redistribution of a infintessimally small portion of the energy present in the solar system.

Even if it is unnatural redistribution of energy & matter?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Even if it is unnatural redistribution of energy & matter?

Humans are natural. The materials used are natural and the energy stored in the material comes from the sun.
So if global warming is human made it's still 100% natural.
Unnatural distribution would be energy coming ex-novo or something like that.

But that is making the thread pretty off topic.

How would you pre-check for someone or something being destined?

AFAIK there is a distinct lack of prophecies claiming a special child is going to do something special anytime soon. And you'd need negative controls.
So you'd need to write false prophecies and see if it affects things differently

[Kumar]

Humans are natural. The materials used are natural and the energy stored in the material comes from the sun.
So if global warming is human made it's still 100% natural.
Unnatural distribution would be energy coming ex-novo or something like that.

But that is making the thread pretty off topic.

How would you pre-check for someone or something being destined?

AFAIK there is a distinct lack of prophecies claiming a special child is going to do something special anytime soon. And you'd need negative controls.
So you'd need to write false prophecies and see if it affects things differently

We should know definition of Unnatural, at first:-

"1.not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
3. lacking ease and naturalness";inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected.

Examples; It seems unnatural to keep the bird in a cage.
She has an unnatural obsession with money.
Her smile looked forced and unnatural.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural "

As such all things & beings have come from nature but it does not mean, nothing can be unnatural. Now check again. I take for simplicity sake, natural as, to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong AND unnatural, to which we don't.

[dlorde]

Aww. Everyone else passed over your post, but I appreciated it :D

My new best friend! :D

Destiny just seems like determinism-lite; a set of blinkers that make you focus on some particular event sequence of apparent personal significance - a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. ISTM the unjustified desire for and attribution of personal significance lies behind most woo.

[Little 10 Toes]

Universe has existing & working since very very long time and kept us existed. There have to be some discipline in achieving it....somewhat nature balances itself, one who dig pit for others fall into it himself, survival of fittest etc.

Please find out how long the universe has existed and compare that with how long the dinosaurs existed, and then compare that with how long humans existed.

We should know definition of Unnatural, at first:-

"1.not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events
2a : not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior
3. lacking ease and naturalness";inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected.

Examples; It seems unnatural to keep the bird in a cage.
She has an unnatural obsession with money.
Her smile looked forced and unnatural.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unnatural "

As such all things & beings have come from nature but it does not mean, nothing can be unnatural. Now check again. I take for simplicity sake, natural as, to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong AND unnatural, to which we don't. Bolding added. All things come from nature? What about clones? And a sense of right and wrong is not natural.

If I form a religion in which it is ok to lie to others, but to be truthful to me only, is that "inharent [sic]"? What about cannibals? It's right for them to eat people, but it's wrong for me?

[Tormac]

I think this is more of a discussion of definitions than anything else. The natural laws of the universe do tend to produce regularly repeated results. For example one could say that huge clouds of hydrogen gas are destined to condense into stars, or pools of rainwater sitting in the sun are destined to evaporate.

If that is what you mean by “fine-tuned”, then I have no problem with it (of course the phrase “fine-tuned” has a lot of political baggage with it because of its use in creationist circles, so if you’re using it in a similar way that creationists use it I’m likely to disagree at that point).

If one wants to interpret "The intrinsic nature of a substance is its true religion." to imply that objects have no higher meaning beyond their physical properties, I can accept that as well. Some versions of Buddhism interpret it as a materialistic philosophy. If I understand the OP, I think that this kind of thing could fall into what you are talking.

[RobDegraves]

Originally Posted by RobDegraves View Post
How can you have something unnatural to the Universe?
Global warming. Casuality...


Hmmmm.... definitions then.


Universe = Everything that exists.

Ergo... everything that exists is part of the Universe.

As such all things & beings have come from nature but it does not mean, nothing can be unnatural. Now check again. I take for simplicity sake, natural as, to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong AND unnatural, to which we don't.

You are taking the colloquial definition of unnatural. In scientific terms, nothing is unnatural.

However, by your specific definition, just about anything we do could be considered unnatural. Ergo, it has little value in a scientific definition.

Mixing categories in your statements will just arrive at pointless and erroneous conclusions.

[Kumar]

Please find out how long the universe has existed and compare that with how long the dinosaurs existed, and then compare that with how long humans existed.

Other species than humans are also existing.

Bolding added. All things come from nature? What about clones? And a sense of right and wrong is not natural.

If I form a religion in which it is ok to lie to others, but to be truthful to me only, is that "inharent [sic]"? What about cannibals? It's right for them to eat people, but it's wrong for me?

I can't say if clones can also be natural. Suppose egg take man cell(like cloning) instead sperm? many people are near to true copy of either parent.

Goats eat veg. lion non veg. It depend upon nature of any entity. Sense is, whatever anyone can rightly process with substancial prior knowledge(inharent sense of right & wrong). New/odd things can't be rightly, easily or naturally processed by anyone. However we can be evolved or become habitual to any new/odd thing as per evolution theory--then that can also be natural.

[Kumar]

I think this is more of a discussion of definitions than anything else. The natural laws of the universe do tend to produce regularly repeated results. For example one could say that huge clouds of hydrogen gas are destined to condense into stars, or pools of rainwater sitting in the sun are destined to evaporate.

If that is what you mean by “fine-tuned”, then I have no problem with it (of course the phrase “fine-tuned” has a lot of political baggage with it because of its use in creationist circles, so if you’re using it in a similar way that creationists use it I’m likely to disagree at that point).

Something about Fine-tuned universe is mentioned on following links;

Fine-tuned Universe
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe


If one wants to interpret "The intrinsic nature of a substance is its true religion." to imply that objects have no higher meaning beyond their physical properties, I can accept that as well. Some versions of Buddhism interpret it as a materialistic philosophy. If I understand the OP, I think that this kind of thing could fall into what you are talking.

Dharma(religion) act occured as per true nature and Karma(casuality) act done by consicious mind & purpose. Destiny theory may indicate, such religion(as per nature only) don't disturb the destiny but casuality can.

