Light created Life [Archive] - Page 7

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 12:57 AM

Do not blame science or scientists for your misunderstanding of terms or of the manner in which vocabulary is redefined for scientific use. We cannot be responsible for other forums, now can we? Argument from popularity, especially on the web where any ratbag or nutjob can put up a site or a forum (any body here remember Iacchus? (http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/)) is a poor argument indeed.
WOW. I am really impressed. You have restored my faith in the intelligence of the people here. I now understand when some have said "not really." They would have had to understand the same thing those pages say that you do.
I really don't have a problem with saying that you are right. I have always said that there are no absolutes, and that there is another way of seeing just about anything. From another angle where "not really" is real. Like I had said at the site about that guy who said that there is something more basic in math than the 4 given that name. From that angle.
The same thing applies when someone here said that there are actually one force instead of four. Or more to the point when someone said that there were three. I hold with four because science is trying to unite four. And at our stage/level/whatever our universe operates on four. That they are called "fundamental forces," Not fundamental force. That sounds like a creator.
I understand now that E=mc2 applies to rest matter. Those saying "not really" were talking about Special Relativity, things at the speed of light. And did I understand it to say that even there there is the "possibility" that all matter did not turn to matter?

Belz...

2nd November 2006, 04:53 AM

What I am trying to point out by doing that is the evidence of God can not be proven or disproven.

I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof.

For your information, claims that cannot be disproven are called "unfalsifiable". In science, that makes them worthless. A claim MUST be capable of beign proven wrong in order to have any value. Can you guess why ?

You said that the evidence to show God does not exist is complex.

I never said that. I said :

Second, you're wrong. "Goddidit" is not simpler than a quantum fluctuation in a dimensionless singularity, because "simpler" doesn't always mean "in fewer words". The current theory may be complex, but it's both supported by evidence, and requires far less assumptions in order to work than "God". So it IS simpler, in scientific terms.

This means that "simpler", in scientific terms, means "makes fewer assumptions", more or less. I said that the god hypothesis is, therefore, more complex than the godless one. I didn't say that evidence that god doesn't exist is complex. Since this is the THIRD time I post this paragraph, your reading comprehension is, once more, in question.

You are saying that science makes assumptions? Where is that assumption cop that was after me about science making assumptions?

Again, that's not what I said. Boy, it's a good thing no one here's trying to make you understand quantum physics.

THEORIES and HYPOTHESES make assumptions, sometimes, because they simply have to. The only assumption "science" makes is that the world is naturalistic and that its processes can be observed and replicated.

Sure they do. They were designed, (and are worshipped) by those who wanted that result.

What in the blue hell are you talking about ? I said there are several examples of things that are complex but not designed.

So you all were not being dishonest. You believe that energy and matter are not two forms of the same thing like he said?

I don't "believe" it, I know this is how these things are seen, currently, by science. There is a strong correlation between energy and matter, but I would certainly not say they are one and the same. If they were, they'd be only one of them and not the other.

You do understand however that you are out of step with what science widely believes?

Only you, here, thinks so, Light. Science does NOT believe that.

I know what google is. It is the name on the door of the house, but there are many thing in it. That is there is not all knowing, but neither are you.

I never claimed to be.

I see google as a third party that has taken no side here.

Then you are wrong and you haven't read what I said. GOOGLE is a SEARCH ENGINE. It does not have anything to it other that looking for OTHER PEOPLE'S web sites. EACH web site has its OWN agenda, and a lot of them AREN'T unbiased.

What? You expect me to believe the opinion here because you said so?

Of course not. But when you look for information to confirm or deny what we say, I expect you to know what to look for, not just the sites that confirm your conclusion.

I am saying that knowledge can come from anywhere. As you are showing here-being average Joes and all.

But I AM an average joe. I don't have any specialty in science, I'm just really, really interested in understanding how things work. I'm terrible at advanced mathematics and abstract formulas, so I just can't be a scientist. But I'd never claim that my armchair ideas have any real worth, because I simply don't understand enough about reality to make a difference. Intuition will certainly not give me the answers I seek. You have, demonstratably, even LESS knowledge than me in those matters, and yet YOU claim to have found the answer. Do you understand why people, here, are skeptical of your assertion ?

And now you are using lines. That is just amazing. After I told
that I was not going to answer, you somehow convinced yourself that I didn't see it. What did you say? Sheesh.

You're not going to answer ? Why ? Is it because you don't believe in the Great Brown Chicken ? Or because you think the example is silly ? I hope so, because that was the whole point, that, of course, you didn't understand. Let me answer the question for you.

Of course you'd say that my Chicken-god is ridiculous. The universe is not an egg and chicken aren't the most advanced form of life in the universe (no more than humans). Everyone can see that but that hypothetical me. And, obviously, if I persisted in claiming that this idea of mine is true, contra evidence and logical arguments, then you WOULD think me unreasonable. That's exactly what's happening to you, here. Your ideas don't make sense, but you persist in claiming that they are true, contra evidence and logic.

I'm sorry for you if you didn't understand the point of my question, bold, underligned or otherwise.

Belz...

2nd November 2006, 04:58 AM

Wow! This stuff is differcult. What ever should I believe? Maybe I should just believe what is said here.

So you DO think that popularity makes right ?

So students all over the world are being taught wrong?

No, but their ability to understand the universe is (usually) less than that of professionals in their fields, wouldn't you agree ?

I thought I couldn't go wrong with Einstein.

I'm sure Einstein thought he could go wrong, though.

But of course I could never think that. So what I would have left is that the people on this forum is somehow wrong.

Oh, there is another, much more believable possibility.

You see. You might not know this, but I have been to a lot of forums and they never had any problem with the things hat is being said here, and never with Einstein.

Well, it depends what kind of forum you're talking about.

Long long did it take? You see? I am not doing anything that has not been, and is being done. Oh wait. Some people on the internet told me to.

Galileo syndrome.

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 06:54 AM

So students all over the world are being taught wrong?

I did not say that and that cannot be inferred from what I did say. The web page is overly simplified because its target audience is grade school students. And there is no indication that this web site is teaching students "all over the world." It seems only to be aimed at students in one grade school in Alberta, Canada.

You are making broad generalizations that are entirely unwarranted. Jurasic Park III was a bad movie. That certainly does not mean that all William H. Macy movies are bad.

Do you think what is said above is right?

No.

If not. What is? Very briefly.

It cannot be explained very briefly. It is a complex subject that takes a lifetime of devoted study to understand. However, very briefly - matter and energy are equivalent. They are not two forms of the same thing.

I thought I couldn't go wrong with Einstein. I thought that in that area that he was absolutely right. I thought that the equation would not be so where known if it was wrong. Now I am going to ask you to be careful. My position here is not that I am saying it. It is that he is saying it. Are you saying that you think he was wrong?

You have presented me with two possibilities: either Einstein is wrong or I am. There is, however, a third possibility: You misunderstand Einstein. He is right (or right enough for our current purposes, in any case). However, you do not understand what he says. Einstein theorized (and others have proven) that matter and energy are equivalent. He never said that they were equal and he never said that they were two forms of the same thing. He only said that one could be converted to the other.

A dairy cow converts grass into milk. A certain amount of grass can be made by a cow into a certain amount of milk. But grass and milk are not two forms of the same thing.

Please go to a local community college and take a course in physics.

Even if I lose and you prove yourself right, or worst, I look and see that you are right, I could claim that in view of the way that science named light electromagnetic energy and it not having those things, and the words they used to define the nuclear forces, that science may not know what it is talking about.

This is gibberish. It has no meaning that I can discern.

Belz...

2nd November 2006, 07:04 AM

How on Earth could I research in depth all that has been said here and keep time with the flow of 34 pages?

Are you serious about this subject or not ?

As I see it, despite the combined brain power of all here I am still holding my own.

Refusing to change your mind is not called "holding your own". It's called obstinence.

I think the mistake that you have made with me is saying that I have not got anything right. That is impossible.

Why is it impossible ?

From another angle where "not really" is real. Like I had said at the site about that guy who said that there is something more basic in math than the 4 given that name. From that angle.

No, you have not understood. I've said before, truth is not a matter of perspective.

That they are called "fundamental forces," Not fundamental force. That sounds like a creator.

What it "sounds like" is irrelevant.

bruto

2nd November 2006, 07:44 AM

Einstein theorized (and others have proven) that matter and energy are equivalent. He never said that they were equal and he never said that they were two forms of the same thing. He only said that one could be converted to the other.

Actually, from what I've read (granted, it isn't very extensive and I'm no physicist, but the link I provided above to LCL seems a pretty useful capsule version of what I've seen) it appears that Einstein did say they were more than just equivalent, and that others have said this or a form of it as well. What this ultimately implies ontologically is something else again, and it would probably not be the only time Einstein got his ontology wrong even though he was a crackerjack physicist. Einstein became a celebrity who said a lot of things about a lot of subjects and dabbled in many areas. He was a better sailor than he was a violinist, and a better physicist than he was a philosopher.

Even if there is a basis for ontological equivalence, it does not necessarily influence the rightness of the physics or the questions LCL is trying to answer. You could say that the entire universe exists in the dream life of a demented kitten, and nobody could prove it does not, but you'd still have to understand physics, chemistry, and biology in order to make useful statements about the way things work on the level at which we exist. LCL's take on it all is still nonsensical and uninformative, as I've repeatedly said. If matter and energy are "the same thing," or "two aspects of the same thing," or whatever expression of ontological equivalence you choose, then stating that one owes its characteristics to the other is an empty statement, devoid of all useful information or meaning. If you choose monism or one-stuff pluralism, the challenge becomes, first, to justify and argue the choice, and second to explain and understand what differentiates things. A sweeping ontological generalization does not exempt you from having to understand the details, and an uncritical half-understanding of the philosophical musings of a physicist, even a great physicist, does not magically turn LCL's dishevelled ramblings into wisdom.

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 08:07 AM

<snip lots of stuff>

I agree with you in every respect.

What I was arguing to LCL was that Einstein's physics does not necessitate matter and energy being "two forms of the same thing." This is not to say that Einstein and others did not pontificate uselessly about such things.

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 08:23 AM

RandFan, everyone, I know what is needed!

Mornington Crescent! It's about as sensible as most of the stuff here.

In that light, I'll open with a standard 'Rushton's Gambit' (since this is the first round, spoon isn't in play yet, and I don't have to worry about the hind lateral at this early venture).

Kingsbury.

No-one wants to join? Not even with the obvious double reverse play I left open?

Well, I'd love to take a second turn, even though it would mean sacrificing fifth holdings, but unfortunately I'm under the 'time zone' rule, and don't want to be stuck with the 'bell.

Terry

2nd November 2006, 08:27 AM

Kingsbury.

Walthamstow

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 08:29 AM

Walthamstow

Huh, I thought you would start with the obvious, but you've gone with something completely left field. An interesting play. I can see you want to keep your left flank guarded while providing the option for a 'closing the triangle' or a 'crossing the T' play. Very nice, sir. :)

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 09:51 AM

He's not a troll.

MC is not called for in this thread.

I would appreciate it if you would play in an Amy Wilson thread, if at all possible.

TobiasTheViking

2nd November 2006, 10:48 AM

I said nothing about abandoning it. Read it again.

Again. Read it again. I said nothing about us having the characteristics of light. I said the two parts of light. Electrical and magnetic energy. Someone said that those two are not in light, I think he is wrong. Google does too.
The name electromagnetic radiation says that they are there. Science made up the name, and I think they know what they are talking about. Someone else says that salt has not the properties for the things that went into it. Fine. But he knows that they are there. Would it be salt without them? Would light be light without electrical and magnetic energy?
if you don't abandon it, you have to substantiate it.

So,

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

Either abandon the claim or substantiate it.

I don't care which, but you have to do one of those things, anything else is just sidestepping.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 11:20 AM

Indeed, if the salt loses its savor, wherewith will it be salt?
Okay. I expected it it would not be. Without electrical and magnetic energy I suspect light would not be either.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 11:43 AM

if you don't abandon it, you have to substantiate it.

So,

Either abandon the claim or substantiate it.

I don't care which, but you have to do one of those things, anything else is just sidestepping.
I said that I was going to find a connection. And I can at least hold it until I look, even if it were wrong. Which it isn't.

TobiasTheViking

2nd November 2006, 11:44 AM

and i asked you for a timeframe.. please provide one.

Until you have evidence you can't use it as an argument.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 01:47 PM

Are you serious about this subject or not ?
I am serious about this subject, (whether or no anyone takes me serious or not) but come on. I have time.

[quote]Refusing to change your mind is not called "holding your own". It's called obstinence.
I am not refusing to change my mind. What I have been saying holds. If life has a soul/a basic operating program/ method of operation etc. It has to be written in energy. Life should share the characteristics of the energies that makes it possible.

Why is it impossible ?
Because nobody is perfect. And that graph is perfectly wrong. Judging by what is said here, all I have to do is say the opposite of what I think and I will be right. I am not mad. That might come in handy.

No, you have not understood. I've said before, truth is not a matter of perspective.
It is when it is filtered through the perspective of people. What good is the absolute truth if you do not know what it is? Life also has to do with what "stands in" for the truth, (at the time) in many cases.

What it "sounds like" is irrelevant.
Not to some. Like I said before. Religion talked about (and in places described) the invisible world of energy (which they called the the spirit world) long before science proved that energy is at work all around. And since the four forces are one, and are responsible for how the universe turned out, are a part of everything, are everywhere, doing everything...

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 01:53 PM

and i asked you for a timeframe.. please provide one.

Until you have evidence you can't use it as an argument.
Hey. I am working on it. Who are you to rush me? And I think am allowed to argue it as I sharpen it. I can use the yelling of others to find out where to go. If it needs going.

TobiasTheViking

2nd November 2006, 02:10 PM

Hey. I am working on it.
You have been working on it since september the 11th.

Who are you to rush me?
I am one who frequent the forum where you posted this, and one who didn't understand what you wrote and asked for clarification and explanation.

And I think am allowed to argue it as I sharpen it.
It holds no merit, and it is irrelevant to the discussion unless you can substantiate it.

I can use the yelling of others to find out where to go. If it needs going.
Who is yelling? where did this come from?

Can you just give me a timeframe?

ETA:

Why are you doing this? Why are you attacking me? You come here and write your idea, i ask a few questions, and you ignore me, sidestep the question, or you are mean to me.. why? If you didn't come here to have other people look at your idea and talk about your idea, then why did you come? And if you did come to have people look and talk about your idea then what's with the "Who are you to rush me" after you have postponed answering me since 11th of september.

If i attacked you the way you attack me i'm sure you would disregard me even more than you already do, i'm sure you would ignore me, more than you already do, and i'm sure you would think everything i said had no merit, more than you already do.

But me, i have kept responding, even through your attacks. So why do you keep doing it? If i returned the favor in kind i'm sure you would be very angry indeed. You appear to dish out what you can't handle yourself, your arguments are stupid, flawed, and wrong on all possible levels. Trying to make you see that, or explain why i am wrong, results in attacks or sidestepping, instead of answers.

Can you do nothing but attack me with stupid ad homin attacks? Can you do nothing but sidestep the issue. Can you, in any way at all, be constructive?

Because all i have seen from you is either useless, irrelevant, or destructive.

Why are you doing this? why are you posting your idea here? what do you hope to gain?

If you didn't want critique and hard questions then why did you come here?
If you did want critique and hard questions then why are you attacking me for giving critique?

What do you want? what do you want to accomplish? what is your agenda?

Whenever i ask you any questions you come crying "wha wha wha, you just want to see me bleed" instead of answering my question. And i don't bloody care if you stick your tail between your legs and run, and i don't care if you bleed. It doesn't matter to me one bit. I want only one thing from you, i care about only one thing from you. That thing is answers, answers to my very simple questions.

Why won't you supply those answers?
Why do you think i have some hidden motive? is it because you have one yourself and thus think everyone else does too?

You do know that liars and thiefs thinks everyone else are liars and thiefs as well. Though that is far from the truth. But in your case it might be that you think everyone else wants to see you run, cry, bleed, and you think everyone else has hidden motives, simply because that is what you want yourself. You want to see us run, cry and bleed. And you have hidden motives? Is that it?

Because i have seen nothing but retarded allegations and ad homin from you. Nothing constructive, nothing of any merit. All i have seen is ignoring, willfull ignorance, and unfounded attacks on other people.

What do you want?

Canadian Malcontent

2nd November 2006, 02:57 PM

Belz, if it was a brown chicken for you, well thats fine by me.
We all have our own personal relationship with the Creator and it is most certainly NOT our place to judge that of others.
Cluckalluyah Belz!

bruto

2nd November 2006, 03:02 PM

I agree with you in every respect.

What I was arguing to LCL was that Einstein's physics does not necessitate matter and energy being "two forms of the same thing." This is not to say that Einstein and others did not pontificate uselessly about such things.

Exactly. It seems a distinction that LCL has yet to grasp, and it's ironic in a way that he should cite Einstein as a genius and an authority, and yet to feel that he has trumped old Al by figuring out the unified field theory that eluded him for the last decades of his life.

LCL, if you're reading this, please try to understand the distinctions that are being made here. Einstein was a great physicist. A genius in his field. One of the most significant achievements of this great physicist was the discovery of the equivalence of mass and energy, epitomized by that wonderfully elegant equation we all know: E=MC^2. That theory of equivalence was borne out later by experimental evidence and observation, and it is now accepted as good science. Einstein then went on, and speculated that this equivalence implied that matter and energy were part of the same thing, or the same thing altogether. When he did this, he stepped out of the area of physics, into the area of philosophy, specifically metaphysics. When he did this, he did not come up with a scientific theory in the way that that word would be used by scientists. He sought such a theory for decades, spending much of his later life in pursuit of a physical theory that could be used to corroborate his metaphysical belief. He never found it. Please note that. The thing you claim to have figured out, Einstein fervently and diligently sought for many many years. He did not find it. As a result, the statement attributed to Einstein that matter and energy are the same remains a philosophical speculation. Einstein was a very smart guy, and very good at physics, but he could not come up with more than that. In fact, smart as he was, many people believe that he took a wrong turn here, and that as he got older and more focused on this quest, modern physics left him behind. His adherence to the unified field idea, for example, led him to reject Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, with the famous line that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." But Heisenberg's principle is now generally accepted by physicists also. It should also be remembered that, great as Einstein was, his most important work was done approximately a hundred years ago. He has been dead for over 50 years. Some other physicists have picked up the ball since then.

By the way, checking with Wikipedia on "unified field theory" just to make sure I was getting my terminology right, I came across this little paragraph, which I think anybody in LCL's situation would do well to take to heart:

Many amateur theories have been proposed. These are often couched in cryptic language with numerous neologisms apparently intended to impress or obscure meaning. These attempts are for the most part ill-conceived and devoid of merit. Such theories typically contain little in the way of falsifiable results or predictions; and, for the most part, have not been through a process equivalent to peer-review.

The unified field theory must be consistent, explain all previously known aspects of gravity on a large scale, and of quantum mechanics on the subatomic level, in a single framework while making new and falsifiable predictions.(italics mine)

LCL, in your theory of everything, can you point to a prediction that is falsifiable, by which we could test it for accuracy?

Canadian Malcontent

2nd November 2006, 03:02 PM

Hey didnt I explain a couple of pages ago that light is sound and sound created everything and I call that sound 'The Word of God'?
And Belz can call it whatever he wants to I dont care cuz we are talking about the same thing. And also cuz thats his right and I am willing to fight for Belz's rights.
Your friend,
CM

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 04:15 PM

When you say "life" do you mean life or do you mean living things?
I think all living things are life. But somethngs inhabit the gray area between life and nonlife. I would not expect to see a clear line.

What experience is common to all living things, and how is it identified or measured?
I don't know.

How do you define love and hate, yes and no, for life forms such as algae, bacteria, or tomatoes?
I don't think those things have the brains it would takes to view those things as we do. Except for the tomatoes, the others can experience them, "what they like," "what they don't like," "not that," "that," type of thing.

Why? No explanation is present here. No premises. No reason for the conclusion is given.
I think that it is plain that that graph is an overview, and you are looking for deep detail. Some of those things are going to require study and conculsions that I am not prepared for right now, and to juggle thing thread. They are good questions and when I get to that part, I am sure that I will be able to think of something to say, if someone has not already said it.

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 04:20 PM

He's not a troll.

MC is not called for in this thread.

I would appreciate it if you would play in an Amy Wilson thread, if at all possible.

No, perhaps he is not. But he is willfully ignorant, as far as I can see. And this thread has 40 odd pages of waffle.

But I take your point. Unless someone else wish to join me in a rousing game of MC, I'll hold off as per your wishes. However, let me predict that, in another 40 pages, it will be clear to all that MC would have been more profitable, and definately more entertaining. ;)

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 04:21 PM

Cosmo

2nd November 2006, 04:30 PM

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 04:35 PM

How is light sound?

Science describes both light and sound as waves. Sound is described as loud and science descibes some color paterns as loud or noisy. They are the same because science considers them the same as do the third, eighth and nineteenth websites I visited at random.

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 04:38 PM

Science describes both light and sound as waves. Sound is described as loud and science descibes some color paterns as loud or noisy. They are the same because science considers them the same as do the third, eighth and nineteenth websites I visited at random.

Nonsense. Light can be expressed as a way in certain situations. It has the property of both a wave and a particle. Sound is just the osscolation of air (or whatever) molecules back and forth. While they can appear similar on the surface, they are completely different phenomenon and should never be considered the same.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 04:48 PM

Exactly. It seems a distinction that LCL has yet to grasp, and it's ironic in a way that he should cite Einstein as a genius and an authority, and yet to feel that he has trumped old Al by figuring out the unified field theory that eluded him for the last decades of his life.
I cited his well known equation. I didn't declare my undying love to him. I know he did not find what he was looking for. And I did not mean to insult him by what I did. I presented an idea, nothing personal. What does it matter who failed to find it? I explained myself already. I am not saying I am a genius, or divine. We are allowed to have ideas aren't we?

LCL, if you're reading this, please try to understand the distinctions that are being made here. Einstein was a great physicist. A genius in his field.
Fine. He was a man. he is allowed wrong turns too.

Some other physicists have picked up the ball since then.
I never said that science did not, or could not survive his death.

By the way, checking with Wikipedia on "unified field theory" just to make sure I was getting my terminology right, I came across this little paragraph, which I think anybody in LCL's situation would do well to take to heart:
I see people coming up with ideas. They don't have to all be right, but they could still direct thought/study towards, or away away from something. Reflex. Listen if you want to, dismiss it if you have too.

LCL, in your theory of everything, can you point to a prediction that is falsifiable, by which we could test it for accuracy?
I think you could test for the characteristics of the energies there. The mental emotional nature of life. And just because some things may not be tested now, that does not mean that they can never be.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 05:57 PM

You have been working on it since september the 11th.
Okay. What? I have been busy and you have not been helping.

I am one who frequent the forum where you posted this, and one who didn't understand what you wrote and asked for clarification and explanation.
And I have tried to reply/answer you just like eGood luck.veryone else. Somehow though, it has not been working between us. The pole thing, the ignore thing, that annoying rerun thing, the I am ignoring you thing, you name it. I don't think that you realize what my seat feels like. This is not one on one, give me a break. Everytime I took the time to explain myself, that I was not ignoring you, you went on as if I said nothing. Then there was thing thing about me never replying to you and more..

It holds no merit, and it is irrelevant to the discussion unless you can substantiate it.
Fine.

Who is yelling? where did this come from?
That was a joke, and not aimmed at anybody.

Can you just give me a timeframe?
When I get the time. Busy here.
ETA:

Why are you doing this? Why are you attacking me? You come here and write your idea, i ask a few questions, and you ignore me, sidestep the question, or you are mean to me.. why? If you didn't come here to have other people look at your idea and talk about your idea, then why did you come? And if you did come to have people look and talk about your idea then what's with the "Who are you to rush me" after you have postponed answering me since 11th of september.
IIt is just you. And I guess me. Sometimes these things just happen. You annoy me. But I think I only attacked you one two times, on purpose.

But me, i have kept responding, even through your attacks. So why do you keep doing it? If i returned the favor in kind i'm sure you would be very angry indeed. You appear to dish out what you can't handle yourself, your arguments are stupid, flawed, and wrong on all possible levels. Trying to make you see that, or explain why i am wrong, results in attacks or sidestepping, instead of answers.
You think I do not understand how you feel by now? I say fine. Okay.

Because all i have seen from you is either useless, irrelevant, or destructive.
Okay.

Because i have seen nothing but retarded allegations and ad homin from you. Nothing constructive, nothing of any merit. All i have seen is ignoring, willfull ignorance, and unfounded attacks on other people.
Okay. You feel better now? You should be glad that I am ignoring you, I know I am.

Loss Leader

2nd November 2006, 06:45 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 07:37 PM

Clearly you have not spent enough time in this thread. Stick around; my idiotic post will seem like the last bastion of sanity compared to LCL's sea of nonsense.
So is that it? Am I nothing more than the fool that makes no sense, with a meritless idea? For the most part I see meaningful discussion. Those who once thought in terms of cats and recipes are asked to refrain from that sought of stuff. I think I seen the view meter move 100 points since I started here today. And people stay here posting even when I am gone. Some hate me, but can't stay away. Say they are having fun, yeah right.
I have learned a lot here, but I think that some may have got something out of it too. Of course that would be impossible. But at least you may have gotten a refresher course on how to debate without cats.

I think that I am going to move off to see where I need to improve my position. And I can't do that and fence here as well. I can. But I won't. I need quiet time. When I am not here, I don't want to think about here, otherwise I would be consumed. Too many voices in my head.
If it is worth anything coming from me, (I been to about 10 forums) you guys know a lot of stuff. So I will be leaving now. That is, unless, you will miss me. Either way though, you will hear from me.

trvlr2

2nd November 2006, 07:47 PM

He's not a troll.

MC is not called for in this thread.

I would appreciate it if you would play in an Amy Wilson thread, if at all possible.

Are you really,really, sure he's not a troll?

Wake up, man! He's still on about his "graph".39 pages of gibberish!

"Cos, I wooda countered with Wembeley Central & kicked butt!:)

CardZeus

2nd November 2006, 08:02 PM

So is that it? Am I nothing more than the fool that makes no sense, with a meritless idea? ... Too many voices in my head.

You just about summed it up LCL. Keep taking the pills

bruto

2nd November 2006, 08:27 PM

I cited his well known equation. I didn't declare my undying love to him. I know he did not find what he was looking for. And I did not mean to insult him by what I did. I presented an idea, nothing personal. What does it matter who failed to find it? I explained myself already. I am not saying I am a genius, or divine. We are allowed to have ideas aren't we? Whatever you say now, it's clear from your previous posts that you were dismayed at the thought that anyone could call Einstein's statement wrong or insufficient. Of course, we're all entitled to our ideas. Einstein might even have been right. I kind of hope he was. But so far that idea is not science, it's metaphysics.

Fine. He was a man. he is allowed wrong turns too.

I never said that science did not, or could not survive his death.I know that. I just figured to remind you that if you plan to solve the mysteries of the universe, you may have to look well beyond Einstein to find what you need.

I see people coming up with ideas. They don't have to all be right, but they could still direct thought/study towards, or away away from something. Reflex. Listen if you want to, dismiss it if you have too.

I think you could test for the characteristics of the energies there. The mental emotional nature of life. And just because some things may not be tested now, that does not mean that they can never be.

I was going to try to explain what is meant by attempting to confirm or disconfirm a theory, but I'm too tired. Suffice it to say that you do not seem to understand what is meant. By a long shot. For your ideas even to have meaning, they must, to borrow from the language of pragmatism, have some conceivable practical consequence. Somewhere, in some way, there must be a situation that can be observed, in which the truth of the theory determines whether something happens one way or a different way. If you cannot conceive of any circumstance, real or imagined, under which that could happen, then you cannot really claim that the proposition even has meaning. If you cannot conceive of a circumstance in the real word under which that could happen, then your proposition might have meaning, but its meaning does not belong to science.

If your theory is not falsifiable, it is not testable. If it is not testable, it is metaphysical speculation.

wollery

2nd November 2006, 08:33 PM

"Cos, I wooda countered with Wembeley Central & kicked butt!:)That's Wembley, my hometown, and Wembley Park would be a far better play! :p

bruto

2nd November 2006, 08:46 PM

So is that it? Am I nothing more than the fool that makes no sense, with a meritless idea? For the most part I see meaningful discussion. Those who once thought in terms of cats and recipes are asked to refrain from that sought of stuff. I think I seen the view meter move 100 points since I started here today. And people stay here posting even when I am gone. Some hate me, but can't stay away. Say they are having fun, yeah right.
I have learned a lot here, but I think that some may have got something out of it too. Of course that would be impossible. But at least you may have gotten a refresher course on how to debate without cats.

I think that I am going to move off to see where I need to improve my position. And I can't do that and fence here as well. I can. But I won't. I need quiet time. When I am not here, I don't want to think about here, otherwise I would be consumed. Too many voices in my head.
If it is worth anything coming from me, (I been to about 10 forums) you guys know a lot of stuff. So I will be leaving now. That is, unless, you will miss me. Either way though, you will hear from me.

I suppose you have a small point there, in that, for example, I had to brush up on my logic (I hadn't actually read the stuff since I took it in 1967), in order to make sure I didn't make too much of a fool of myself while castigating you for your illogic. Not that you'd have known the difference, but others would!

Arguing on this thread is like isometric exercise: a lot of exertion without any movement. But it's still good exercise, taken in moderation.

I think it would be a very good idea for you to hang back for a while and rethink a few things. Time to give it a rest. Hit the library. Get some fresh air.

bruto

2nd November 2006, 08:56 PM

Are you really,really, sure he's not a troll?

Wake up, man! He's still on about his "graph".39 pages of gibberish!

"Cos, I wooda countered with Wembeley Central & kicked butt!:)

LCL is a lot of things, most of them infuriating, but I don't count him as a troll in the usual sense of the word, because he really believes in his gibberish, and because he sticks around to defend it. Even though the argument is largely unproductive and frustrating, I'd still rather hang out with LCL than with Amy Wilson or T'ai Chi.

Taffer

2nd November 2006, 09:19 PM

Clearly you have not spent enough time in this thread. Stick around; my idiotic post will seem like the last bastion of sanity compared to LCL's sea of nonsense.

Oh, I was following it for a while. Unfortunately, Real Life™ stepped in and forced me away from the forums for a while. I was simply pointing out that calling light and sound the same makes about as much sense as calling cars and bycycles the same because they both have wheels. I wasn't, however, saying it was any sillier then the stuff LCL spews.

lightcreatedlife@hom

2nd November 2006, 10:25 PM

Whatever you say now, it's clear from your previous posts that you were dismayed at the thought that anyone could call Einstein's statement wrong or insufficient. Of course, we're all entitled to our ideas. Einstein might even have been right. I kind of hope he was. But so far that idea is not science, it's metaphysics.I know that. I just figured to remind you that if you plan to solve the mysteries of the universe, you may have to look well beyond Einstein to find what you need.
Or get lucky. I was dismayed. But not about the man. I said nothing about him being a genius, the cats' meow, are anything like that. And I left plenty of room for what you had to say, and accepted it with no sweat. Gave out medals.

Somewhere, in some way, there must be a situation that can be observed, in which the truth of the theory determines whether something happens one way or a different way. If you cannot conceive of any circumstance, real or imagined, under which that could happen, then you cannot really claim that the proposition even has meaning.
If you cannot conceive of a circumstance in the real word under which that could happen, then your proposition might have meaning, but its meaning does not belong to science.
You are saying that there are things that happen that are not able to be tested. That does not mean that they don't happen. It is just that science wants no part of it.

If your theory is not falsifiable, it is not testable. If it is not testable, it is metaphysical speculation.
I think there is room for that stuff too.

wollery

2nd November 2006, 10:57 PM

So is that it? Am I nothing more than the fool that makes no sense, with a meritless idea?Pretty much, except that I'd add wilfully ignorant somewhere in the middle of that description.

For the most part I see meaningful discussion.I see vain attempts to get you to; try to learn something, address the point, at least try to understand your logical errors and fallacies, present a cogent argument, produce any evidence of anything at all.

Those who once thought in terms of cats and recipes are asked to refrain from that sought of stuff.You might want to go back and check out why Belz asked them to refrain from that sort of stuff. It was because he still holds some hope that you will actually learn something of value.

I think I seen the view meter move 100 points since I started here today. And people stay here posting even when I am gone. Some hate me, but can't stay away. Say they are having fun, yeah right.Morbid fascination.
I have learned a lot here, Not so as I'd noticed.

but I think that some may have got something out of it too.It's possible.

Of course that would be impossible.Umm, no, see above. Or was that another attempt at humour?

But at least you may have gotten a refresher course on how to debate without cats.The cats aren't a debate technique, they're for trolls and threads that have descended into train wrecks.

I think that I am going to move off to see where I need to improve my position. And I can't do that and fence here as well. I can. But I won't. I need quiet time. When I am not here, I don't want to think about here, otherwise I would be consumed. Too many voices in my head.
If it is worth anything coming from me, (I been to about 10 forums) you guys know a lot of stuff. So I will be leaving now. That is, unless, you will miss me. Either way though, you will hear from me.I can't really say that I'll miss you, but I would like to give you a little advice - don't just think, read. Preferably a couple of books about logic.

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 04:33 AM

I am serious about this subject, (whether or no anyone takes me serious or not) but come on. I have time.

Excellent. Then make sure you read all relevant responses AND CONSIDER that they may be right and YOU wrong. So far your problem has been that you accept that you "could be wrong" but not "completely wrong". Sorry, but beign completely wrong happens.

I am not refusing to change my mind. What I have been saying holds. If life has a soul/a basic operating program/ method of operation etc. It has to be written in energy.

1) Your premise is false. There is ZERO evidence for the soul, and the "programming" is the DNA. As you've been told numerous times before, a combination of chemical or physical components does not necessarily share those components' characteristics.