[Kumar]

Hmmmm.... definitions then.


Universe = Everything that exists.

Ergo... everything that exists is part of the Universe.



You are taking the colloquial definition of unnatural. In scientific terms, nothing is unnatural.

However, by your specific definition, just about anything we do could be considered unnatural. Ergo, it has little value in a scientific definition.

Mixing categories in your statements will just arrive at pointless and erroneous conclusions.

If you will read my post seriously, unbiased, you can easiloy understand the difference between natural and unnatural(for nitpicking sake as all things & being have come from nature so all can be said as natural, but if you will mix acid+base, these will loose their naturality.

[Aepervius]

Whatever but it is not normal & due to admixture or process.

The process are natural. Therefore the resulting water from a fully natural process, can only be natural. And cook you alive.

[PixyMisa]

If you will read my post seriously, unbiased, you can easiloy understand the difference between natural and unnatural(for nitpicking sake as all things & being have come from nature so all can be said as natural, but if you will mix acid+base, these will loose their naturality.
No.

[Kumar]

The process are natural. Therefore the resulting water from a fully natural process, can only be natural. And cook you alive.

Process can be natural but neither acid not base will remain natural i.e. in their form.

[shuttlt]

This all seems very Aristotelian.

By the way, what temperature is water when it is natural and in its form?

Also, is there a natural pressure for water to be at, presumably that makes a difference as well.

[Jeff Corey]

Process can be natural but neither acid not base will remain natural i.e. in their form.

You seem to have a flexible definition of "natural".

[Dinwar]

Process can be natural but neither acid not base will remain natural i.e. in their form. Let's take this out of tha abstract, shall we?

Let's say I have 1 mol NaOH and 1 mol HCl (both in aquious solutions of the same dilution). NaOH is a potent base, and HCl is a potent acid. I mix them together and get 1 mol NaCl and 1 mol H2O (plus a bit of heat, if I remember correctly).

There are a few things to note.

1) Neither "the base" nor "the acid" is an element or elementary particle. They are compounds.

2) The entire reaction amounts, in essence, to shuffling around ions. Which, as it turns out, don't change at all--it's always Na+1, OH-1, H+1, and Cl-1.

3) The final product isn't "unnatural acid", or "unnatural base", but NEW compounds: NaCl and H2O, with their own characteristics.

In short, once you get away from using the terms "acid" and "base", the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" clearly becomes meaningless. When you actually get into the specifics, it's all natural: it all follows the laws of nature.

[Kumar]

This all seems very Aristotelian.

By the way, what temperature is water when it is natural and in its form?

Also, is there a natural pressure for water to be at, presumably that makes a difference as well.

Whatever we commonly use.

[Kumar]

You seem to have a flexible definition of "natural".

It has a big scope--equi. to nature.:) In short, to which one has inharent sense of right & wrong.

[Kumar]

Let's take this out of tha abstract, shall we?

Let's say I have 1 mol NaOH and 1 mol HCl (both in aquious solutions of the same dilution). NaOH is a potent base, and HCl is a potent acid. I mix them together and get 1 mol NaCl and 1 mol H2O (plus a bit of heat, if I remember correctly).

There are a few things to note.

1) Neither "the base" nor "the acid" is an element or elementary particle. They are compounds.

2) The entire reaction amounts, in essence, to shuffling around ions. Which, as it turns out, don't change at all--it's always Na+1, OH-1, H+1, and Cl-1.

3) The final product isn't "unnatural acid", or "unnatural base", but NEW compounds: NaCl and H2O, with their own characteristics.

In short, once you get away from using the terms "acid" and "base", the distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" clearly becomes meaningless. When you actually get into the specifics, it's all natural: it all follows the laws of nature.

Final product is unnatural in acid & base sense. That is new product i.e salt, water. Like when you process a food, still that has come from nature so natural, but its origional form is not same. It is not necessary that only elementary(atomic) form is natural. Simply, whatever to which we/our body have inharent sense of right & wrong is natural to us, in any form.

[dafydd]

Final product is unnatural in acid & base sense. That is new product i.e salt, water. Like when you process a food, still that has come from nature so natural, but its origional form is not same. It is not necessary that only elementary(atomic) form is natural. Simply, whatever to which we/our body have inharent sense of right & wrong is natural to us, in any form.

Gibberish.

[Mojo]

Whatever we commonly use.


I commonly use water at about 100°C to make tea. On the other hand I commonly use water at below 0°C to put in drinks. Which of these is the temperature of water when it is natural and in its form?

[Mojo]

I can't say if clones can also be natural.


They can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Identical_.28monozygotic.29_twins)

[Mojo]

Final product is unnatural in acid & base sense.


The product is neither acid nor base, but that doesn't mean it is "unnatural".

[Kumar]

They can (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin#Identical_.28monozygotic.29_twins)

I can't digest that identical twins are clones.

I am also bit suspicious about that clones may also be natural.

[Kumar]

The product is neither acid nor base, but that doesn't mean it is "unnatural".

If a human give birth to different speci, I think we can say it is bit unnatural.

[Kumar]

I commonly use water at about 100°C to make tea. On the other hand I commonly use water at below 0°C to put in drinks. Which of these is the temperature of water when it is natural and in its form?

No type is natural. A person would like to drink 2-5 ltrs water a day but not 100C or 0C water. To take such water is not our inharent sense of right & wrong. That is just for any specific purpose. If you ask someone to give you water. He will give you regular water, not 100C or 0C water. Not so?:)

[Ethan Thane Athen]

No type is natural. A person would like to drink 2-5 ltrs water a day but not 100C or 0C water. To take such water is not our inharent sense of right & wrong. That is just for any specific purpose. If you ask someone to give you water. He will give you regular water, not 100C or 0C water. Not so?:)

That is a completely meaningless term and follows from a desperate attempt to justify your earlier nonsensical statement that the nature of water is to cool (cooling depends on the flow of energy from high to low ie the relative temperatures, not the substance that has that temperature). The state of water will vary throughout the universe depending on the ambient conditions (temperature, pressure) but even on earth will vary considerably. Even without the more extreme examples of hot springs, you'll have varying mineral content - I get to drink lovely Welsh water which is fab straight from the tap but I can't stomach London water... just look what it does to your kettle!