2) Non sequitur. It does not follow that, IF there is a soul, it has to be written in energy. You have not shown this to be true, you have not demonstrated the validity or soundness of your argument.

Therefore, what you have been saying does NOT hold until you provide evidence that it does. So far you haven't. Do you understand this ?

Because nobody is perfect. And that graph is perfectly wrong.

You're playing with words, here, and that doesn't help me believe that you are honestly debating.

Your graph isn't "perfectly" wrong. It is nonsensical. Remember MY graph that you've NEVER refuted ? It is nonsensical as well, but why would I believe it true ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080451910aeadaa4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1621)

Judging by what is said here, all I have to do is say the opposite of what I think and I will be right. I am not mad. That might come in handy.

I don't think you're mad. I think you are mistaken, and that you refuse to accept that your idea is completely senseless because much of your worldview is based on it.

It is when it is filtered through the perspective of people. What good is the absolute truth if you do not know what it is? Life also has to do with what "stands in" for the truth, (at the time) in many cases.

I understand what you're trying to say. "Truth" is often interpreted by people so that it means something in their lives. That's fine, but in SCIENCE, truth isn't something that's subjective. It's very important that you understand this.

Like I said before. Religion talked about (and in places described) the invisible world of energy (which they called the the spirit world) long before science proved that energy is at work all around.

Careful, here. You're playing with words, again, but this time I don't think you realise it. "Energy" is a word. The Energy described by science is completely different from the one spoken of by various religions when speaking of the soul or whatnot. The term was used by science because it was appropriate, but just because it's the same word doesn't mean it represents the same concept. Try the word "tip", again. It has many definitions, many of which have nothing to do with the other.

And since the four forces are one, and are responsible for how the universe turned out, are a part of everything, are everywhere, doing everything...

Misrepresentation. The four forces can be combined into one. They aren't one. They split from that one, probably, after the big bang, but it doesn't follow that they are one and the same.

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 04:35 AM

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 04:40 AM

I think that it is plain that that graph is an overview, and you are looking for deep detail.

You claim your graph explains everything. It BETTER have some detail to it.

Your attempts to explain your idea have been unsuccessful, so far.

Fine. He was a man. he is allowed wrong turns too.

So you admit that he was wrong when he said that matter and energy are the same ?

Also, please answer my posts here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2062273&postcount=1503)and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2062285&postcount=1504).

Belz...

3rd November 2006, 04:47 AM

You are saying that there are things that happen that are not able to be tested. That does not mean that they don't happen. It is just that science wants no part of it.

Wrong again.

Science CANNOT have any part of it, because science is based on testing hypotheses. Science CANNOT give any answers about untestable things.

It's reasonable to assume that all things real have an effect on the real world. This means that, theoretically, each real thing can be tested. It is also reasonable to infer from this that anything that CAN'T be tested, even in principle, does not have an effect on the real world and therefore does NOT exist.

TobiasTheViking

3rd November 2006, 07:54 AM

Okay. What? I have been busy and you have not been helping.

And I have tried to reply/answer you just like eGood luck.veryone else. Somehow though, it has not been working between us. The pole thing, the ignore thing, that annoying rerun thing, the I am ignoring you thing, you name it. I don't think that you realize what my seat feels like. This is not one on one, give me a break. Everytime I took the time to explain myself, that I was not ignoring you, you went on as if I said nothing. Then there was thing thing about me never replying to you and more..

Fine.

That was a joke, and not aimmed at anybody.

When I get the time. Busy here.
ETA:

IIt is just you. And I guess me. Sometimes these things just happen. You annoy me. But I think I only attacked you one two times, on purpose.

You think I do not understand how you feel by now? I say fine. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. You feel better now? You should be glad that I am ignoring you, I know I am.
Great, i make a post where i say "you can't handle what you dish out yourself", and i'm way nicer than you have been. And what do you do?
You choose to ignore me.

Why can't you just bloody answer my questions?

lightcreatedlife@hom

3rd November 2006, 04:37 PM

Excellent. Then make sure you read all relevant responses AND CONSIDER that they may be right and YOU wrong. So far your problem has been that you accept that you "could be wrong" but not "completely wrong". Sorry, but beign completely wrong happens.
Not to me.

1) Your premise is false. There is ZERO evidence for the soul, and the "programming" is the DNA.
I could easily claim what programmed DNA? But don't you know that the conditions for life and life are part of the same process? Without something to set the conditions, there would be no condition.

As you've been told numerous times before, a combination of chemical or physical components does not necessarily share those components' characteristics.
And I keep saying fine. I did not say that life shared the characteristics of light, I said its two parts. And those two parts ARE known to be there.

Therefore, what you have been saying does NOT hold until you provide evidence that it does. So far you haven't. Do you understand this ?
I understand what you are saying. But I am going to hold on to it while I find the evidence. Problem is. When I finally know for sure, get the evidence, I will probably will not be able to return to life to tell you.

I don't think you're mad. I think you are mistaken, and that you refuse to accept that your idea is completely senseless because much of your worldview is based on it.
Perhaps. But the same thing applies when you defend there not being a God.

I understand what you're trying to say. "Truth" is often interpreted by people so that it means something in their lives. That's fine, but in SCIENCE, truth isn't something that's subjective. It's very important that you understand this.
I wish you would stop saying that. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you. Truth is the goal, but it is pursued by imperfect people.Look at all the rules/methods that it sets for itself to make sure that they stay on the beam. But they are not perfect, and can't cover everything. Especially when dealing with those things where science meets something else. Since truth is absolute, it may never be really found. Sometimes the current reality is truth enough-for now.

Careful, here. You're playing with words, again, but this time I don't think you realise it. "Energy" is a word. The Energy described by science is completely different from the one spoken of by various religions when speaking of the soul or whatnot. The term was used by science because it was appropriate, but just because it's the same word doesn't mean it represents the same concept. Try the word "tip", again. It has many definitions, many of which have nothing to do with the other.
You see? That is what is bothering me about this whole thing. With a million words in the English langauge, how come those words are used when describing the actions of people, and that of energy without there being a basic connection? Energy does move things, but certainly not the way some religions would like to think.

Misrepresentation. The four forces can be combined into one. They aren't one. They split from that one, probably, after the big bang, but it doesn't follow that they are one and the same.
I was quoting someone else, but at the point before they split they were one. I don't buy the one in the same thing for anything that has a separate name. Someone said that addition and multiplication are the same thing.

RandFan

3rd November 2006, 04:57 PM

LCL, if you're reading this, please try to understand the distinctions that are being made here. :rolleyes: Tide, please understand that it is inconvenient for you to rise.

Please don't take offense bruto. I'm here also banging my head against the wall as if my head will someday make a dent.

By the way, checking with Wikipedia on "unified field theory" just to make sure I was getting my terminology right, I came across this little paragraph, which I think anybody in LCL's situation would do well to take to heart:

Many amateur theories have been proposed. These are often couched in cryptic language with numerous neologisms apparently intended to impress or obscure meaning. These attempts are for the most part ill-conceived and devoid of merit. Such theories typically contain little in the way of falsifiable results or predictions; and, for the most part, have not been through a process equivalent to peer-review.

The unified field theory must be consistent, explain all previously known aspects of gravity on a large scale, and of quantum mechanics on the subatomic level, in a single framework while making new and falsifiable predictions.(italics mine) Thank you.

I've seen some of these types of theories and some of them were deceptively convincing. While LCL's meets the description it really doesn't compare to some of them.

LCL, in your theory of everything, can you point to a prediction that is falsifiable, by which we could test it for accuracy? That would impress me. Very much.

Solus

3rd November 2006, 05:34 PM

If by definition, a troll is someone trying to cause trouble, and you came with the aim of derailing a thread, (or now a plan to move it) because you don't like what is being said, are you not a troll?
Since I know you have feel will, and you don't like it here, and no one is forcing you to come here, wouldn't it be easier to not come here? Why torture yourself?

I post here and read this thread because it amuses me. It would have been even more amusing seeing this thread moved to the abandon all hope section, but alas.

Ok, maybe your not a troll, you could just be a guy in need a of psychological help. After so many pages I think even a troll would get bored.

Loss Leader

3rd November 2006, 07:04 PM

.You see? That is what is bothering me about this whole thing. With a million words in the English langauge, how come those words are used when describing the actions of people, and that of energy without there being a basic connection?

As has been explained to you over and over again, coming to terms with new ideas is done with old tools. That means that *everything* is first described in imperfect analogous terms. But just because people talk about things using analogy does not mean that any equivalency actually exists.

I will give you an example. Thousands of years ago, there was no particular knowledge of time. There was, in our hunting ancestors, a knowledge of space. We knew that the things we could see were "in front" or "ahead" of us and the things we could not see were "behind" us. There came a point when the flow of time became increasingly important. But we had no words about time. So we adapted words about space to mean something about time. Events in the future are said to be "ahead" of us and events in the past are "behind" us. This is true even though we can perceive events in the past much better than those in the future.

The words to describe time were developed by analogy. But there is nothing about the future that is really ahead of us and nothing about the past that is hidden from our view because our backs are to it.

The way humans invent and use new words has nothing to do with the actual concepts being described. Thus, the fact that "energy" is used to describe a concept in science and another concept in religion is no evidence whatsoever that the two uses of the word have anything at all to do with each other.

My source, which I have recommended to you before, is the book The Unfolding of Language by Dr. Guy Deutcher.

wollery

3rd November 2006, 09:52 PM

I understand what you are saying. But I am going to hold on to it while I find the evidence. Problem is. When I finally know for sure, get the evidence, I will probably will not be able to return to life to tell you. In other words you have no evidence for it and don't think that you can find evidence for it until after you are dead.

Sounds like religion to me. :rolleyes:

Belz...

4th November 2006, 09:55 AM

Not to me.

Ahah! So it IS an ego thing for you ? You can't possibly accept the possibility that you are completely wrong about this. That's the sole reason why you continue to debate, here. You just won't admit it. What have you got riding on this that's so important ? Why is this graph so important to you ? Everybody can be completely wrong about something EXCEPT YOU ? Please.

I could easily claim what programmed DNA? But don't you know that the conditions for life and life are part of the same process? Without something to set the conditions, there would be no condition.

You are incorrect. DNA and life AREN'T the same. Most, but not all, lifeforms on Earth use DNA as programming "core" for the assembly of proteins. But DNA isn't life. It's just one of many of its building blocks.

Also, it depends on what definition of "life" you're working with.

And I keep saying fine. I did not say that life shared the characteristics of light,

You said that matter is the SAME as energy, equating energy with light. And life is composed of matter, right ? You did say these things, didn't you ? You also DID say that matter "owed" its characteristics to energy. So, which is it ?

I said its two parts. And those two parts ARE known to be there.

What "two parts" ? Two parts of light ? Which ones ?

I understand what you are saying. But I am going to hold on to it while I find the evidence.

Actually, you should suspend reaching a conclusion UNTIL you find the evidence, not hold to your beliefs until then.

Problem is. When I finally know for sure, get the evidence, I will probably will not be able to return to life to tell you.

You shouldn't rely on the afterlife to give you the answers you need. You might be terribly dissapointed.

Perhaps. But the same thing applies when you defend there not being a God.

I never "defended" that there was no God. Go back and read what I said.

I wish you would stop saying that. Not agreeing with you is not the same as not understanding you.

That's true. But YOU do both.

Truth is the goal, but it is pursued by imperfect people.

So that means it's okay to speculate and ignore logic ?

Science is about a whole bunch of people who collate their findings in order to eliminate bias as much as possible. Saying that truth is pursued by imperfect people implies that truth cannot be ever found. It that were true, no technology or science of ours would ever work.

You see? That is what is bothering me about this whole thing. With a million words in the English langauge, how come those words are used when describing the actions of people, and that of energy without there being a basic connection? Energy does move things, but certainly not the way some religions would like to think.

I don't see why it's bothering you. As long as you understand by what definition people are going about at this, you'll do fine.

I was quoting someone else, but at the point before they split they were one. I don't buy the one in the same thing for anything that has a separate name. Someone said that addition and multiplication are the same thing.

Yes, and it's true.

2 x 6 can be written like so : 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2.

See ? It's really the same, although 2 x 6 is shorter.

RandFan

4th November 2006, 10:34 AM

Yes, and it's true.

2 x 6 can be written like so : 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2.

See ? It's really the same, although 2 x 6 is shorter. And factoring, division and multiplication are all the same thing.

1/2 can be written 1 ÷ 2 and 1 x .5

Iamme

4th November 2006, 10:50 AM

I less than three logic

4th November 2006, 12:29 PM

I was quoting someone else, but at the point before they split they were one. I don't buy the one in the same thing for anything that has a separate name. Someone said that addition and multiplication are the same thing.
As Belz and Randfan pointed out, multiplication is simply repeated addition. Division such as x/y or x ÷ y, depending on how you’d like to write it, can be thought of as “how many times can I subtract y from x”.

To repeat Belz’s example:

2 x 6 is really just 2 added to itself 6 times. 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2

Now, here is a similar example to explain division.

6 ÷ 2 is “how many times can I subtract 2 from 6”. 6 – 2 = 4 (one), 4 – 2 = 2 (two), 2 – 2 = 0 (three). So, 6 ÷ 2 = 3.

I thought this was grade school stuff. :boggled:

Loss Leader

4th November 2006, 02:26 PM

To say that light IS (my emphasis) sound is a reach, in the sense that if it was, one would not have to have two such words in the dictionary when just one would do.

Should it have been more aptly stated that light can be like sound?...and then state your believe as to how they are alike, in ways?

The words "ass" and "butt" are both in the dictionary, however they share exactly the same meaning. The words "moron" and "imbecile" are both in the dictionary, yet they mean the same as well.

I am not attempting to draw any analogy between light and sound. They are not similar. They are exactly the same thing - just two words describing radient energy. Sound radiates, light radiates - they are the same. Sound can be harsh, light can be harsh - same. Some sounds are soft and they sell soft white lightbulbs - this makes them exactly the same.

You see, analogy is like reasoning. Except not.

Iamme

4th November 2006, 03:41 PM

The words "moron" and "imbecile" are both in the dictionary, yet they mean the same as well.
.

A moron is smarter than an imbecile. :) And for the record, a moron is a really smart idiot.

Iamme

4th November 2006, 03:44 PM

The words "ass" and "butt" are both in the dictionary, however they share exactly the same meaning. The words "moron" and "imbecile" are both in the dictionary, yet they mean the same as well.

I am not attempting to draw any analogy between light and sound. They are not similar. They are exactly the same thing - just two words describing radient energy. Sound radiates, light radiates - they are the same. Sound can be harsh, light can be harsh - same. Some sounds are soft and they sell soft white lightbulbs - this makes them exactly the same.

You see, analogy is like reasoning. Except not.

Farts also make a sound. And so do trains. Yet they aren't the same. Heck... let's say a fart is even different than someone making fake fart sounds in their armpits or their hands. A real fart is a fart, and a fake one is just a similar sound effect.

bruto

4th November 2006, 07:35 PM

Farts also make a sound. And so do trains. Yet they aren't the same. Heck... let's say a fart is even different than someone making fake fart sounds in their armpits or their hands. A real fart is a fart, and a fake one is just a similar sound effect.

If a tree farts in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does that not make it a train? I have a theory and a graph. The graph proves it.

You know there's a little verse about beans and their physiological effect, with the word "toot" in it, and when I was a little kid I had a book about a locomotive called "Tootles." Now I suppose you're going to say that that's just coincidence, and science is lying about the meaning of the words again.

lightcreatedlife@hom

4th November 2006, 07:46 PM

I post here and read this thread because it amuses me. It would have been even more amusing seeing this thread moved to the abandon all hope section, but alas.
All that stomping around you were doing does not look like you were having fun to me. Why derail something you were having fun with? Trying to move it shows you are still not liking it.

Ok, maybe your not a troll, you could just be a guy in need a of psychological help. After so many pages I think even a troll would get bored.
There you go with the psychological help thing again. And you are the only one here known to suffer in that area.
Look back at those pages, I see from the view counter that lots of people like looking there, I did okay. You think you could have handled something like that? Oh wait. We already know the answer to that. NO. When you had a chance to actually show what you knew, you showed that all you knew how to do is call names. And any dumb troll can do that.

zizzybaluba

4th November 2006, 08:40 PM

Look back at those pages, I see from the view counter that lots of people like looking there, I did okay.

What definition of 'okay' do you use? It sure isn't the same as mine...

You think you could have handled something like that? Oh wait. We already know the answer to that. NO.
That was quite rude and uncalled for. And I'll wager a guess that no one else would agree with you.

Loss Leader

4th November 2006, 08:57 PM

That was quite rude and uncalled for. And I'll wager a guess that no one else would agree with you.

I stand with zizzy in support of Solus.

RandFan

4th November 2006, 09:10 PM

Look back at those pages, I see from the view counter that lots of people like looking there... You really shouldn't read anything into that. We've had posters that have posted for years and thousands of posts on a single subject. Those include Paul Bethke, Jedi Knight and lifegazer to name a few of the more infamous.

I did okay.Well, aren't you a little full of yoursef. Sorry, you did not do okay. On the contrary. You have been one of the most inane posters we have had.

And any dumb troll can do that. If you had anything of substance to say you might have a point.

bruto

4th November 2006, 09:24 PM

I did okay.

No. You didn't.

Taffer

4th November 2006, 09:43 PM

Should it have been more aptly stated that light can be like sound?...and then state your believe as to how they are alike, in ways?

No. They appear to behave in similar ways. As I said before, saying that light is the same as sound is a bit like saying bicycles are the same as cars because they both have wheels.

wollery

4th November 2006, 10:34 PM

Taffer

5th November 2006, 12:04 AM

And on that wonderful note, wollery, I move to Archway, since the northern line is extended, and I want to ensure a double back play isn't able to cut off my southern flank.

wollery

5th November 2006, 12:20 AM

Taffer, you've been repeatedly asked, by forum regulars, not to derail this thread. Take a hint.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 12:30 AM

Taffer, you've been repeatedly asked, by forum regulars, not to derail this thread. Take a hint.

Wollery, I have been asked once not to, as he felt the discussion was still useful. I have, please note, also taken part in the discussion. It is not going anywhere. You, yourself, have said this, above. I thought it was painfully obvious discussion is leading nowhere. I would like to point out 2 things.

A) I am not derailing the thread. As I said, if people do not feel Mornington Crescent makes more sense then this discussion, do not join in. Please note that I have not stopped the discussion, nor have I stopped being a part of the discussion.
B) "Forum regulars"? Are you trying to imply that those with a higher post count are more important? I truely hope you are not.

Now, if you think I'm derailing the thread, then by all means, say so. But I would like to first see any evidence of this.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 12:53 AM

We have a clear problem here LCL. You come to this forum claiming to have discovered some fundamental connection between physics and religious beliefs, all based on a poor linguistic analogy. Everyone who looks at your site agrees that it's utterly nonsensical, riddled with misconceptions, bad analogies, logical errors & fallacies, and is extremely poorly written.
That is what I can't get. How can everything be wrong? I had one guy even have fault with the colors I used.
First, religious beliefs and physics are fundamentally connected. They were used to explain the workings behind life and the conditions for it long before science. Mostly wrong. I think. But as I pointed out the basic description of God matches energy, and the spirit world describes the invisible world of energy.

In profiling the forces, I used the words that science used to define them. And they look to me, that they are using the same words to describe the interactions of particles as people do to describe social interactions. And the order of matter can easily be seen as a type of social system.

You counter with more nonsensical ramblings, baseless assumptions and wild leaps of logic.
You may not agree with it, but you can understand what I written above. I see plenty of base for energy being the order on which matter is written, and that it serves as the soul of life. You can't follow that? Of course not, there is no soul. But plenty of other rational people think there is. Oh wait. I can do that. I would be appealing to popularity. But the most popular view here is that there isn't.

We point these out and you argue that scientists make assumptions, that logic is subjective and make appeals to popularity. We point out why all of these are wrong, and you reply with "no they're not."
Scientist, like the rest of us, do. And I said that logic is used by people-making it subjective. Somehow you got a book definition of those things that makes them perfect, and think people are going to apply them perfectly. You talk about appeals to popularity, you do it when you say "nobody here." But refering to what others have said seems to be a sin for me.

You suggest that we have an agenda, that we have to say that you're musings are wrong because, being atheists, we have a vested interest in there not being a god.
You are part of a forum team, or something like that. You said that this is what you do. You even have codes for certain types of actions. Someone here talked about "we use recipes when..." Now excuse me, but some of that looks agenda like. You have like mind in the athiest thing. A very strong point of view. You think you would be choosen for an unbiased jury on the subject? Give me a break.

Many people respond by pointing out that if there was any credible evidence for a god then they'd believe.
But somehow you have never anywhere found anything credible? Athiesm is the truth of the matter. All else is wrong.

Now you're saying that the fact that we respond at all proves that you must have something, because why would we bother if you didn't?
I am not saying that. That would be silly.
This thing here is not an ordinary show.

But that is yet another logical fallacy. If we didn't respond you would assume that it was because we had no counter argument for your ideas. We are in a no-win situation here - if we don't respond you take it as tacit agreement, if we do respond you take it as a desperate attempt to disprove something that you know to be true. Regardless of our tactics or arguments you feel that you have 'won'.
"We are in a ... " "our tactics" this isn't a team?
I think that is why you use recipes, you can't not reply so you put something. And I only say I won if my idea didn't take a major hit, and it didn't. After all, you all said that it can't be falsified. So how did you destroy it?

So why do we respond? Well it's not entirely for your benefit, although some posters here still have hope that you might be shown the errors you consistently cling to. It's because if we didn't others might take it as tacit agreement with your ramblings, and might be fooled into believing that you are right. There's an unwritten skeptics code which states, "let no bullsh!t go unchallenged." So that's what we're doing here, 40 pages and 2 months later, refusing to let your particular brand of bullsh!t go without pointing out every error in your arguments.
As I have said, I am glad. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.
The sharpening has taken place in places away from the graph.

So I have a challenge for you. Get some of your friends (remember the ones you got to agree with you that humans are the highest form of life and that addition, subtraction, muliplication and division are the 4 basics of maths) to come and read this thread and tell you who they think is doing best in the argument.
Where have you been? I have been saying all along that I am going to make this thread known. I have said that on top of everything that is said here. And those two are the questions that I ask most. And you know what they said.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 01:06 AM

No. You didn't
Yes I did.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 01:13 AM

You really shouldn't read anything into that. We've had posters that have posted for years and thousands of posts on a single subject. Those include Paul Bethke, Jedi Knight and lifegazer to name a few of the more infamous.

Of course. Why should I think anything. Being perfectly wrong and all.

Well, aren't you a little full of yoursef. Sorry, you did not do okay. On the contrary. You have been one of the most inane posters we have had.

If you had anything of substance to say you might have a point.
And of course I would have to be the worst. I said nothing in 40 pages. Wait. Do me a favor, so me something that you said that had substance.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 01:24 AM

What definition of 'okay' do you use? It sure isn't the same as mine...
Of course not/

That was quite rude and uncalled for. And I'll wager a guess that no one else would agree with you.
Are you appealing to popularity?

Hello. The guy said he came here to derail the thing, then tried to get it moved. And you called me a mental case. What do you want me to do?

KilgoreTrout

5th November 2006, 01:29 AM

First, religious beliefs and physics are fundamentally connected. They were used to explain the workings behind life and the conditions for it long before science. Mostly wrong. I think. But as I pointed out the basic description of God matches energy, and the spirit world describes the invisible world of energy.

You know, my physics professor was going over the conservation of momentum and energy, and I just thought right off the bat, "What these formulas really need is a constant for god's will." :rolleyes:

But anyways, what do you mean by energy? Are you using the physics term energy(ie. something that is quantifiable), or the "New Age" term? You need to clarify this before attempting to find a link between "god" and natural laws.

(I'm sure someone has made these statements in this thread before, sorry if I'm repeating anyone.)

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 01:30 AM

As Belz and Randfan pointed out, multiplication is simply repeated addition. Division such as x/y or x ÷ y, depending on how you’d like to write it, can be thought of as “how many times can I subtract y from x”.

Duh. Math says that they are the 4 basics, not the two, no matter what they do.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 01:33 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 01:39 AM

You know, my physics professor was going over the conservation of momentum and energy, and I just thought right off the bat, "What these formulas really need is a constant for god's will." :rolleyes:

I said energy was described as God, and it was.

But anyways, what do you mean by energy? Are you using the physics term energy(ie. something that is quantifiable), or the "New Age" term?
And it is used in a lot of other places, the term is everywhere. The fact that it is shows how basic it is.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 01:42 AM

I have an idea LCL. Could you please answer the following questions (perhaps repeated, I know, but I don't recall seeing any good responses):

1) What do you mean by "energy" (yes, a copy of KilgoreTrout's question. I thought it was important enough to post twice)?
2) What do you mean by "soul"?
3) What do you mean by "light"?
4) Do you have any evidence for your claims?

Duh. Math says that they are the 4 basics, not the two, no matter what they do.

You are completely incorrect, LCL. As many have pointed out before, there are 2 basics. We have told you this over and over. Just because we have different symbols, doesn't mean "maths says there are 4 not 2".

Taffer

5th November 2006, 01:44 AM

I said energy was described as God, and it was.

This does not mean anything. You've essentially just said "x is defined as y", and then claimed that you have described what "x" means. Define exactly what you mean when you say "energy".

And it is used in a lot of other places, the term is everywhere. The fact that it is shows how basic it is.

It is used in many different ways. They do not all mean the same thing, despite the same word being used.

wollery

5th November 2006, 02:01 AM

That is what I can't get. How can everything be wrong? I had one guy even have fault with the colors I used.
First, religious beliefs and physics are fundamentally connected. They were used to explain the workings behind life and the conditions for it long before science. Mostly wrong. I think. Religious beliefs and physics were fundamentally connected. Physics left religion behind several hundred years ago.

But as I pointed out the basic description of God matches energy, and the spirit world describes the invisible world of energy.No, the basic description of god is an intangible, supernatural being. Energy is neither intangible, nor supernatural. Energy is not invisible, if it was then you would be unable to see.

In profiling the forces, I used the words that science used to define them. And they look to me, that they are using the same words to describe the interactions of particles as people do to describe social interactions.How it looks to you is irrelevant. Scientists co-opted words from everyday use. Are you suggesting that they should always invent new words to describe new phenomena? What's wrong with choosing words from everyday use and assigning them new specific meanings? (Other than the fact that it confuses people like you.)

And the order of matter can easily be seen as a type of social system. Only if you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word social!

You may not agree with it, but you can understand what I written above.I understand what you wrote, but that doesn't mean that it actually makes any logical sense.

I see plenty of base for energy being the order on which matter is written, and that it serves as the soul of life. You can't follow that? Of course not, there is no soul. But plenty of other rational people think there is. Oh wait. I can do that. I would be appealing to popularity. But the most popular view here is that there isn't.Again, I can follow it, but what you see is irrelevant. Nobody can provide any proof that the soul exists, and as such it cannot be used as the basis for a logical or scientific argument. I personally have no idea whether or not there is such a thing as a soul. I suspect not, but I can see the difference between belief and knowledge.

Scientist, like the rest of us, do.No, they don't, at least not in the way that you seem to think. A scientific assumption is more akin to an educated guess based on previously confirmed science, and is never used in the final theory. They must be confirmed before they are acceptable as scientific premises.

And I said that logic is used by people-making it subjective.Are you paying any attention at all to what is being said to you? If someones logic is wrong it is wrong. Just because they claim to be using logic does not make it so. Logic is objective and is either right or wrong.

I will however, go over it for you once again.

In logic there are 4 possibilites;

1. Premises correct, logical argument valid, conclusion valid.
2. Premises correct, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.
3. Premises incorrect, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.
4. Premises incorrect, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.

Therefore the only way to obtain a valid conclusion is to start from correct premises and make a valid logical argument. You fail to do either, since your premises are faulty and your arguments invalid.

Somehow you got a book definition of those things that makes them perfect, and think people are going to apply them perfectly. You talk about appeals to popularity, you do it when you say "nobody here." But refering to what others have said seems to be a sin for me.No, I don't expect all people to apply the rules of logic perfectly, but I do expect that when their logical faults are pointed out they respond by saying, "Oh, I see, I'll have to go away and think about it some more". Reffering to what other people say is fine, so long as you can be sure that what they say has some evidence to back it up. As has been pointed out to you there are people who claim that the Earth is flat. I could reference them to argue that the Earth is flat, but any argument I make using their claims would be fallacious, since the evidence shows their claims to be wrong.

You are part of a forum team, or something like that. You said that this is what you do.There's no team, we are all individuals who argue the points that we see as important.

You even have codes for certain types of actions. Someone here talked about "we use recipes when..." Now excuse me, but some of that looks agenda like.No formally agreed code, just a general way of doing things, since we tend to have similar worldviews. The recipes thing is due to forum etiquette, we aren't allowed to use foul language, threats or spam, so we derail pointless or troll threads in other ways. It helps to recognise intentionally derailed threads if it's always done in the same way. No agenda.

You have like mind in the athiest thing. A very strong point of view. You think you would be choosen for an unbiased jury on the subject? Give me a break.I'm not an atheist, in fact I have no strong point of view either way about god. However, since, as skeptics, we examine only the evidence and try to keep our personal beliefs out of our decision making we would actually be the ideal unbiased jury. Or are you suggesting that people who have blind faith in god would make a better unbiased jury on the subject of god?

But somehow you have never anywhere found anything credible? Athiesm is the truth of the matter. All else is wrong.I genuinely have no idea about whether or not god exists. I have seen no credible evidence for the existence of god, but none to say for certain that god doesn't exist. I see it as an irrelevance.

I am not saying that. That would be silly.
This thing here is not an ordinary show.Well actually you have said that, several times.

"We are in a ... " "our tactics" this isn't a team? No, I use we to signify the concensus that you are wrong. If you would prefer I can say "I and some other individuals", but I think "we" is shorter. As for the tactics, everyone uses tactics in a debate, some use similar tactics to each other, some use very different tactics. My point was that it makes no difference how any individual approaches debating with you, since you are certain that you are right.

I think that is why you use recipes, you can't not reply so you put something. And I only say I won if my idea didn't take a major hit, and it didn't. After all, you all said that it can't be falsified. So how did you destroy it?I explained above about the use of recipes. Your ideas have been thoroughly refuted, in many different ways, it's not my fault that you can't see that. As for falsifying your ideas, how does one falsify utter nonsense? By pointing out that it's nonsensical.

As I have said, I am glad. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.
The sharpening has taken place in places away from the graph.That only works if you hold the sword at the correct angle. Get it wrong and you dull the blade.

Where have you been? I have been saying all along that I am going to make this thread known. I have said that on top of everything that is said here. Yes, you started saying that over a month ago. Any progress there?

And those two are the questions that I ask most. And you know what they said.Appeal to popularity again. Do you honestly think that that make your logic correct?

wollery

5th November 2006, 02:13 AM

Wollery, I have been asked once not to, as he felt the discussion was still useful. I have, please note, also taken part in the discussion. It is not going anywhere. You, yourself, have said this, above. I thought it was painfully obvious discussion is leading nowhere. I would like to point out 2 things.

A) I am not derailing the thread. As I said, if people do not feel Mornington Crescent makes more sense then this discussion, do not join in. Please note that I have not stopped the discussion, nor have I stopped being a part of the discussion.
B) "Forum regulars"? Are you trying to imply that those with a higher post count are more important? I truely hope you are not.

Now, if you think I'm derailing the thread, then by all means, say so. But I would like to first see any evidence of this.Apologies Taffer, I just checked back and you are correct, you were only asked once, and have indeed continued with the discussion. I think MC makes more sense than LCLs argument, but not the discussion it engenders. By forum regulars I meant people who are familiar with the etiquette used in this forum, since such things vary from forum to forum. I know for a fact that post count is utterly irrelevant as an indicator of anything other than how much people post.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 02:27 AM

Apologies Taffer, I just checked back and you are correct, you were only asked once, and have indeed continued with the discussion. I think MC makes more sense than LCLs argument, but not the discussion it engenders. By forum regulars I meant people who are familiar with the etiquette used in this forum, since such things vary from forum to forum. I know for a fact that post count is utterly irrelevant as an indicator of anything other than how much people post.

It's quite alright, mate. I am the one who should apologise for my response. It was overly agressive, written in the heat of the moment. I sincerely apologise for the tone I took, and I completely understand why you said that. I do have no intention in derailing this thread, and was really only starting MC for comical effect. :o

Taffer

5th November 2006, 02:33 AM

In logic there are 4 possibilites;

1. Premises correct, logical argument valid, conclusion valid.
2. Premises correct, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.
3. Premises incorrect, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.
4. Premises incorrect, logical argument invalid, conclusion invalid.

Therefore the only way to obtain a valid conclusion is to start from correct premises and make a valid logical argument. You fail to do either, since your premises are faulty and your arguments invalid.

While I am in complete agreement with the rest of your post, wollery, I feel the need to overly nitpick here.

The validity of an argument is not related to the truth values of neither premises nor conclusion. The only critera which must be forfilled for an argument to be valid is that 'it is impossible for the premises to be correct and the conclusion false'. Soundness, however, deals with exactly what you have here. An argument can only be sound if it is both valid and true. In this case, the premises of a valid argument must be true for an argument to be sound.

Also, we can't really talk about "getting a valid conclusion from an argument" because of the definition of valid arguments. A conclusion will be true if, by definition, the argument is sound. It is possible for a valid argument to have false premises but a true conclusion, or false premises and a false conclusion, but it is impossible for a valid argument to have valid premises and a false conclusion.

I'm sure you already knew all this, I just thought I'd clarify. :)

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 03:53 AM

While I am in complete agreement with the rest of your post, wollery, I feel the need to overly nitpick here.