You're talking humanocentric nonsense. We are a tiny, tiny part of the universe and the 'fine tuning' you seem so fond of means the vast majority of the universe is deadly to us.

[Kumar]

That is a completely meaningless term and follows from a desperate attempt to justify your earlier nonsensical statement that the nature of water is to cool (cooling depends on the flow of energy from high to low ie the relative temperatures, not the substance that has that temperature). The state of water will vary throughout the universe depending on the ambient conditions (temperature, pressure) but even on earth will vary considerably. Even without the more extreme examples of hot springs, you'll have varying mineral content - I get to drink lovely Welsh water which is fab straight from the tap but I can't stomach London water... just look what it does to your kettle!

You're talking humanocentric nonsense. We are a tiny, tiny part of the universe and the 'fine tuning' you seem so fond of means the vast majority of the universe is deadly to us.

Water as per normal ambient conditions can be relevant.

[Mojo]

If a human give birth to different speci, I think we can say it is bit unnatural.


Humans, like any other species, do not give birth to different species.

And this is irrelevant to your claim that the product of a reaction between acid and base is "unnatural".

[Mojo]

I can't digest that identical twins are clones.


Tough. They are.

I am also bit suspicious about that clones may also be natural.


Tough. They are.

[Mojo]

Water as per normal ambient conditions can be relevant.


The temperature of the water will depend on the temperature of its surroundings. Substances do not have a specific "natural" temperature. You have been told this many times over the last seven years, but you have ignored it, just as you ignore all information that doesn't fit your ideas.

[Mojo]

No type is natural. A person would like to drink 2-5 ltrs water a day but not 100C or 0C water.


Water at below 0°C is perfectly natural. It even falls from the sky here at certain times of year.

[shuttlt]

If one were going to choose a "natural" temperature, wouldn't is be more natural to go for a little under 3 degrees Kelvin which, as I understanding it, is the temperature of the universe excluding weird local irregularities. Otherwise all one is doing is defining what is natural by some human centred context. Ice could be natural or unnatural depending on whether you are making coffee or lemonade. In an of itself ice is neither natural nor unnatural.

This thread isn't just equivocation on the word "natural" is it?

[Mashuna]

If one were going to choose a "natural" temperature, wouldn't is be more natural to go for a little under 3 degrees Kelvin which, as I understanding it, is the temperature of the universe excluding weird local irregularities. Otherwise all one is doing is defining what is natural by some human centred context. Ice could be natural or unnatural depending on whether you are making coffee or lemonade. In an of itself ice is neither natural nor unnatural.

This thread isn't just equivocation on the word "natural" is it?

"Natural" and "obvious" in this thread just mean whatever Kumar thinks should be the right answer to support his theories.

[shuttlt]

How come the product of the acid-base thing can simply be said to be "unnatural", but with water it depends on what you happen to want to do with the water? Surely whether the acid, base or product are natural or not depends on what you want to do with them in the same way as water? Or are we dealing with two meanings of "natural"?

[shuttlt]

"Natural" and "obvious" in this thread just mean whatever Kumar thinks should be the right answer to support his theories.
I'm happy for Kumar to mean what ever he pleases by what ever words he chooses to use, so long as he is clear about what those meanings are. Here are two definitions of "natural"

1. existing in or formed by nature
2. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.

Clearly they don't pin things down completely, but perhaps they would make a good starting point?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I'm getting lost here. What does all of this have to do with the science of destiny?

I asked you a number of posts back how you'd even propose to test for someone/something having a "destiny", but you never actually answered that Kumar.

So hereby consider that asked again.

[Kumar]

Water at below 0°C is perfectly natural. It even falls from the sky here at certain times of year.

See bolded letters.

[Kumar]

The temperature of the water will depend on the temperature of its surroundings. Substances do not have a specific "natural" temperature. You have been told this many times over the last seven years, but you have ignored it, just as you ignore all information that doesn't fit your ideas.

What I had said? That ambient temp. is important.

[shuttlt]

See bolded letters.
So "natural" is context dependent? What is it about the context that makes a thing natural?

[Kumar]

If one were going to choose a "natural" temperature, wouldn't is be more natural to go for a little under 3 degrees Kelvin which, as I understanding it, is the temperature of the universe excluding weird local irregularities. Otherwise all one is doing is defining what is natural by some human centred context. Ice could be natural or unnatural depending on whether you are making coffee or lemonade. In an of itself ice is neither natural nor unnatural.

This thread isn't just equivocation on the word "natural" is it?

That can be of much spritual importance. We all should not be like so indicated adam & eve but probably we can take those as our basic/initial entities.:)

[Kumar]

I'm getting lost here. What does all of this have to do with the science of destiny?

I asked you a number of posts back how you'd even propose to test for someone/something having a "destiny", but you never actually answered that Kumar.

So hereby consider that asked again.

First, I am asking to science people, can there be some relevance of destiny concept to any scientific concept?

[Mojo]

If one were going to choose a "natural" temperature, wouldn't is be more natural to go for a little under 3 degrees Kelvin which, as I understanding it, is the temperature of the universe excluding weird local irregularities.


I don't think that quite fits with what Kumar is arguing. He started off the thread with a claim that "the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect." In a thread some years back he claimed that every substance has its own specific "natural" temperature, and I think this is what he is arguing now, at least with respect to water.

[Mojo]

See bolded letters.


The fact that it only occurs naturally at certain times does not make it unnatural.

[Mojo]

First, I am asking to science people, can there be some relevance of destiny concept to any scientific concept?


And they have told you:

:notm

[shuttlt]

That can be of much spritual importance. We all should not be like so indicated adam & eve but probably we can take those as our basic/initial entities.:)
I'm struggling to understand you. Is there a word in your native language that sums up what you mean by natural?