The validity of an argument is not related to the truth values of neither premises nor conclusion. The only critera which must be forfilled for an argument to be valid is that 'it is impossible for the premises to be correct and the conclusion false'. Soundness, however, deals with exactly what you have here. An argument can only be sound if it is both valid and true. In this case, the premises of a valid argument must be true for an argument to be sound.

Also, we can't really talk about "getting a valid conclusion from an argument" because of the definition of valid arguments. A conclusion will be true if, by definition, the argument is sound. It is possible for a valid argument to have false premises but a true conclusion, or false premises and a false conclusion, but it is impossible for a valid argument to have valid premises and a false conclusion.

I'm sure you already knew all this, I just thought I'd clarify. :)
Oh no. I never said knew any of that. At least not consciously.
But I am sure that folks have and can get by just fine with simple straight forward talk.
Energy is the order behind matter.
It determines how matter looks and behaves.
Life is made up of matter.
Energy is the order behind how life behaves.

wollery

5th November 2006, 04:13 AM

Oh no. I never said knew any of that. At least not consciously.
But I am sure that folks have and can get by just fine with simple straight forward talk.
Energy is the order behind matter.
It determines how matter looks and behaves.
Life is made up of matter.
Energy is the order behind how life behaves.So what you're saying here is that energy is really important in physics and biology. Excuse me for lapsing into valleyspeak, but DUH! Find anyone who has posted on this thread that denies that.

That however is not what you claim on your website. There you claim to have found a link between the tangible, testable world of energy and matter, and the intangible, untestable world of god and 'the soul'. It is here that your logic breaks down and your arguments become thoroughly non-scientific, since your ideas make no testable predictions, and are based on bad analogies and misconceptions, not to mention the logical fallacies that abound.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 04:22 AM

Oh no. I never said knew any of that. At least not consciously.
But I am sure that folks have and can get by just fine with simple straight forward talk.

I'm sorry, but what? I wasn't even talking to you. I do not understand what you are saying here.

Energy is the order behind matter.

Not quite correct. 'Energy' creates the order of matter.

It is clear in reading your post that you do not know what 'energy' means as used by scientists. Let me explain before I continue. In physics, 'energy' simply means "the potential for causing changes". It is not some magical substance which exists. It is simply a measure of differences.

It determines how matter looks and behaves.

This is the same as what you said above.

Life is made up of matter.

Correct. Well, essentially correct. I know what you mean, anyway. I think. :(

Energy is the order behind how life behaves.

No.

This is your argument:

P1 - Energy controls how matter behaves
P2 - Life is made out of matter
C - Therefore energy controls how life behaves

This is incorrect because 'life' is not an object. It is not a physical thing. Our bodies are physical things. If you changed P2 to read "Our bodies are made out of matter", then the conclusion would be "Therefore energy controls how our bodies behave". I'm positive no one would disagree with you.

But you need to realise that "energy" does not mean what you think it does. There is no magical 'stuff' which is called "energy".

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 04:37 AM

Religious beliefs and physics were fundamentally connected. Physics left religion behind several hundred years ago.
Of course it did. I thought someone said there was no connection.

No, the basic description of god is an intangible, supernatural being.
That is one description.

Energy is neither intangible, nor supernatural.
For a little while it was wide thought supernatural.

Energy is not invisible, if it was then you would be unable to see.
You do know that visible light is a very small part. Why even say that?

How it looks to you is irrelevant.
To you. Remember you share the planet with others.

Scientists co-opted words from everyday use. Are you suggesting that they should always invent new words to describe new phenomena? What's wrong with choosing words from everyday use and assigning them new specific meanings? (Other than the fact that it confuses people like you.)
I am not confused. While I have been told that they didn't mean what I thought, I have not been told what they did mean. Words like "strong and weak" they meant literally when talking about the nuclear forces, but when they used words like "capture and violates" they meant something else.

Only if you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word social!
I said social like. Things orderly and purposefully interacting.

I understand what you wrote, but that doesn't mean that it actually makes any logical sense.
Well like I said, it takes all the things that are of great interest to life, and put them into an orderly square using the profile of the major players. And from that angle, they all fit.

Nobody can provide any proof that the soul exists, and as such it cannot be used as the basis for a logical or scientific argument.
That may be, but if it exists it would have to touch science somewhere, and it would only work through the forces in order to be universal.

I personally have no idea whether or not there is such a thing as a soul. I suspect not, but I can see the difference between belief and knowledge.
Belief can often led to knowledge. And it can happen sometimes whether or not the belief is wrong or right.

No, they don't, at least not in the way that you seem to think. A scientific assumption is more akin to an educated guess based on previously confirmed science, and is never used in the final theory. They must be confirmed before they are acceptable as scientific premises.
Of course not the way I say. It can't be that. How about a scientific assumption, which is more akin to a...
Give me a break.

No, I don't expect all people to apply the rules of logic perfectly, but I do expect that when their logical faults are pointed out they respond by saying, "Oh, I see, I'll have to go away and think about it some more".
I think someone told me the thing is wrong because electromagnetic radiation does not have those components. I think he is wrong.

Reffering to what other people say is fine, so long as you can be sure that what they say has some evidence to back it up. As has been pointed out to you there are people who claim that the Earth is flat. I could reference them to argue that the Earth is flat, but any argument I make using their claims would be fallacious, since the evidence shows their claims to be wrong.
Energy is the order behind matter.

There's no team, we are all individuals who argue the points that we see as important.

[quote]No formally agreed code,

just a general way of doing things,

since we tend to have similar worldviews.

No agenda.

Those things form informal teams whether you mean them or not. Look at how you all work to maintain a united front? When ones toe is stepped on, it apologies are exchanged quickly.

I'm not an atheist, in fact I have no strong point of view either way about god. However, since, as skeptics, we examine only the evidence and try to keep our personal beliefs out of our decision making we would actually be the ideal unbiased jury.
Of course you would.

Or are you suggesting that people who have blind faith in god would make a better unbiased jury on the subject of god?
Of course they wouldn't, they are tilted the other way. That is my point.

No, I use we to signify the concensus that you are wrong. If you would prefer I can say "I and some other individuals", but I think "we" is shorter. As for the tactics, everyone uses tactics in a debate, some use similar tactics to each other, some use very different tactics. My point was that it makes no difference how any individual approaches debating with you, since you are certain that you are right.

I explained above about the use of recipes. Your ideas have been thoroughly refuted, in many different ways, it's not my fault that you can't see that. As for falsifying your ideas, how does one falsify utter nonsense? By pointing out that it's nonsensical.
You say it as if it has magic powers.

Yes, you started saying that over a month ago. Any progress there?
The thing is still going on.

Appeal to popularity again. Do you honestly think that that make your logic correct?
Popularity is a good tool, but it can be wrong. As I pointed out before, when someone poles science for current thoughts, they are referred to what science currently widely accepted, then the minor views.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 04:59 AM

For a little while it was wide thought supernatural.

No, because that is not what 'energy' means. Science does not mean what you think it does when it speaks of 'energy'. I refer you to the multitude of other posts explaining this to you.

You do know that visible light is a very small part. Why even say that?

A very small part of what? Energy? Light is not energy. Sorry.

To you. Remember you share the planet with others.

To anyone. What one thinks does not make their claims any more valid. Only evidence.

I am not confused. While I have been told that they didn't mean what I thought, I have not been told what they did mean. Words like "strong and weak" they meant literally when talking about the nuclear forces, but when they used words like "capture and violates" they meant something else.

List those words which you do not know the meanings of and I will be all to happy to give you a scientific definition.

Well like I said, it takes all the things that are of great interest to life, and put them into an orderly square using the profile of the major players. And from that angle, they all fit.

No, because you have just made something up and then said "look, it fits!". I refer you to Belz...'s graph he made. It is every bit as meaningful as yours (i.e. not at all).

That may be, but if it exists it would have to touch science somewhere, and it would only work through the forces in order to be universal.

Of course. And since it hasn't, and not for a lack of looking, one can assume that it doesn't exist. Or, more accurately, it is hightly statistically improbably that it exists.

Of course not the way I say. It can't be that. How about a scientific assumption, which is more akin to a...
Give me a break.

You are being willfully ignorant. He has explained, time and again, why you are wrong about scientific assumptions, yet you choose to ignore him. Please don't be so dishonest.

I think someone told me the thing is wrong because electromagnetic radiation does not have those components. I think he is wrong.

And you have no evidence to back up your claim, while "he" does.

Canadian Malcontent

5th November 2006, 06:00 AM

Nonsense. Light can be expressed as a way in certain situations. It has the property of both a wave and a particle. Sound is just the osscolation of air (or whatever) molecules back and forth. While they can appear similar on the surface, they are completely different phenomenon and should never be considered the same.

Its quantum theory 5-6 yrs old now.
Photons are bundles of energy, nez pas?
What tie binds the little bundle?
Sound!

I suspect it will eventually be found that ALL mattter/energy is sound.

Although I will not deny troll-like sentiment within myself. I would like to point out that the collective intellect present here could be applied to encourage and further the trains of thought of even our wackiest posters ( me?).
To the end of knew knowledge for all, or realization for one, which is probably the usual. Nevertheless its afun trip.
But then maybe I am just a dumb guy boring people?

TobiasTheViking

5th November 2006, 06:09 AM

you never answered my question

what do you want to accomplish?

Canadian Malcontent

5th November 2006, 06:11 AM

Loss Leader

5th November 2006, 06:34 AM

That is what I can't get. How can everything be wrong?

The reason that every single one of your conclusions is wrong is because you have arrived at each and every one of them unreasonably. If you start with a faulty premise and do not follow a logical course from there, you are virtually guaranteed to be wrong. It is much, much more difficult to be right than to be wrong; it's not a matter of chance.

First, religious beliefs and physics are fundamentally connected. They were used to explain the workings behind life and the conditions for it long before science. Mostly wrong. I think.

What is your basis for saying that religion and physics are fundamentally connected? For that matter, what does "connected" even mean in this context, anyway?

You actually kind of answer me when you say that they were used to explain the workings behind life long before science. But physics IS science. How can physics have explained anything long before physics?

Then you make the extraordinary statement that those explanations were "mostly wrong." So religion explained the workings behind life mostly incorrectly and ancient physics explained the workings behind life mostly incorrectly but somehow that makes them fundamentally connected? How can two different answers, both of which were wrong, give us any information about whatever small part of each might have been right?

And why do you think that just because some beliefs are very, very old that this gives them some sort of legitimacy? People thought that the brain's only purpose was to cool the blood. They thought an excess of blood made Spaniards very passionate. These beliefs were old, widely held and completely wrong.

But as I pointed out the basic description of God matches energy, and the spirit world describes the invisible world of energy.

Actually, you have not pointed this out. You have stated it with no evidence. What exactly is it about the basic description of God that you believes matches the basic description of energy? What exact details of the spirit world are the same as the details about the world of energy?

Even more important, how do you know anything about God or the spirit world?

Now, if you say that you know about God because you know about energy and you can extrapolate that to God, you are not saying much. You are creating a tautology - God is like energy because energy is like God. That is a useless statement. You have to show an independent knowledge of the workings of God and of the spirit world.

Then, of course, you have to show a working knowledge of energy. I doubt you will be able to; you have shown not the slightest interest in learning how electrical energy really behaves.

In profiling the forces, I used the words that science used to define them. And they look to me, that they are using the same words to describe the interactions of particles as people do to describe social interactions.

It has been explained to you over and over that similarities in words across different fields is not evidence that the two things are equivalent. It is only evidence that humans describe new concepts using old and familiar words. I have written you long posts about this. Phrases like "looking forward to" borrow concepts of space to describe concepts of time. But there is nothing about the future that is "forward" or that can be looked at in any way.

Please read The Unfolding of Language by Guy Deutcher for a fantastic treatment of the phenomenon of language-building.

And the order of matter can easily be seen as a type of social system.

No, it cannot. I know it cannot because I don't see it as a social system at all. And you have routinely failed to explain how it is. Matter is subject to physical forces which it is not free to disobey. Matter has no hierarchy.

An individual alone in the wild will be eaten by lions. He bands together with fifty other individuals for their common defense. An atom of carbon is basically indestructible. It will be an atom of carbon no matter what happens for billions of years - it may even survive the explosion of the sun. When it bonds with other atoms, it does so based on forces which it cannot surmount and its relationship with those other atoms cannot change throughout the course of their bonding.

Now, if you say that humans are higher up some scale than atoms so they have more free will, you are creating a tautology. You have not shown that there is any scale to begin with so you cannot use the scale to justify the differences. You must first show some sort of similarity. Other than sharing some words that have vastly different meanings in sociology and physics - bonds, attraction, etc. - you have presented no evidence. And, as I have shown how the similarities in those words do NOT indicate a common conceptual meaning, your evidence is worthless.

I see plenty of base for energy being the order on which matter is written, and that it serves as the soul of life.

If you have any rational evidence for this proposition, you have not shared it in this forum.

And I said that logic is used by people-making it subjective.

No, you're wrong. Logic is not subjective. The fact that it is used by people does not make it subjective. Only the truth of a premise might be debatably subjective. But in a logical argument, f the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily follow. Your argument does not pass this test. Even if your premises are true, your conclusion is not necessarily true. That makes it utterly worthless.

wollery

5th November 2006, 07:06 AM

Of course it did. I thought someone said there was no connection.They are connected in the sense that at one time in the West science was only conducted under the auspices of the church, and a long way back in time science started as a philosophical search for truth, which was assumed to be that a god or gods created and ran the Universe. Other than that......

That is one description.All other descriptions render god naturalistic, and thus detectable, not omnipotent, omnipresent or all knowing. I.e. they render god less than godlike.

For a little while it was wide thought supernatural.At one time everything was thought supernatural. Now we know better.

You do know that visible light is a very small part. Why even say that?As an astrophysicist let me assure you that with the right detectors [b]no[/i] EM radiation is invisible. I can show you what the Galaxy looks like at any wavelength you like.

To you. Remember you share the planet with others.Many of whom also misunderstand how terms are used in science.

I am not confused. While I have been told that they didn't mean what I thought, I have not been told what they did mean. Words like "strong and weak" they meant literally when talking about the nuclear forces, but when they used words like "capture and violates" they meant something else.Captures refers to the interaction between neutrons and nuclei, where a neutron 'sticks to' or is 'caught by' the nucleus. Capture generally implies some sort of wrongdoing on the part of either the captive or the captor, which does not apply in this situation. Violate has several meanings, but the most common involve personal harm, such as rape or civil rights violations. In the sense it is used in particle physics it means not going by the rules as expected.

I said social like. Things orderly and purposefully interacting.Wow, how many societies do you know that are ordered and purposeful? We've been over this before, and frankly I can't be bothered this late in the evening.

Well like I said, it takes all the things that are of great interest to life, and put them into an orderly square using the profile of the major players. And from that angle, they all fit.And as has been pointed out it's possible to make any number of totally unrelated things 'fit' in such a manner. That they 'fit' indicates nothing more than correlation. But as any scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation.

I'll give you an example;

Did you know that the change in global average temperature is inversely proportional to the number of pirates around the world? It's absolutely true. So obviously the decline in the number of pirates is causing global warming. :rolleyes:

That may be, but if it exists it would have to touch science somewhere, and it would only work through the forces in order to be universal.:nope:

Belief can often led to knowledge. And it can happen sometimes whether or not the belief is wrong or right.Belief can sometimes lead to knowledge, but more often it is dedicated hard work and study under someone who knows far more than you that leads to knowledge.

Of course not the way I say. It can't be that. How about a scientific assumption, which is more akin to a...
Give me a break.Your assumptions are pure assumptions with no supporting evidence. That the soul exists, that there is a design to life. They are not scientific, since they are not extended from known facts.

I think someone told me the thing is wrong because electromagnetic radiation does not have those components. I think he is wrong.You are welcome to think that, but you would be wrong to do so.

Energy is the order behind matter.This has been covered ad nauseum.

Those things form informal teams whether you mean them or not. Look at how you all work to maintain a united front? When ones toe is stepped on, it apologies are exchanged quickly.There's no united front, we all just happen to agree on the validity and quality of your ideas. And yes, if I tell someone that they are wrong about sonething and they show me that they are, in fact, right I apologise. I believe that I've apologised to you at one point in this thread. It's called good manners.

Of course they wouldn't, they are tilted the other way. That is my point. But I'm not tilted one way or the other. Show me some evidence and I'll change my point of view. That's the very definition of unbiased.

You say it as if it has magic powers.No magic powers, just simple logical reasoning.

The thing is still going on.Let us know when you actually get somewhere.

Popularity is a good tool, but it can be wrong. As I pointed out before, when someone poles science for current thoughts, they are referred to what science currently widely accepted, then the minor views.But you aren't polling science, you are polling a few internet sites and one simplified reference book (according to your website).

nescafe

5th November 2006, 07:33 AM

Duh. Math says that they are the 4 basics, not the two, no matter what they do.
And yet again, the point (that just because we teach them to kids first does not mean that they are in any mathematical sense basic) goes zooming over your head.

When talking about the number system that most people are familiar with (integers, rationals and reals on an infinite number line):

Subtraction can be defined in terms of addition. Therefore, subtraction cannot be considered a "basic operation".
Example: (2 - 1 = 1) == (2 + (-1) = 1)

Multiplication can be defined in terms of addition, therefore multiplication is not a "basic operation".
Example: (2 * 4 = 8) == (2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8)

Division can be defined in terms subtraction, and therefore it can also be defined of in terms of addition, therefore it is not a "basic operation".
Example: (8 / 4 = 2) == (8 - 4 - 4 = 0) == (8 + (-4) + (-4) = 0)

Since 3 of these so-called basic operations (subtraction, multiplication, and division) can be defined of in terms of one of the others (addition), your statement that all four of these operations are "basic" is incorrect.

As I have also stated before, if you want to get to what is really basic in mathematics, you would do well to study Boolean logic and set theory.

RandFan

5th November 2006, 07:51 AM

Of course. Why should I think anything. Being perfectly wrong and all.This is just an emotional and rhetorical response.

And of course I would have to be the worst. I said nothing in 40 pages. Wait. Do me a favor, so me something that you said that had substance. I never said you were the worst. You're not. You are garden variety.

bruto

5th November 2006, 08:05 AM

¡Hay, Carramba! We're right back to the beginning about how words mean what they mean!

Light, do you really believe that back whenever it occurred that an electrician referred to a plug as "male" and a socket as "female," some principle of the universe was referenced or revealed? That this means anything about the nature of electricity or the metaphysics of electrical connectors? Words mean what we decide that they will, and only that, and imply what we decide they do, and only that. Scientists, technicians, specialists of all sorts, often choose words from the existing common vocabulary to describe something new because they provide a convenient analogy that makes the word easier to use than a brand new one. Words are recycled for economy and quick understanding, because people are very good at making analogies. But the analogy is something a person makes, not something that is inherent in the things themselves. People use words this way because they decide the analogy is useful for understanding and communication, not because they believe the analogy reveals a deep or underlying truth about things. It is a big big mistake, a fallacy and a foolishness, to infer more meaning in a word than the persons who coined it intended. Unintended implications or analogies are material for jokes, puns, ironies and poetry. They are not material for serious thought about the nature of things. We call a plug male and a socket female, simply because they have an obvious physical characteristic - a thing that sticks out sticks into a hole - that we coarse-minded mammals can understand without a glossary. When we do that, when anybody does that, when a scientist or an engineer or a computer programmer or a watchmaker or a philosopher or a tree surgeon or whatever, does that, with any word, it is at least implicit and often explicit in the decision to do that that the word does not share any of the emotional, social, political or philosophical implications that apply to its other uses. The word is redefined, and when it is redefined, it does not retain old connotations.

This is a very simple and fundamental concept. If you cannot grasp it, I really believe that it means you cannot grasp anything at all. If you cannot expunge it from your argument and your ideas, then it indelibly marks all those arguments and all those ideas as error based on error. Your apparently intractable inability to understand this one basic concept alone makes it impossible ever to consider any of the arguments based on it to be anything but the nonsensical ramblings of a lazy and misdirected mind.

trvlr2

5th November 2006, 08:05 AM

That's Wembley, my hometown, and Wembley Park would be a far better play! :p

:blush: My bad! AND, misspelled, to boot!(wot yer expect from a bleedin' colonial?)
Willesdale Junction, IMO, would have been better, now that I reconsider-it's handicap-accessible.:D

1500+ posts, we're still on the "graph"and the initial assertions, without a single stitch of evidence presented by LCL.
"it fits", so there!
Sentence structure has improved, but content has not.

Taffer is right-this left the rails about post 50, IMO.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8513454e0af8ebb09.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2418)

Taffer

5th November 2006, 08:19 AM

Its quantum theory 5-6 yrs old now.
Photons are bundles of energy, nez pas?
What tie binds the little bundle?
Sound!

Er, no.

RandFan

5th November 2006, 08:25 AM

Er, no. I thought Canadian was making a joke but I didn't get it.

Canadian, if you were not trying to make a joke then check out Quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) from wikipedia. I have no way of guaging how good the site represents the science but I can tell you the history pretty much spot on and the science seems to represent what I know of it.

wollery

5th November 2006, 08:44 AM

Taffer

5th November 2006, 09:34 AM

I thought Canadian was making a joke but I didn't get it.

If he was, then oops. :o

trvlr2

5th November 2006, 09:41 AM

Wollery-you have seen through my subterfuge and obfuscation.
Of course that is what I meant(Willesden).

Even if I was completely wrong, you still understood what I meant.
I am only using the same ploys as LCL.

However, I see that I am up against ruthless,cunning masters of the game,and admit total defeat.

(LCL-See how it is done?)

bruto

5th November 2006, 10:41 AM

:blush: My bad! AND, misspelled, to boot!(wot yer expect from a bleedin' colonial?)
Willesdale Junction, IMO, would have been better, now that I reconsider-it's handicap-accessible.:D

1500+ posts, we're still on the "graph"and the initial assertions, without a single stitch of evidence presented by LCL.
"it fits", so there!
Sentence structure has improved, but content has not.

Taffer is right-this left the rails about post 50, IMO.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8513454e0af8ebb09.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2418)

We've ranted and railed, but this thread has never had any other rail except by analogy, and a cheap one at that.

Belz...

5th November 2006, 12:59 PM

That is what I can't get. How can everything be wrong?

Because you started with a bas premise, trying to explain things you didn't understand and saying it in the wrong way. See ?

But as I pointed out the basic description of God matches energy, and the spirit world describes the invisible world of energy.

No, they don't. Just because you can see similarities doesn't mean they are the same or that they are -- in any way, shape or form -- related.

In profiling the forces, I used the words that science used to define them.

And we have shown why that statement is false.

I see plenty of base for energy being the order on which matter is written, and that it serves as the soul of life.

Inconsistent with your assertion that matter and energy are the same. Also, assumes the existence of the soul. I'm still waiting for the evidence.

You can't follow that? Of course not, there is no soul. But plenty of other rational people think there is. Oh wait. I can do that. I would be appealing to popularity. But the most popular view here is that there isn't.

No, the most reasonable one is. Because of the lack of evidence. You know, proof. The thing scientists use to show that their theories are correct. The thing that you don't have.

Scientist, like the rest of us, do. And I said that logic is used by people-making it subjective.

No, it doesn't. Logic isn't subjective because it's used by people. It's a TOOL designed to remove the subjective. Don't you understand anything people tell you ?

You are part of a forum team, or something like that. You said that this is what you do. You even have codes for certain types of actions. Someone here talked about "we use recipes when..." Now excuse me, but some of that looks agenda like. You have like mind in the athiest thing. A very strong point of view. You think you would be choosen for an unbiased jury on the subject? Give me a break.

You are a coward and a liar, Light. You've lied at least twice when you said you didn't think we had an agenda. Your word carries NO credibility whatsoever. And no one is EVER going to be convinced by what you say if you interpret their doubt as a deliberate, dogmatic reaction to your ideas.

Despicable.

But somehow you have never anywhere found anything credible? Athiesm is the truth of the matter. All else is wrong.

Don't turn this into a religious issue. Stop making it a "you vs us" thing. Either show your logic and your evidence, accept that of others, or leave.

"We are in a ... " "our tactics" this isn't a team?

No, it's the 1st person, plural. It refers to a group of people, whether or not they are related.

For example, if one person says "hi" to me and I answer "hi", WE said "hi", but WE are not a team. I'm sure even you can understand THAT example.

I think that is why you use recipes, you can't not reply so you put something. And I only say I won if my idea didn't take a major hit, and it didn't. After all, you all said that it can't be falsified. So how did you destroy it?

"Unfalsifiable" means it cannot be proven wrong, logically. Do you know what that means ? EVERY scientific theory ever brought forth was falsifiable. That it was proven true or not is irrelevant: it COULD be proven false. If your theory CANNOT be proven false in principle, then it does not have any merit, because it is immune to logic.

I guess you could say that a theory that cannot be proven false is necessarily false.

As I have said, I am glad. Swords are sharpened on grindstones.
The sharpening has taken place in places away from the graph.

You have shown no signs of sharpening.

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:12 PM

Duh. Math says that they are the 4 basics, not the two, no matter what they do.

I feel sorry for you. It seems you suffer from an affliction that prevents you from forming long-term memories. Specifically, this has been explained to you more than once, and you have failed to remember it. I say this, because no one could possibly not understand that:

( 2 x 6 = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 )

Energy is the order behind matter.

Please show that energy is order.

It determines how matter looks and behaves.

Speculation. We've been through this.

Life is made up of matter.

Granted.

Energy is the order behind how life behaves.

Non sequitur. See: table salt.

For a little while [energy] was wide thought supernatural.

But it isn't.

How it looks to you is irrelevant.

To you. Remember you share the planet with others.

Contradiction. He pointed out that your comment was subjective, and now you react as though he is beign subjective by saying it's irrelevant TO HIM. Which is it ?

Well like I said, it takes all the things that are of great interest to life, and put them into an orderly square using the profile of the major players. And from that angle, they all fit.

That paragraph pretty much sums up the phrase "nonsensical".

Belief can often led to knowledge.

No, it cannot.

Those things form informal teams whether you mean them or not. Look at how you all work to maintain a united front? When ones toe is stepped on, it apologies are exchanged quickly.

Coward and liar.

Popularity is a good tool, but it can be wrong. As I pointed out before, when someone poles science for current thoughts, they are referred to what science currently widely accepted, then the minor views.

False equivocation.

Religious beliefs and physics were fundamentally connected. Physics left religion behind several hundred years ago.

And religion stayed there.

Belz...

5th November 2006, 01:23 PM

An atom of carbon is basically indestructible

I do believe the electrons are expelled from the atom around 10,000 K; and, if I remember correctly, carbon fusion begins around 700 million K, forming magnesium and such. At much higher temperatures, the strong nuclear force may be negated and the whole thing falls apart. [/nitpick]

Loss Leader

5th November 2006, 01:46 PM

I do believe the electrons are expelled from the atom around 10,000 K; and, if I remember correctly, carbon fusion begins around 700 million K, forming magnesium and such. At much higher temperatures, the strong nuclear force may be negated and the whole thing falls apart. [/nitpick]

I said "basically" indestructable and that a carbon atom "may" survive the explosion of the sun. I never meant to imply that atoms are eternal - just very, very, very long-lived. In any event, bonding with other atoms to form a molecule would not increase carbon's chance of survival as an atom. This was my main point - that atoms do not group together for self-preservation like people do. Thus, atoms do not interact in any sort of social system as some might think they do.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 06:35 PM

¡Hay, Carramba! We're right back to the beginning about how words mean what they mean!

This is a very simple and fundamental concept. If you cannot grasp it, I really believe that it means you cannot grasp anything at all. If you cannot expunge it from your argument and your ideas, then it indelibly marks all those arguments and all those ideas as error based on error. Your apparently intractable inability to understand this one basic concept alone makes it impossible ever to consider any of the arguments based on it to be anything but the nonsensical ramblings of a lazy and misdirected mind.
I am not using analogies to connect the things in the center box. That is only a coincidence that they line up like that. I reworked the center box to say that those things are there because they best represent the soul. I will look, and probably find a connection later-because I believe that there is one.
As for profiling the nuclear forces, "weak and strong" were used to describe the strength of the two in relation to each other. The words are used the same way anyone else would. The words that I listed as how science describes the interaction of them like "capture and violates" are also used the same way anyone else would. Something is aquired, held, or something crosses some type of boundary.

zizzybaluba

5th November 2006, 06:45 PM

Are you appealing to popularity?

Nice try. I was responding to (bolding mine)

You think you could have handled something like that? Oh wait. We already know the answer to that. NO.

Unless you were trying to use the royal 'we', that 'we' should have been an I

Hello. The guy said he came here to derail the thing, then tried to get it moved.

Solus did that because you insulted him; he was angry and I can't say I blame him.

And you called me a mental case. What do you want me to do?
Me? As I've said before, I'd like you to see a doctor.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 06:52 PM

I feel sorry for you. It seems you suffer from an affliction that prevents you from forming long-term memories. Specifically, this has been explained to you more than once, and you have failed to remember it. I say this, because no one could possibly not understand that:

( 2 x 6 = 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 )
Why do you keep showing me this? I fully understand that multiplication is quick addition. Duh. But they are separate operations. I didn't make them that way. If I want someone to multiply, I would have to use that sign. I could just tell him to add a whole bunch. But since there is multiplication, I would tell him to do that.

Please show that energy is order.
It holds matter together. Would there be matter if energy were not holding it together?

Contradiction. He pointed out that your comment was subjective, and now you react as though he is beign subjective by saying it's irrelevant TO HIM. Which is it ?
Duh. That is what I said.

Coward and liar.
Then you must be the same.

And religion stayed there.
Fine. I never said they didn't. But I am not as mad at it as others are.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 06:58 PM

Solus did that because you insulted him; he was angry and I can't say I blame him.
He insulted me first. Said he only came to derail the thing, and more. I think you may have blinders on.

Me? As I've said before, I'd like you to see a doctor.
And I think you should concentrate on fixing your own broken mental hardware.

Loss Leader

5th November 2006, 07:08 PM

It holds matter together. Would there be matter if energy were not holding it together?

What is your source for your statement that energy holds matter together? And I thought you said matter and energy were two forms of the same thing. In that case how can one same thing hold the other same thing together?

Would there be matter if energy were not holding it together? I say yes. The answer is yes.

zizzybaluba

5th November 2006, 07:20 PM

And I think you should concentrate on fixing your own broken mental hardware.

Now that was rather uncouth. In addition to being a terminal ignoramus, you seem to have the social graces of a pig in slop.

RandFan

5th November 2006, 07:27 PM

But they are separate operations. I didn't make them that way. If I want someone to multiply, I would have to use that sign. I could just tell him to add a whole bunch. But since there is multiplication, I would tell him to do that.
How is 2 x 6 fundamentally different than 2+2+2+2+2+2

2 x 6 is six 2's what praytell is the difference? How is it fundamentally different than 12 x .5 or 24

You are giving meaning to the notion that they are fundamentally different but you can't tell us why. If we end up with the same result then how can addition and subtraction be relevant to your point?

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 07:32 PM

How is 2 x 6 fundamentally different than 2+2+2+2+2+2

2 x 6 is six 2's what praytell is the difference? How is it fundamentally different than 12 x .5 or 24

You are giving meaning to the notion that they are fundamentally different but you can't tell us why. If we end up with the same result then how can addition and subtraction be relevant to your point?
What the hell? Who said that the two were fundamentally different? I said that they are taught as the four basic operations of math. They are.

wollery

5th November 2006, 07:33 PM

RandFan

5th November 2006, 07:37 PM

What the hell? Who said that the two were fundamentally different? I said that they are taught as the four basic operations of math. They are. So what if they are the four basic operations of math? If they are not fundamentaly different then what pray tell is the point?

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 07:43 PM

Now that was rather uncouth. In addition to being a terminal ignoramus, you seem to have the social graces of a pig in slop.
Now didn't you say I should see a doctor first? Haven't you benn raining me with "uncouth?" Somehow you seem to think that I should not respond. Even though I usually don't. Here is some advice. "If you can't take it, don't dish it out."

bruto

5th November 2006, 07:50 PM

What the hell? Who said that the two were fundamentally different? It would appear that you did....Look at how the characteristics match the players. The four signs of math could be read to relate to the forces: (x) binding together, the division sign showing the break down work the weak force does, (-) for gravity, and (+) showing the duelism of electromagnetism.(from http://www.inthemath.com) At least it would appear that "binding together" and the "duelism[sic] of electromagnetism" sound pretty fundamentally different. I said that they are taught as the four basic operations of math. They are. Yes, they are taught, in grade school, as the four basic operations of arithmetic. At the level involved here, there is no intention to represent them as the fundamental or underlying principles of mathematics. They don't teach that in grade school. They teach the practical skills of basic arithmetic. There's a difference.

wollery

5th November 2006, 08:00 PM

LCL, I see that you have been updating your site.

The Weak Nuclear Force
I s a short range force responsible for radioactive decay.Nope. The WNF is only responsible for beta decay. Gamma decay is an EM effect and alpha decay is moderated by the SNF

The Strong Nuclear Force
It a short range force and it holds atoms together. Science has changed the words "nuclear" to interactions but everything else stayed the same.That second sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Electromagnetic force Is the long range force of attraction and repulsion.No it isn't. Electric charges can attract or repel each other. Magnetic dipoles can align to either attract or repel each other. EM radiation carries neither charge nor a magnetic dipole.

It is the force that most directly effects life,Highly arguable. Gravity is pretty damned important.

it plays a very visible role in the form of light. Tautology.

Light is electromagnetic radiation, and
electromagnetism plays is at the base of how we think, and feel.Bald assertion, no evidence, but we've been over this so many times.....