As to the destiny stuff I don't think Physics or Chemistry perceives any meaningful difference between your categories of "natural" and "unnatural". But having been on the JREF since 2003 you know this, surely? It seems to me that there is plenty of room left by Science for you to have your destiny, or whatever... so long as it doesn't have any measurable consequences.

Is "destiny" different to the universe following the physical laws you can find in any Physics text book? Would a universe with "destiny" behave differently to a universe without "destiny"?

[shuttlt]

I don't think that quite fits with what Kumar is arguing. He started off the thread with a claim that "the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect." In a thread some years back he claimed that every substance has its own specific "natural" temperature, and I think this is what he is arguing now, at least with respect to water.
[preaching to the choir]
But water can heat things. Drop something below 0 degrees C into water and see if the water has a cooling effect. It's all context dependent.

[Jeff Corey]

First, I am asking to science people, can there be some relevance of destiny concept to any scientific concept?

No. Various sciences make the assumption of determinism when it comes to the business of trying to explain phenomena in their area. For example, behavioral scientists look for causes of behavior, but never use the term "destiny" when they discover some.

[Dinwar]

Final product is unnatural in acid & base sense. That is new product i.e salt, water. Like when you process a food, still that has come from nature so natural, but its origional form is not same. It is not necessary that only elementary(atomic) form is natural. Simply, whatever to which we/our body have inharent sense of right & wrong is natural to us, in any form. Oh, NOW I see! Whatever you want to say is natural is natural, and whatever you want to say isn't, isn't! :rolleyes:

Sorry, but there's simply no other way to read this. You want to talk "in acid & base sense", which means looking at the products from a perspective based on the reactants, ingoring the whole process. Sorry, but you can't do that. Halite and water are as natural as you can get; only a very warped perspective can say otherwise.

Water as per normal ambient conditions can be relevant. There are NO "normal ambient conditions". Conditions which seem normal to you are only normal because you live in them. To a geophysicist water may very well "normally" be at 200+ C (remember, the mantle makes up the lion's share of Earth's volume, and holds a good deal of water). Water without anything influencing it would be just above -276 C, or Absolute Zero. This sentance is therefore meaningless in any strict sense, and only meaningful if we take "normal ambient conditions" to mean "conditions normal to Kumar".

[Mojo]

[preaching to the choir]
But water can heat things. Drop something below 0 degrees C into water and see if the water has a cooling effect. It's all context dependent.


I think I might have to post the Flanders & Swann thermodynamics song for Kumar again.

[Kumar]

I don't think that quite fits with what Kumar is arguing. He started off the thread with a claim that "the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect." In a thread some years back he claimed that every substance has its own specific "natural" temperature, and I think this is what he is arguing now, at least with respect to water.

I doubt your above post.

[Kumar]

The fact that it only occurs naturally at certain times does not make it unnatural.

Because certain times do not agree with "to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong".

[Kumar]

And they have told you:

:notm

I don't think, people had told me about consistencies/fine tuning in nature and disturbances with consicious mind(unnatural) can effect that fine tuning. Obiously natural environmental changes are need to be adjusted in such fine tuning & these will also become natural with time like need of the time. So tell me accordingly. We can't say that there is no system/dicipline in nature/universe.

[Kumar]

I'm struggling to understand you. Is there a word in your native language that sums up what you mean by natural?

As to the destiny stuff I don't think Physics or Chemistry perceives any meaningful difference between your categories of "natural" and "unnatural". But having been on the JREF since 2003 you know this, surely? It seems to me that there is plenty of room left by Science for you to have your destiny, or whatever... so long as it doesn't have any measurable consequences.

Is "destiny" different to the universe following the physical laws you can find in any Physics text book? Would a universe with "destiny" behave differently to a universe without "destiny"?

Sorry.

Bu natural, as I told,to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong and by unnatural I meant to which we don't have. However natural environmental changes are need to be considered in it as "need of the time" eg. mixing some salt in foods.

If universe/solar system/earth or nature move in some specific & diciplined manner, and if any unnatural(with concisious mind) disurbance can effect such system then destiny aspect should also hold some value. I consider unnatural redistribution of energy & matter can be relevant to destiny. Butterfly effect was also thought.

[Little 10 Toes]

If I form a religion in which it is ok to lie to others, but to be truthful to me only, is that "inharent [sic]"? What about cannibals? It's right for them to eat people, but it's wrong for me?

Goats eat veg. lion non veg. It depend upon nature of any entity. Sense is, whatever anyone can rightly process with substancial prior knowledge(inharent sense of right & wrong). New/odd things can't be rightly, easily or naturally processed by anyone. However we can be evolved or become habitual to any new/odd thing as per evolution theory--then that can also be natural.

Going back to my message, you never answered this clear enough.

Cannibals eat people. There are cannibals who kill people to eat and there are those who eat the flesh of people that are already dead.

If there are three groups of people, one who does not practice any form of cannibalism, one who will eat the dead, and one who kills to eat, which group(s) is/are right, and which group(s) is/are wrong? Which groups are doing things "naturally"?

P.S.: Lions do eat grass. Use google.

[Kumar]

Going back to my message, you never answered this clear enough.

Cannibals eat people. There are cannibals who kill people to eat and there are those who eat the flesh of people that are already dead.

If there are three groups of people, one who does not practice any form of cannibalism, one who will eat the dead, and one who kills to eat, which group(s) is/are right, and which group(s) is/are wrong? Which groups are doing things "naturally"?

P.S.: Lions do eat grass. Use google.

This may depend on need & availabilty. For me, killing is killing of all beings esp. when such killing intefere in nature's progress without basic need.

[Mojo]

Because certain times do not agree with "to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong".


The temperature varies. This is perfectly natural.

[Kumar]

The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that mass is a form of energy (see rest mass energy) so they can transform one into another. So the distinction between "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) and energy particles (say photons of light) is not wide - they can turn one into other (see annihilation and matter creation). However, this conversion does not affect the total energy of closed systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

Does above not suggest that there can be some fine tuning & disturbance effect in universe/solar sysem/earth

[Kumar]

The temperature varies. This is perfectly natural.