The key to seeing the part it plays is to know that it is 1 force, made up of 2 parts. :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 08:06 PM

So what if they are the four basic operations of math? If they are not fundamentaly different then what pray tell is the point?
That there are four basic operations of math. All that effort and time and you still did not really say it. That is the point I am trying to make about an agenda. Especially in view of the fact that everything I say is wrong. Since you know that to be true, you just have to find out how. That I don't understand. Right is right. Information should freely flow. Impede it, divert it, and it "seems" something is going on. Of course if you viewed it from the moon, yes, it does look different. But I didn't say from the moon. To me the sudden use of the words "fundamentally different" is to take the question to a place where what you say is right.

zizzybaluba

5th November 2006, 08:11 PM

Now didn't you say I should see a doctor first? Haven't you benn raining me with "uncouth?" Somehow you seem to think that I should not respond. Even though I usually don't. Here is some advice. "If you can't take it, don't dish it out."

You've shown plenty of evidence that you are in need of mental help. Tell me what I have said that makes you doubt my sanity.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 08:46 PM

You've shown plenty of evidence that you are in need of mental help. Tell me what I have said that makes you doubt my sanity.
Your statement right here will do. Somehow you are under the illusion that an idea different from your own is insanity. I have done nothing here for anybody to doubt my sanity or my education, yet somehow you feel so "righteous" that you think that you can call someone a name that you don't want directed at you. Haven't anyone ever told you that it is not nice? Read the heading of this forum. It says "lively and friendly." Oh wait. Maybe that does not apply to you. Why is that?

TobiasTheViking

5th November 2006, 08:55 PM

Could you please answer..

What do you want to accomplish.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 09:01 PM

LCL, I see that you have been updating your site.

Nope. The WNF is only responsible for beta decay. Gamma decay is an EM effect and alpha decay is moderated by the SNF

No it isn't. Electric charges can attract or repel each other. Magnetic dipoles can align to either attract or repel each other. EM radiation carries neither charge nor a magnetic dipole.

Highly arguable. Gravity is pretty damned important.
Thank you. I will fix it.

Bald assertion, no evidence, but we've been over this so many times.....
I am working on finding evidence.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 09:38 PM

Why do you keep showing me this? I fully understand that multiplication is quick addition. Duh. But they are separate operations. I didn't make them that way. If I want someone to multiply, I would have to use that sign. I could just tell him to add a whole bunch. But since there is multiplication, I would tell him to do that.

Because we explain, and you admit, that multiplication and division are the same as addition and subtraction (in fundamental ways, obviously), but then go on to say they are different as a part of your whole argument.

It holds matter together. Would there be matter if energy were not holding it together?

No, it doesn't. Forces do. Energy doesn't exist as an actual entity, it is a measure of force (or rather, a measure of the force potential).[/QUOTE]

RandFan

5th November 2006, 09:46 PM

That there are four basic operations of math. Non-answer

All that effort and time and you still did not really say it.I asked a question. You did not answer it.

That is the point I am trying to make about an agenda. Especially in view of the fact that everything I say is wrong. Since you know that to be true, you just have to find out how. That I don't understand. Right is right. Information should freely flow. Impede it, divert it, and it "seems" something is going on. Of course if you viewed it from the moon, yes, it does look different. But I didn't say from the moon. To me the sudden use of the words "fundamentally different" is to take the question to a place where what you say is right. The question was relatively simple. You did not answer it.

zizzybaluba

5th November 2006, 09:55 PM

Your statement right here will do. Somehow you are under the illusion that an idea different from your own is insanity. I have done nothing here for anybody to doubt my sanity or my education, yet somehow you feel so "righteous" that you think that you can call someone a name that you don't want directed at you.
You are incorrect.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 10:04 PM

Because we explain, and you admit, that multiplication and division are the same as addition and subtraction (in fundamental ways, obviously), but then go on to say they are different as a part of your whole argument.
They can't be fundamentally the same, but different? All life is fundamentally carbon based, but aren't lifeforms different?

No, it doesn't. Forces do. Energy doesn't exist as an actual entity, it is a measure of force (or rather, a measure of the force potential).Fine. You know the word energy is thrown around like that.

Taffer

5th November 2006, 10:15 PM

They can't be fundamentally the same, but different? All life is fundamentally carbon based, but aren't lifeforms different?

No, they can't be "fundamentally the same but different". Either they are the same, or they aren't.

And on the atomic level, all life is the same. That is why we call it 'carbon based'.

Fine. You know the word energy is thrown around like that.

Yes, I do know. And pretty much your entire argument is based upon a misunderstanding of the term 'energy'.

lightcreatedlife@hom

5th November 2006, 10:22 PM

It would appear that you did.... At least it would appear that "binding together" and the "duelism[sic] of electromagnetism"
sound pretty fundamentally different.
I hate saying things I didn't mean to say. Okay. Let me get out of this.
There are four basic operations of math. Addition and multiplication are about the same, but they are not the same, otherwise, there would only be one of them. They have fundamental differences in regard to "0" and "1" so they can't always be used in place of each other.

Yes, they are taught, in grade school, as the four basic operations of arithmetic. At the level involved here, there is no intention to represent them as the fundamental or underlying principles of mathematics. They don't teach that in grade school. They teach the practical skills of basic arithmetic. There's a difference.
The words are different, so there must be a difference between them. But. Can math be done without using one of the 4 basic operations of arithmetic? I mean, even in logic, things are added and subtracted. And I just found this article about the "mathematics behind thought."

zizzybaluba

5th November 2006, 10:25 PM

There are four basic operations of math. Addition and multiplication are about the same, but they are not the same, otherwise, there would only be one of them. They have fundamental differences in regard to "0" and "1" so they can't always be used in place of each other.

Please name an instance where one arithmetic operator cannot be used in place of another.

TobiasTheViking

5th November 2006, 10:46 PM

Taffer

5th November 2006, 10:48 PM

Belz...

6th November 2006, 04:57 AM

I am not using analogies to connect the things in the center box. That is only a coincidence that they line up like that.

Oh, so they don't "fit" ?

I reworked the center box to say that those things are there because they best represent the soul.

The what ?

As for profiling the nuclear forces, "weak and strong" were used to describe the strength of the two in relation to each other.

No, again you misunderstand the words used in those terms.

I fully understand that multiplication is quick addition. Duh.

Do you now ? Let's see the rest of that paragraph :

But they are separate operations.

How can you contradict yourself in two successive sentences like this ? If multiplication is addition, as you've admitted, then they are not separate.

I could just tell him to add a whole bunch. But since there is multiplication, I would tell him to do that.

But that's the point, Light. "x" is just a different way to write "+", get it ? It's the same thing. Ergo they are NOT different, ergo there AREN'T 4 basic operations.

It holds matter together.

Is a policeman order ? Of course not. Energy isn't "order", althought it is involved in it.

Would there be matter if energy were not holding it together?

Er.. yes.

Duh. That is what I said.

No, liar. You completely misunderstood what "subjective" meant, and I've called you on it.

Coward and liar.

Then you must be the same.

Gosh, you wouldn't last long in a flame war.

Show me where I've lied. Good luck.

He insulted me first.

"BUT MOM!!"

That there are four basic operations of math. All that effort and time and you still did not really say it. That is the point I am trying to make about an agenda.

Coward and liar, Light.

Especially in view of the fact that everything I say is wrong.

No, you did get one or two points right, so far.

Somehow you are under the illusion that an idea different from your own is insanity.

No, but your inability to learn, your short attention span and your penchant for believing that your opponents form a vast and tightly-knit conspiracy to deny you your glorious scientific revolution borders on schizophrenia.

Belz...

6th November 2006, 05:00 AM

I am working on finding evidence.

How ? You don't know the first thing about logic or science. How are you going to accomplish anything ?

They can't be fundamentally the same, but different?

No.

All life is fundamentally carbon based, but aren't lifeforms different?

You're adding the word "fundamentally" there for no reason.

Addition and multiplication are about the same, but they are not the same, otherwise, there would only be one of them.

No. You are wrong. Multiplication exists to simplify how we write formulas.

The words are different, so there must be a difference between them.

Again, you misunderstand how language works. I do believe this was explained to you, more than once.

I mean, even in logic, things are added and subtracted.

No.

TobiasTheViking

6th November 2006, 05:20 AM

i think it is amusing that i've one of the people who have attacked you the least and been mean to you the least, and it is me you choose to ignore.

Is it just because you can't handle to actually be forced to answer the questions?

What do you want?

bruto

6th November 2006, 07:48 AM

I hate saying things I didn't mean to say. Okay. Let me get out of this.
There are four basic operations of math. Addition and multiplication are about the same, but they are not the same, otherwise, there would only be one of them. They have fundamental differences in regard to "0" and "1" so they can't always be used in place of each other.

There are four basic operations of arithmetic, which are basic because of the order in which they are taught and the uses commonly found for mathematics in daily life. This does not necessarily mean that there are four basic principles underlying mathematics, and it certainly does not mean that the four "basic operations" embody the most important principles of mathematics or that the enumeration of those principles constitutes those four operations. If you can come up with some real mathematical theory that contends that these four operations are the four differentiated root principles of mathematics, then do so. They are simply techniques for performing arithmetic. There's no reason, for example, why you should stick to four, except for the fact that these are the four that are taught as basic. A good argument could be made, for example, that if addition and multiplication are sufficiently different to be considered two separate principles, then exponentiation should be a separate principle too. I hope you're good at drawing diagrams with five sides instead of four.

Of course multiplication and addition are not exactly the same. They are different methods of doing something, and as such not all the procedural rules that apply to one can be applied to the other. It's a big big stretch to suggest from that that they denote some ontological difference, or describe discrepant universal properties, as you do. Things that are "about the same" are...well, they're about the same, right? How much the same do things have to be before you will acknowledge that they're not different enough to be considered opposing or differing universal principles?

I'm not sure what you consider to be the "fundamental differences in regard to '0' and '1'. " Can you elaborate in a way that truly distinguishes between addition and multiplication, in a way that cannot be paraphrased by reference to addition or counting? Of course, there is a difference between "1+0" and "1 x 0." "1+0" says that I take one and add nothing to it. "1 x 0" says that I do not take one at all. If you're used to the arithmetic of grade school, these operations might seem fundamentally different, because you are not taught to think in terms of having "taken 1" as an initial step in the first addition. But a failing in the way arithmetic is taught, or commonly notated, is not an argument for the properties of mathematics, is it? Addition is an operation that refers to actual things or instances and the way they are counted. It's too bad in a way that children are not taught to think in terms of stack arithmetic, but they're not. "1+1" says I take one pebble, put it in the pile to be counted, and then put another in. Both pebbles are operated upon, put into a stack. Our common notation starts at the stack and ignores how the first pebble got into it. "1+0" says I take one pebble, put it in the pile and then do not add another. "1 x 1" says I take one pebble and put it in the pile, and then count how many instances of stacking have occurred to arrive at the total number of pebbles in the stack. "1 x 0" says I put one pebble into the pile no times at all, and arrive at a total based on the number of times I have performed the operation (which is, of course, no times at all).

The words are different, so there must be a difference between them. But. Can math be done without using one of the 4 basic operations of arithmetic? I mean, even in logic, things are added and subtracted. And I just found this article about the "mathematics behind thought."Logical subtraction, like mathematical subtraction, is an "and not" that can be as easily thought of as an addition. Math can indeed be done without using all 4 basic operations of arithmetic. Computers do it all the time. You must not have been paying attention, since this has been covered before. Any multiplication can be performed as a series of successive additions. If I have five bags of beans and I add up all the beans in them, I find I have 25 beans. That's addition. If I want to perform the addition more quickly and efficiently without dumping out the beans, I count the bags instead of the beans. That's multiplication. I've still counted the beans and added them up; I just counted them in groups, inferring the number of beans in each bag. The ability to work with groups is certainly a powerful and useful concept in mathematics, but it is not the same thing as saying there's a fundamental difference between addition and multiplication, which really are different ways of accomplishing the same task.* When I reach into my tool box I find socket wrenches and open end wrenches and box wrenches and adjustable wrenches. Yes, they're different enough to have different names, and different optimal uses, but they're all wrenches.

*edited to add: in fact, if you consider the power and implication of the idea of working with groups, you could easily argue that the properties of sets are a much more fundamental principle of mathematics than the routine arithmetical operations by which the members and non-members of sets are counted. So maybe you shouldn't bone up on your pentagonal graphs just yet, but try to figure out how to fit your theory into Venn diagrams!

Anacoluthon64

6th November 2006, 08:01 AM

In Group Theory the nature of an operator is left almost completely open. All it has to do is meet certain criteria in relation to its operands in order to qualify. Therefore, there's no such thing as a "basic" or "most basic" operation. This fact makes lightcreatedlife@hom's assertions about the arithmetic operators so ridiculous, and I'm surprised no one has pointed this out to him yet - if someone has, I apologise for my oversight in this regard, but I've little desire to wade through 1,500+ posts.

'Luthon64

Loss Leader

6th November 2006, 08:56 AM

Anacoluthon64

6th November 2006, 09:20 AM

Belz...

6th November 2006, 09:30 AM

Loss Leader

6th November 2006, 09:36 AM

Er, not quite. I think what you mean is that a computer built on this basis is conceivable, just as one built only of NAND gates is, but that does not mean that they are thus. The operations are reduced to algorithmic sequences of simple bitwise operations such as not, and, (exclusive) or, (left or right) shift, and so on.

This is what I get for making statements outside my field. So, I'll just ask it as a question:

In the most basic sense - more basic than any programming language or operating system - how does a computer do whatever it does? I know our computers are "binary" but how does that cause a computer to multiply or find square roots or spell-check a document?

Could a sufficiently large Babbage Difference Engine (made of indestructable parts that can withstand massive torque etc.) do what an Altair or a TRS80 or a current computer can do?

RandFan

6th November 2006, 09:46 AM

In the most basic sense - more basic than any programming language or operating system - how does a computer do whatever it does? I know our computers are "binary" but how does that cause a computer to multiply or find square root... Please see Mathematical Operations (in Binary) (http://library.thinkquest.org/25111/binmath.shtml) for a simple explanation.

I less than three logic

6th November 2006, 09:54 AM

Duh. Math says that they are the 4 basics, not the two, no matter what they do.
Who is Math, and why do you put so much credit into what he/she says? On a similar note, is Math a friend of Science as well as yourself? Can you invite them to the board? I’d like to see what Math and Science have to say for themselves, not your second hand hearsay on the matter.

zizzybaluba

6th November 2006, 10:14 AM

In the most basic sense - more basic than any programming language or operating system - how does a computer do whatever it does? I know our computers are "binary" but how does that cause a computer to multiply or find square roots or spell-check a document?

That's a fair enough question.
At a low enough level, the only arithmetic operations a processor built from logic gates is capable of is addition and division/multiplication by two (left and right bit shifting).

To perform multiplication, addition is performed repeatedly.
To find a square root, an algorithm that distills square root finding down to arithmetic steps is used (often in combination with a lookup table).
Spell checking is quite another matter entirely. If you were to look at what's going on in a processor while it performs a spell check, none of what it does would be recognizable as spell checking. Sort of like if you looked at a gear in a watch with a magnifying glass, what would see wouldn't show you the current time.

nescafe

6th November 2006, 10:22 AM

In the most basic sense - more basic than any programming language or operating system - how does a computer do whatever it does?
Because it is (almost*) a Universal Turing Machine (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-machine/), and is therefore capable of computing any mathematical function which can be precisely described. Every program is, in essence, an extremly complicated mathematical formula described by a long sequence of very basic instructions which your computer executes.

I know our computers are "binary" but how does that cause a computer to multiply or find square roots or spell-check a document?
Whether or not our computers are binary does not make a difference in the sorts of tasks it can perform -- our computers are binary because binary arithmetic and logic are easy to represent and implement. When you computer multiplies two numbers, takes a square root, or spell-checks a document it is just following the instructions that tell it how to do these things.

Could a sufficiently large Babbage Difference Engine (made of indestructable parts that can withstand massive torque etc.) do what an Altair or a TRS80 or a current computer can do?
Yes. The only hard limitation is how much memory your Difference Engine has, and how long you are willing to wait for it to do whatever it is you tell it to do. :)

for it to really be a Universal Turing Machine, it would have to have infinite memory. If you have such a computer, I will happily take it off your hands.

Loss Leader

6th November 2006, 10:22 AM

That's a fair enough question.
At a low enough level, the only arithmetic operations a processor built from logic gates is capable of is addition and division/multiplication by two (left and right bit shifting).

Thanks to you and Randfan for the information. I wish I actually understood it. However, it appears to support my initial statement that all computers do, at their most basic level of operation, is add (or notice differences, which I submit is the same thing). This, to me, bolsters the position that there is nothing "basic" about the so-called four basic operations in math. Everything can be done by addition, LCL is wrong, the world keeps turning.

RandFan

6th November 2006, 12:41 PM

However, it appears to support my initial statement that all computers do, at their most basic level of operation, is add (or notice differences, which I submit is the same thing). Yes, I agree.

From the link:

One thing that all computers can do is add. Other operations do not need to be implemented, since all operations can be expressed in terms of addition: subtraction is the same as adding a negative number, multiplication is the result of multiple additions, and division is the result of multiple subtractions. FWIW, many operations are the results of look up tables. This isn't necessary it's just a way to speed up performance. In other words the computer doesn't perform a mathematical calculation but instead searches a database for the answer.