There can be difference between natural & unnatural variation in temperature. Eg. global warming.

[Mojo]

P.S.: Lions do eat grass. Use google.


Don't encourage Kumar to use Google. He has some odd ideas about how Google works, and thinks the number of hits it provides is proportional to the truth of the statement in the search: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1014169#post1014169

In this case, though: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=lions+eat+grass&word2=lions+do+not+eat+grass ;)

[Mojo]

There can be difference between natural & unnatural variation in temperature. Eg. global warming.


Snow is not unnatural.

[Mojo]

The law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in a system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a system is that it can change form: for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that mass is a form of energy (see rest mass energy) so they can transform one into another. So the distinction between "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) and energy particles (say photons of light) is not wide - they can turn one into other (see annihilation and matter creation). However, this conversion does not affect the total energy of closed systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energyDoes above not suggest that there can be some fine tuning & disturbance effect in universe/solar sysem/earth


:notm It is not relevant to "fine tuning & disturbance"; it is describing conservation of energy and the relationship between matter and energy.

[Kumar]

:notm It is not relevant to "fine tuning & disturbance"; it is describing conservation of energy and the relationship between matter and energy.

Yes but this has some consistance & dicipline--somewhat A&F. Let us first find such type of understandings to know the destiny.

Btw, what is the destiny of all matter & energy? Is it heat?

[Kumar]

Snow is not unnatural.

But eating snow in place of drinking water in majority area of earth, is not natural/normal.

[shuttlt]

Sorry.

Bu natural, as I told,to which we have inharent sense of right & wrong and by unnatural I meant to which we don't have. However natural environmental changes are need to be considered in it as "need of the time" eg. mixing some salt in foods.
What makes you think we have an "inharent" (I take it you mean "inherent") sense of right & wrong? Why do you think our sense of right & wrong isn't part of some natural process? Why do you believe our feelings about right & wrong have any wider significance?

[Mojo]

I doubt your above post.


If you want, I can find one of the threads where you were arguing precisely that.

[Mojo]

But eating snow in place of drinking water in majority area of earth, is not natural/normal.


Only because many places are rarely at temperatures below freezing. If the temperature is below freezing, as it is naturally in many places at least some of the time, snow is perfectly natural.

[Kumar]

What makes you think we have an "inharent" (I take it you mean "inherent") sense of right & wrong? Why do you think our sense of right & wrong isn't part of some natural process? Why do you believe our feelings about right & wrong have any wider significance?

Thanks for correcting.

Because then our body can better & rightly process with pre-informend sense, otherwise by confused/shocking sense, if not properly informed. Is it not quite simple & logical?

[Kumar]

If you want, I can find one of the threads where you were arguing precisely that.

Whatever. Don't bother much because I am flexible on new understanding.:)

[Kumar]

Only because many places are rarely at temperatures below freezing. If the temperature is below freezing, as it is naturally in many places at least some of the time, snow is perfectly natural.

Although it is not common on earth still, do they eat snow directly & their body use it as snow OR if snow is first converted into water and then consumed/used by body?

[Mojo]

Although it is not common on earth still, do they eat snow directly & their body use it as snow OR if snow is first converted into water and then consumed/used by body?


Snow is water.

What temperature is the body at? What temperature does snow melt at?

[Kumar]

Sorry, we are again moving into odd circle.

Let us concentrate on topic subject.

Conservation of energy is a fixed phenomena with a variable that it can just change into one form or the other. As such, whether all forms in any proportion of different forms of energy is maintainable for our survival or it should also have some specific proportion(i.e. of different forms of energy)? I assume yes, there should be.

[Kumar]

Snow is water.

What temperature is the body at? What temperature does snow melt at?

Do you mean that our body use ice in melted form or as water at body temp.?

[Mojo]

Do you mean that our body use ice in melted form or as water at body temp.?


What difference is there between "ice in melted form" and water? What temperature will water be at when it is used by the body?

[Mojo]

Conservation of energy is a fixed phenomena with a variable that it can just change into one form or the other. As such, whether all forms in any proportion of different forms of energy is maintainable for our survival or it should also have some specific proportion(i.e. of different forms of energy)? I assume yes, there should be.


:notm Not even wrong.

[shuttlt]

Thanks for correcting.

Because then our body can better & rightly process with pre-informend sense, otherwise by confused/shocking sense, if not properly informed.
I'm afraid I don't know how to read this.

Is it not quite simple & logical?
I'm not sure what you're saying.

perhaps we could try this a different way. What evidence is there for an "inherent sense of right & wrong"?

[Jeff Corey]

There is no evidence for an inherent sense of right and wrong and you should have inherently known that because it is inherently true.

[Dinwar]

There can be difference between natural & unnatural variation in temperature. Eg. global warming. First you have to define "natural". It's been pointed out to you (and really, the seasons themselves illustrate this point perfectly) that water HAS NO NATURAL TEMPERATURE. It varries. In the absence of ANY influence, it's solid and near absolute zero. The sun can warm it to a liquid phase, and geothermal energy can vaporize it.

Just because YOU always see water as a liquid between 120 F and 40 F doesn't mean anything. Tap water isn't the only water out there.

The world doesn't revolve around you, Kumar. It doesn't even know you exist. And this entire line of "reasoning" is merely egocentrism.

[Mojo]

I doubt your above post.


Here's a thread where Kumar brought up the idea of substances having a "specific tempreture". It comes up on page 3, but perhaps worth reading the whole thing to see how much progress has been made over the last six years. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35164

[Dinwar]

On heating any substance, can't it emit 'chracteristic wavelengths'? Is is not true that an object can either emit light chracteristic to it and/or some heat?
Energy of mass! :D :boggled:

[Kumar]

What difference is there between "ice in melted form" and water? What temperature will water be at when it is used by the body?

To avoid mutiplicy of odds, simply as use water at body temp.. this state is natural to us, neither ice nor very hot water.

[Kumar]

:notm Not even wrong.

No in actual sense. Whether amount of total energy in universe is not constant/fixed? if no, what does it mean-energy can neither be created nor can be destroyed?

[Kumar]

I'm afraid I don't know how to read this.


I'm not sure what you're saying.

perhaps we could try this a different way. What evidence is there for an "inherent sense of right & wrong"?

All our natural foods--regular fruits etc.

[Kumar]

Energy of mass! :D :boggled:

You can say so. I had asked one question. Energy is in many forms. What is the basic or ultimate form of energy? Is it heat?

[Kumar]

There is no evidence for an inherent sense of right and wrong and you should have inherently known that because it is inherently true.

It is quite logical and absolute things don't need apparent/illusive evidences.

[Kumar]

First you have to define "natural". It's been pointed out to you (and really, the seasons themselves illustrate this point perfectly) that water HAS NO NATURAL TEMPERATURE. It varries. In the absence of ANY influence, it's solid and near absolute zero. The sun can warm it to a liquid phase, and geothermal energy can vaporize it.

Just because YOU always see water as a liquid between 120 F and 40 F doesn't mean anything. Tap water isn't the only water out there.

The world doesn't revolve around you, Kumar. It doesn't even know you exist. And this entire line of "reasoning" is merely egocentrism.

I have defined definitions many many times. Let us take, water at body temp. is natural to us.

[Kumar]

Here's a thread where Kumar brought up the idea of substances having a "specific tempreture". It comes up on page 3, but perhaps worth reading the whole thing to see how much progress has been made over the last six years. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=35164

Which is better, to be absolute/consistent or to be always changing?:) Therefore I insist on A&F--whether from modern system or classical system?

Can you give me few absolutes or atleast consistents(more than 100 years) of conventional system's healing agents?

[Jeff Corey]

It is quite logical and absolute things don't need apparent/illusive evidences.
Yes, you are quite logical and absolute things don't need apparent/illusive evidences whacky doodle dandy. Proven yes/no existential absurdiness a la Camus/Kierkegaard parrot sketch.

[Mojo]

Which is better, to be absolute/consistent or to be always changing?:) Therefore I insist on A&F--whether from modern system or classical system?


It is not good to be "absolute/consistent" if you are demonstrably wrong. It is ironic that people who continually appeal for others to "keep an open mind" (or as you usually put it "think dynamically") have absolutely closed minds themselves.

Can you give me few absolutes or atleast consistents(more than 100 years) of conventional system's healing agents?


Bloodletting survived for thousands of years, but this didn't mean it was a good treatment.

[erwinl]

I have defined definitions many many times. Let us take, water at body temp. is natural to us.

But if water is at body temperature it cannot cool us (which it would do if it was natural, if I understand you correctly).

So. Water is natural and not natural at the same time?

[shuttlt]

Kumar,

You've been on the forum for a long while. You must know what the orthodox scientific view of all this stuff is by now. You must know that all this Aristotelian/homeopathic stuff about "natural" states is meaningless from a modern scientific standpoint. What is the point of this thread? Are you trolling or is there some point that you're working your way towards?

[Mojo]

What is the point of this thread? Are you trolling or is there some point that you're working your way towards?


IIRC (and Hans and others may be able to confirm this) Kumar has form for putting up ideas on a scientific or skeptical forum and then, if nobody bothered to try to correct him, implying elsewhere that the posters on that forum agreed with him.

[shuttlt]

Sounds like trolling for the sake of trolling to me.

[Kumar]

No, but try to share by brain-storming.

If scientific information links have so many variables in same aspect and if scientific understanding is not A&F, I am not at fault.

[Mashuna]

No, but try to share by brain-storming.

If scientific information links have so many variables in same aspect and if scientific understanding is not A&F, I am not at fault.

You don't understand the variables, or why your term A&F is meaningless. So yes, you're at fault.

[Mojo]

No, but try to share by brain-storming.


If brainstorming is to be an effective strategy, a crucial element of it is to discard all the useless or wrong ideas. You seem to be unwilling to do this.

[shuttlt]

No, but try to share by brain-storming.

If scientific information links have so many variables in same aspect and if scientific understanding is not A&F, I am not at fault.
Kumar,

I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing. I am by no means particularly scientifically knowledgeable, but I think you're making very poor use of your time by posting here with your current level of knowledge of English and Science. Get yourself a good History of Science textbook in your own language and read it.

In answer to your original question, the Scientific position would be that the universe is not interested in us, nor is it capable of being interested in us. The universe appears to behave deterministically (quantum mechanics aside), so in that sense some things could be said to be "destined" to happen - if I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground at a predictable rate. Doubtless it is possible to reinterpret all this in terms of the apple seeking it's "natural" place, but part of the Enlightenment was the realization that those kinds of ways of looking at the world aren't very productive.

What more can be said? You can interpret the world as if destiny, in the sense you mean existed, but science offers you no support for that belief. If you claim people can "know" this "destiny" in some kind of mystical way, then you are of course wrong. It's the same as homeopathy as far as I'm concerned - both destiny and homeopathy can fit into the modern world, so long as they work in a way and to an extent that them working is indistinguishable from them not working.

[Pup]

All our natural foods--regular fruits etc.

Most of which didn't exist before people altered them from their wild versions to what we recognize now.

[Kumar]

You don't understand the variables, or why your term A&F is meaningless. So yes, you're at fault.

Full/absolute understanding and variables can be opposites.

[Little 10 Toes]

No. If I have a circle with a diameter that is X units, the circumference of that circle will be appx (3.1416)(X) units long.

[Kumar]

Kumar,

I hope this doesn't come across as patronizing. I am by no means particularly scientifically knowledgeable, but I think you're making very poor use of your time by posting here with your current level of knowledge of English and Science. Get yourself a good History of Science textbook in your own language and read it.

Thanks . But skeptics here even don't believe in text books & infomation sites. They just want studies & data as evidance.

In answer to your original question, the Scientific position would be that the universe is not interested in us, nor is it capable of being interested in us. The universe appears to behave deterministically (quantum mechanics aside), so in that sense some things could be said to be "destined" to happen - if I drop an apple, it will fall to the ground at a predictable rate. Doubtless it is possible to reinterpret all this in terms of the apple seeking it's "natural" place, but part of the Enlightenment was the realization that those kinds of ways of looking at the world aren't very productive.

Destiny may not be one lifetime but can be attain in many mant generations. It is ok that an apple can't go to tree, but its seeds can grow new tree(of its genaration) and get apples in natural position again. To understand UNLIMATELY & ABSOLUTELY is very important in this sense.

What more can be said? You can interpret the world as if destiny, in the sense you mean existed, but science offers you no support for that belief. If you claim people can "know" this "destiny" in some kind of mystical way, then you are of course wrong. It's the same as homeopathy as far as I'm concerned - both destiny and homeopathy can fit into the modern world, so long as they work in a way and to an extent that them working is indistinguishable from them not working.

I do take care of science as a basis for better/logical understandings BUT as science is not yet A&F, I go on checking it.

[Kumar]

If brainstorming is to be an effective strategy, a crucial element of it is to discard all the useless or wrong ideas. You seem to be unwilling to do this.

Your liking is very odd--stale and yet not absolute understandings. But as this is not liking and as I tend to move towards absolute, can't say who is right or wrong. I want to create, correct add but you just want to follow.

[Kumar]

Most of which didn't exist before people altered them from their wild versions to what we recognize now.

Whatever made unnaturally is unnatural.

[Kumar]

No. If I have a circle with a diameter that is X units, the circumference of that circle will be appx (3.1416)(X) units long.

Will it still be appx?:0

[Little 10 Toes]

Thanks . But skeptics here even don't believe in text books & infomation sites. They just want studies & data as evidance.Yes we do. We do believe in text books and informational sites as long as what they claim can be proven.

For example, if I claim that accidental overdose of dihydrogen monoxide can cause excessive sweating, excessive urination, bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting, electrolyte imbalance, hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity), dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood, and degeneration of sodium homeostasis, I better have proof.

The examples presented here is provided for informational purposes only, and should in no way be construed as medical advice of any sort.

To my knowledge, the sites you have provided are not proof to your claims. Also, I haven't seen you provide links to textbooks.


Edit: above information about dihydrogen monoxide taken from http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[PixyMisa]

Thanks . But skeptics here even don't believe in text books & infomation sites.
Untrue.

They just want studies & data as evidance.
Well, yes. That is what you would find in textbooks and information sites if they are any good.

Destiny may not be one lifetime but can be attain in many mant generations. It is ok that an apple can't go to tree, but its seeds can grow new tree(of its genaration) and get apples in natural position again. To understand UNLIMATELY & ABSOLUTELY is very important in this sense.
No.

I do take care of science as a basis for better/logical understandings BUT as science is not yet A&F, I go on checking it.
Untrue.

[Little 10 Toes]

No. If I have a circle with a diameter that is X units, the circumference of that circle will be appx (3.1416)(X) units long.

Will it still be appx?:0 Yes. Appx is an abbreviation of approximately.

Full/absolute understanding and variables can be opposites.

So again: If I have a circle with a diameter that is X units, the circumference of that circle will be appx (3.1416)(X) units long.

[Kumar]

Yes we do. We do believe in text books and informational sites as long as what they claim can be proven.

For example, if I claim that accidental overdose of dihydrogen monoxide can cause excessive sweating, excessive urination, bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting, electrolyte imbalance, hyponatremia (serum hypotonicity), dangerously imbalanced levels of ECF and ICF in the blood, and degeneration of sodium homeostasis, I better have proof.

The examples presented here is provided for informational purposes only, and should in no way be construed as medical advice of any sort.

To my knowledge, the sites you have provided are not proof to your claims. Also, I haven't seen you provide links to textbooks.

Then why disclaimers are required if evidances & proofs are valid?

[Little 10 Toes]

Disclaimer where?

[Kumar]

Untrue.


Well, yes. That is what you would find in textbooks and information sites if they are any good.


No.


Untrue.

I presented links but skeptics here don't consder. If those links are not good and can be harming, how these are allowed?

[Kumar]

Yes. Appx is an abbreviation of approximately.



So again: If I have a circle with a diameter that is X units, the circumference of that circle will be appx (3.1416)(X) units long.

Appx. is not absolute.

[Little 10 Toes]

Appx. is not absolute.

Ok then, a circle with a diameter of X will have a circumference of X(pi). Absolute.

[pakeha]

All our natural foods--regular fruits etc.

Whatever made unnaturally is unnatural.

Kumar, what are you trying to say here?
We should eat only raw, wild foods?

What do you actually propose we eat, then?

[slingblade]

Appx. is not absolute.

Pi is an infinite number. It can't be absolute. Duh.

[Kumar]

Kumar, what are you trying to say here?
We should eat only raw, wild foods?

What do you actually propose we eat, then?

It depends upon you. If you want to be natural then natural otherwise unnatural.

[Mojo]

Thanks . But skeptics here even don't believe in text books & infomation sites. They just want studies & data as evidance.


Kumar, people here have told you over and over again to read books on the subjects you want to find out about. You have consistently refused to do this.

Given that the "information sites" you link to often contradict your arguments it would appear that you don't really read those either.

[Mashuna]

Then why disclaimers are required if evidances & proofs are valid?

This has been explained to you repeatedly. You don't understand how science works. It's a shame, but at this point it's probably best if you stop trying - you've made no progress. Maybe try painting as a hobby instead?

[shuttlt]

I do take care of science as a basis for better/logical understandings BUT as science is not yet A&F, I go on checking it.
Kumar,

It is absolutely clear that you either have no functional understanding of science or are trolling. I'm not advising you to read a history of science textbook to convince you that post-enlightenment science is correct. I am advising you to read one because otherwise you will have no understand of anything anybody on this, or any other post-enlightenment scientific, forum says to you. Your questions are as meaningless as asking whether the colour blue smells more like gravity than the sound of a kettle boiling.

[I just wanted to stress the point that I think a history of science book would be better than a scientific textbook for you.]

[pakeha]

Kumar, what are you trying to say here?
We should eat only raw, wild foods?

What do you actually propose we eat, then?

It depends upon you. If you want to be natural then natural otherwise unnatural.

Kumar, you complain people don't take your questions seriously.
How about answering my question rather than shrugging it off?
What do you mean by natural foods?

[shuttlt]

I have a question too. Say I make water artificially - by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, say. Is there any difference between this water and "natural" water?

[Mojo]

Your questions are as meaningless as asking whether the colour blue smells more like gravity than the sound of a kettle boiling.


Well does it?

[shuttlt]

Well does it?
If you define strawberries as a point of infinite length on the complex plane then you can show that gravity smells very much like the purr of a baby kitten. I hope this answers your question.

[shuttlt]

All this talk and confusion about things being "natural", I just remembered Abbot and Costello:

Costello: Now who’s got it?
Abbott: Naturally.
(Pause)
Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody’s got to get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and throw it to Naturally?
Abbott: No you don’t! You throw the ball to Who!
http://www.abbottandcostello.net/who.htm

[Kumar]

Kumar,

It is absolutely clear that you either have no functional understanding of science or are trolling. I'm not advising you to read a history of science textbook to convince you that post-enlightenment science is correct. I am advising you to read one because otherwise you will have no understand of anything anybody on this, or any other post-enlightenment scientific, forum says to you. Your questions are as meaningless as asking whether the colour blue smells more like gravity than the sound of a kettle boiling.

[I just wanted to stress the point that I think a history of science book would be better than a scientific textbook for you.]

Since science is not yet declared as A&F, If I better like brain storming ideas, I am not wrong. Probably, my direction may add.

[Kumar]

Kumar, you complain people don't take your questions seriously.
How about answering my question rather than shrugging it off?
What do you mean by natural foods?

I thought my posts awnsered your question. What do you mean, natural foods or natural foods to us?

[Kumar]

I have a question too. Say I make water artificially - by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, say. Is there any difference between this water and "natural" water?

Should be. Just test in lab.

[PixyMisa]

I presented links but skeptics here don't consder.
Untrue.

[PixyMisa]

Since science is not yet declared as A&F, If I better like brain storming ideas, I am not wrong.
Wrong.

Probably, my direction may add.
Extremely wrong.

[PixyMisa]

Should be. Just test in lab.
We have. There is no difference.

[Mojo]

I have a question too. Say I make water artificially - by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, say. Is there any difference between this water and "natural" water?
Should be.


Why do you say this? Water is composed of H2O molecules however it is made. If it isn't H2O it isn't water.

[shuttlt]

Should be. Just test in lab.
What difference do you imagine there would be? Perhaps the unnatural water would be purer? One could extract the impurities from some natural water and mix them in to the unnatural water. What difference would there be? A molecule is a molecule is a molecule. There's no difference between a natural water molecule and an unnatural one. You must know this from all your time on the forum. Why do you pretend to be ignorant of this?

[pakeha]

Kumar, either you are a troll or don't understand even the simplest English.



... What evidence is there for an "inherent sense of right & wrong"?

You repliedAll our natural foods--regular fruits etc.

I ask for a clarification

Kumar, what are you trying to say here?
We should eat only raw, wild foods?

What do you actually propose we eat, then?

You answer
It depends upon you. If you want to be natural then natural otherwise unnatural.

I ask you to answer my question.
You answer

I thought my posts awnsered your question. What do you mean, natural foods or natural foods to us?

As you see, the idea of natural foods was raised by you.
I ask you what you mean by natural foods and you ask me
What do you mean, natural foods or natural foods to us?

Kumar, why do you expose yourself in this manner?

[Mojo]

All this talk and confusion about things being "natural", I just remembered Abbot and Costello:


http://www.abbottandcostello.net/who.htm


:D


Actually, the whole thing is a bit like interacting with Kumar.

[pakeha]

Yes.
A natural outcome, as it were, to an unnatural act.
Anyway.
I'm intrigued by what Kumar will reveal to be 'natural foods'.

[Little 10 Toes]

:D


Actually, the whole thing is a bit like interacting with Kumar.

Except Abbott and Costello are funny and you laugh with them.

[Kumar]

We have. There is no difference.

What?

[Kumar]

Yes.
A natural outcome, as it were, to an unnatural act.
Anyway.
I'm intrigued by what Kumar will reveal to be 'natural foods'.

I think I already awnsered it.

[Maddparrot]

I think I already awnsered it.
No, not really.

It depends upon you. If you want to be natural then natural otherwise unnatural.
This is the closest, and it is not really answering the question.
It's asking us to define something you said.
Please, at least one example of a 'natural' food, and one example of an 'unnatural' food.

[Mojo]

I think I already awnsered it.


:notm

[Mojo]

I have a question too. Say I make water artificially - by combining hydrogen and oxygen in a lab, say. Is there any difference between this water and "natural" water?
Should be. Just test in lab.
We have. There is no difference.
What?


There is no difference between water and water.

[Pup]

No, not really.


This is the closest, and it is not really answering the question.
It's asking us to define something you said.
Please, at least one example of a 'natural' food, and one example of an 'unnatural' food.

There was also this answer, which I replied to in post 112:

Originally Posted by Kumar http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7302495#post7302495)
All our natural foods--regular fruits etc.

Most of which didn't exist before people altered them from their wild versions to what we recognize now.

Kumar replied:

Whatever made unnaturally is unnatural.


So, are bananas, wheat and corn natural or unnatural?

[shuttlt]

There is no difference between water and water.
Kumar,

I can empathise with a view that there is some mystical difference undetectable to, and unacknowledged by, science between a molecule of H2O that is formed in some natural process and one that is produced in a lab. What I struggle to believe is that you are entirely unaware that the view expressed by Mojo has been the scientific viewpoint for a very long time indeed.

What are the physical properties of an artificial molecule of H2O that differentiate it from a natural one? By this I mean, if I presented you with some artificial water and some natural water, how would you go about telling them apart? Again, the scientific view is that there is no difference.

[Complexity]

Hello,

I was not sure, whether this topic is relevant to science or R&P forum.


No, it is not.