Note: I've not kept up with computer hardware design since the late 90's so this might no longer be correct.

Loss Leader

6th November 2006, 01:31 PM

FWIW, many operations are the results of look up tables.

If anything, I'd imagine the use of look-up tables has increased as memory has gotten cheaper and cheaper.

lightcreatedlife@hom

6th November 2006, 02:54 PM

No, they can't be "fundamentally the same but different". Either they are the same, or they aren't.
Does that mean that energy and matter are the same?

And on the atomic level, all life is the same. That is why we call it 'carbon based'.
Yes, but since we can see differences, they are considered different.

Yes, I do know. And pretty much your entire argument is based upon a misunderstanding of the term 'energy'.
Ouch.

Taffer

6th November 2006, 04:20 PM

Does that mean that energy and matter are the same?

No. I never said they were, did I? They are not considered "fundamentally the same".

Yes, but since we can see differences, they are considered different.

No, they aren't. You are quite wrong about this.

RandFan

6th November 2006, 07:19 PM

If anything, I'd imagine the use of look-up tables has increased as memory has gotten cheaper and cheaper.Well, actually the tables are encoded in the registers of the CPU or the FPU as it were but it is basically the same thing. The technology that allows for cheaper memory allows for cheaper FPU registers which is in a way memory. So perhaps I'm just being pedantic. :o

RandFan

6th November 2006, 07:28 PM

Ouch. Oy vey. :rolleyes:

Loss Leader

6th November 2006, 08:28 PM

Well, actually the tables are encoded in the registers of the CPU or the FPU as it were but it is basically the same thing. The technology that allows for cheaper memory allows for cheaper FPU registers which is in a way memory. So perhaps I'm just being pedantic. :o

Thank you for arguing with yourself and saving me the trouble. FWIW, I have no idea how such look-up tables are encoded and I was just guessing that they had to be stored in some type of memory somewhere in the computer. But I never even considered that any sort of "memory" exists on the CPU itself.

RandFan

6th November 2006, 09:18 PM

Thank you for arguing with yourself and saving me the trouble. FWIW, I have no idea how such look-up tables are encoded and I was just guessing that they had to be stored in some type of memory somewhere in the computer. But I never even considered that any sort of "memory" exists on the CPU itself. The simplest component in a computer is a logic gate. The gates in a binary computer have two states, on and off. Instructions are just a series of on off switches. CPU's store the instructions that tell the processor how to function and how to perform tasks like math and other standard functions using these gates (known as registers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_register) on the CPU or FPU) however these are permanently set and they don't ever change states (it is possible to update the instructions of some specialized processors but that's another post). The gates in the CPU that contain the memory are non-volatile or ROM (read only memory).

The gates in what we typically call "memory" is volatile memory RAM (random accessible memory). The switches can be changed. To be clear, the collections of gates that store encoded instructions on the CPU, floppy disk, CD, hard drive and other media is memory.

Sorry, it's a favorite subject of mine and as always, I'm not an expert. Results may vary.

Anacoluthon64

7th November 2006, 01:24 AM

Thanks to RandFan, zizzybaluba and nescafe for providing very good answers to Loss Leader's questions about the low-level operating details of computers.

I suspect that one of the essential problems in this context is that people tend to think of computers as machines that can perform arithmetical computations. Certainly, they can do that (very well, in fact), but a computer is actually a somewhat more general beast than a sophisticated programmable calculator. It is a symbol-manipulating machine. The meaning of the bits, bytes, machine words, etc., and the operations it performs are ultimately a matter of interpretation.

For example, a binary addition of two machine words (think of them as integers with a fixed number of digits) can be accomplished algorithmically with the exclusive or (xor), left shift (shl) and the and (and) bitwise operators - a different, hardware, implementation is illustrated here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electronic/fulladd.html). Now, the xor and the and operations have no direct equivalent in ordinary arithmetic, while the shl operation can be likened to multiplication by an integer power of 2 (the radix of binary represenation), just as in ordinary arithmetic multiplication by an integer power of 10 is done simply by appending an appropriate number of zeroes (more generally, shifting the decimal point). Each of these operations is relatively easy to implement using a suitable arrangement of simple logic gates, which are akin to on/off switches with their own inputs, outputs and fixed rules of operation.

By extension, multiplication is usually accomplished by a sequence of left shifts and additions, not simply repeated additions as suggested elsewhere. Subtraction involves additions and a bitwise not operation. Division involves a sequence of left shifts and subtractions.

The modern digital computer's CPU has subunits that are dedicated to performing certain types of operation. Thus, among several others, the arithmetic logic unit (ALU) does simple integer arithmetic and logical operations, the address generation unit (AGU) can also do a much simpler subset of arithmetic operations usually for addressing memory (e.g. a multiplication by 1, 2, 4 or 8, followed by an addition, all in a single operation), and the floating point unit works with the computer's version of real numbers.

'Luthon64

Taffer

7th November 2006, 01:59 AM

Computers could be thought of as giant logic engines.

Anacoluthon64

7th November 2006, 03:17 AM

Computers could be thought of as giant logic engines.Unlike... oh, never mind.

'Luthon64

Taffer

7th November 2006, 04:00 AM

Unlike... oh, never mind.

'Luthon64

Heh. I guess I could have made it a bit clearer that I was expanding on your explanation. Oh well. :D

Anacoluthon64

7th November 2006, 04:25 AM

Heh. I guess I could have made it a bit clearer that I was expanding on your explanation. Oh well. :DJust as I could have been perhaps a bit clearer that I was about to pass a pointed remark aimed at the progenitor of this fiasco of a thread.

:blush:

'Luthon64

Loss Leader

7th November 2006, 05:29 AM

The modern digital computer's CPU has subunits that are dedicated to performing certain types of operation.

My next question is how all this stuff gets on the CPU or FPU. Does an individual human have to sit down and design all the logic gates for a new piece of computer hardware? Or can we now just tell computers to design what we want and trust that the schematic they create will work? Either one seems endlessly complicated to me.

Anacoluthon64

7th November 2006, 06:19 AM

My next question is how all this stuff gets on the CPU or FPU. Does an individual human have to sit down and design all the logic gates for a new piece of computer hardware? Or can we now just tell computers to design what we want and trust that the schematic they create will work? Either one seems endlessly complicated to me.As in most such technically advanced endeavours, there are several levels of design. There is the overall architecture, as in how the subunits fit together, how many there are, and how they interact. Then there are the individual subunits themselves consisting of smaller components such as different types of logic gates connected in particular ways. Many of these have gone through several design and implementation iterations with improvements accumulating along the way. New subunits, e.g. the trace cache on the P4, are usually designed and developed pretty much in isolation but with a detailed functional specification, of course. Then there is the detailed level where logic gates are composed of individual transistors and other semiconductor devices. There is also the physical arrangement and placement of the components, subunits, etc., to meet certain optimisation criteria, such as minimal overall path lengths.

At each design level, the lower-level constituents are abstracted away for convenience, and (very powerful) computers are indispensable in the design process, when reconciling the different design levels and when optimising layouts, but the human brain still initiates and guides the process according to the intended goal. Many subunits and subcomponents already have pretty much optimal designs these days, and CPU manufacturers will have their "libraries" of components to hand for use, so that only new and/or radically redesigned components need to be put together transistor-by-transistor. Computers play a significant role here too, because such circuits can be emulated on a computer, obviating the need for physical trial-and-error.

As to the physical process of chip manufacture from the designer's blueprints and schematics, you will have to consult an appropriate engineer, surname "google," for further info, as this falls beyond my expertise.

'Luthon64

bruto

7th November 2006, 08:07 AM

Loss Leader

7th November 2006, 08:50 AM

As in most such technically advanced endeavours, there are several levels of design.

Deeply apreciative for all of the information.

trvlr2

7th November 2006, 08:52 AM

NO! NO! Not the kittens!

Maybe you should go ahead and inform LCL about the "Skeptic Movement", and the secret handshake & other good stuff. Tell Taichi , as well.:D

TobiasTheViking

7th November 2006, 08:53 AM

I have noticed a problem in the last day or so. This thread seems to have degenerated into an intelligent discussion about things that are interesting. If it drifts any further in that direction, we may have to resort to kittens.

well, what should we do when he either.

a) doesn't respond
b) doesn't say anything that actually means anything
c) doesn't say anything that makes sense
d) doesn't cooperate in any way
e) doesn't even try to comprehend or contemplate that his worldview could, just possibly, be wrong.

bruto

7th November 2006, 04:23 PM

well, what should we do when he either.

a) doesn't respond
b) doesn't say anything that actually means anything
c) doesn't say anything that makes sense
d) doesn't cooperate in any way
e) doesn't even try to comprehend or contemplate that his worldview could, just possibly, be wrong.

I guess hijacking is too strong a word, but I'm perfectly willing to see some people house-sit the thread in LCL's absence and use it to discuss the intricacies of computer logic while he's away. You and Anacoluthon64 know a good bit more about the details than I do, so though I'm not adding anything, I'm lurking with interest.

Loss Leader

7th November 2006, 04:34 PM

Okay, question the next:

Assume the existence of a quantum computer that would be able to store information in 8 possible ways instead of the binary way that we have today. Would the fundamental logic-gate architecture change or would we still have to reduce everything in the computer world to a yes or no question?

My guess is that while information could be stored much, much more compactly, the binary step-by-step process of logic and number manipulation would have to remain the same.

But maybe not, because with eight states you could answer three questions at once -

no no no
no no yes
no yes no
no yes yes
yes no no
yes no yes
yes yes no
yes yes yes

Oh, I've given myself a headache.

trvlr2

7th November 2006, 09:56 PM

I have noticed a problem in the last day or so. This thread seems to have degenerated into an intelligent discussion about things that are interesting. If it drifts any further in that direction, we may have to resort to kittens.

OK. Do the kittens. I have read all the posts since the inception. MC was declined. Bring on something substantive like kittens, or recipes!

Anacoluthon64

7th November 2006, 11:10 PM

Assume the existence of a quantum computer that would be able to store information in 8 possible ways instead of the binary way that we have today. Would the fundamental logic-gate architecture change or would we still have to reduce everything in the computer world to a yes or no question?Well, we have no readily comprehensible analogue of quantum superposition, so it is very difficult to translate the operation of a quantum computer into ordinary language. The quantum computer's ("quamputer") fundamental "logical unit" is a qubit (quantum bit), which can, like the ordinary bit, store two states (usually denoted "0" or "1 "), but also - and this is the scary part - both or neither simultaneously. So for any given computable problem, a sufficiently large quamputer can in principle store the entire solution space simultaneously. By successive operations on qubits singly or in pairs, the state of the qubits "collapses" towards the answer. It is perhaps of interest to note that an ordinary computer can fully emulate its quantum counterpart, but expect a really long wait and a hefty hardware bill.

Here (http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html) is an excellent introduction to this fascinating subject with many further links to explore and savour.

At present, the largest physical obstacle in the path to a usable quamputer is overcoming an effect called decoherence, where the qubits tend to become entangled with their surroundings in addition to one another, which can cause spurious errors and/or information to dribble away. Last I heard, a five-qubit quamputer was put together and kept stable just long enough (i.e. a few nanoseconds) to factor the composite integer 15 by the Schor algorithm.

My guess is that while information could be stored much, much more compactly, the binary step-by-step process of logic and number manipulation would have to remain the same.The article I linked to above addresses this about as well as it is possible to do without getting into some really hairy mathematics, I think.

But maybe not, because with eight states you could answer three questions at onceIt is perhaps a little limiting, even misleading, to think of the yes/no of a collection of bits as the answers to (partly or wholly) independent questions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is wiser to think of a computer as a symbol-manipulating device. This distinction, though subtle, is an important one. To get a feel for what is meant here, the same string of bits (0's and 1's) can be the binary representation of many different things, such as a numerical value, the colour of a pixel in a graphic, the pitch or length of a sound in an audio clip, a machine instruction, an address in memory, a string of ASCII, EBCDIC, MBCS or Unicode characters, and so on. In many of these cases, it is a matter of notational convenience and compactness when they are expressed as numbers (usually hexadecimal).

Oh, I've given myself a headache.Quantum concepts have that effect.

As a small peace-offering, I'll point out that this discussion about computers arose over a remark - as yet unaddressed - I put forward regarding the concept of operators in Group Theory, and how this fact refutes the existence of "basic" or "most basic" operators in arithmetic or mathematics. No doubt when the chief proponent of this thread returns, as surely he will, much of its content will revert, likely as not, to its customary level of inanity.

'Luthon64

Taffer

7th November 2006, 11:18 PM

Just as I could have been perhaps a bit clearer that I was about to pass a pointed remark aimed at the progenitor of this fiasco of a thread.

:blush:

'Luthon64

...Oh. :blush:

Loss Leader

7th November 2006, 11:28 PM

Well, we have no readily comprehensible analogue of quantum superposition, so it is very difficult to translate the operation of a quantum computer into ordinary language.

Thanks. I understood absolutely none of your answer but I will follow the link tomorrow to learn more.

wollery

8th November 2006, 12:57 AM

Well, we have no readily comprehensible analogue of quantum superposition, so it is very difficult to translate the operation of a quantum computer into ordinary language.Freaking weird.

Easy. :D

Anacoluthon64

8th November 2006, 02:39 AM

Freaking weird.

Easy. :DAaaand we have a winner!!! You, sir, have won - waaaiiiit for it - a cat!

:bigcat

Yes, this magnificent creature once belonged to a man named Dr Erwin Schrödinger. The remarkable feature of this prize is that our generous sponsors were unable to establish whether the good doctor's feline companion was in fact alive or dead! It seems to be both when in its box with that funny device on the side. We hope that this super prize affords you many years of deep puzzlement!

Uh, I've just been informed that Dr Schrödinger also sends a wave of appreciation via a strange tunnel that suddenly appeared out of nowhere behind our studios...

:w2:

(Well, someone did ask for cats :p )

'Luthon64

wollery

8th November 2006, 04:42 AM

Yay, I won!! :clap:

I won, I won, I won . . . . . . a half dead cat???? :boggled:

Well, what can I say, I'm just so . . . umm . . . . gee, thanks.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 04:43 AM

Where the hell's Light ?

TobiasTheViking

8th November 2006, 05:18 AM

i ate him

zizzybaluba

8th November 2006, 05:19 AM

Maybe he got elected.

Anacoluthon64

8th November 2006, 05:23 AM

. . . . . . a half dead cat???? :boggled:Er, no. Schrödinger's cat, when in its box, seems both dead and alive simultaneously, not half-dead or half-alive. That's what makes this prize so extraordinary.

'Luthon64

wollery

8th November 2006, 06:08 AM

Er, no. Schrödinger's cat, when in its box, seems both dead and alive simultaneously, not half-dead or half-alive. That's what makes this prize so extraordinary.

'Luthon64I know, it's a joke;

Schroedinger's wife yells, "Erwin, what have you done to the cat? It looks half dead!"

Anacoluthon64

8th November 2006, 06:19 AM

I know, it's a joke;Oh, okay, my mistale then. Despite emoticons, these pages don't transmit tone-of-voice very well, but I am relieved to find that we're on the same wavelength...

;)

'Luthon64

wollery

8th November 2006, 06:31 AM

My other fave QM joke;

Heisenberg gets pulled over for speeding.
"Do you know how fast you were going?" asks the policeman.
"No," replies Heisenberg, "but I know exactly where I am."

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 11:50 AM

As an astrophysicist let me assure you that with the right detectors [b]no[/i] EM radiation is invisible. I can show you what the Galaxy looks like at any wavelength you like.
Of course you can. But when someone says "visble light" they are talking about what they can see with their eyes.

Captures refers to the interaction between neutrons and nuclei, where a neutron 'sticks to' or is 'caught by' the nucleus. Capture generally implies some sort of wrongdoing on the part of either the captive or the captor, which does not apply in this situation.
I have said countless times that I understand that there is no good or bad, right or wrong at the particle level. There is no mental element for them to think those things. Still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. That is what I said.

Violate has several meanings, but the most common involve personal harm, such as rape or civil rights violations. In the sense it is used in particle physics it means not going by the rules as expected.
In human terms, it can also mean "not going by the rules as expected." My point was that seeing those words showed actions that we can relate to.

Wow, how many societies do you know that are ordered and purposeful? We've been over this before, and frankly I can't be bothered this late in the evening.
Of course no society has particle conformity, but societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

And as has been pointed out it's possible to make any number of totally unrelated things 'fit' in such a manner. That they 'fit' indicates nothing more than correlation. But as any scientist knows, correlation does not imply causation.
But it could.

Belief can sometimes lead to knowledge, but more often it is dedicated hard work and study under someone who knows far more than you that leads to knowledge.
That is a good way.

Your assumptions are pure assumptions with no supporting evidence.
They serve as a blueprint to search for the information.

That the soul exists, that there is a design to life. They are not scientific, since they are not extended from known facts.
Science is great, but there is more to the drama. There has to be points where science meets other fields of study. Studies that sometimes have to be done by thought. At least until science develops another device that allows a more detailed look.

There's no united front, we all just happen to agree on the validity and quality of your ideas. And yes, if I tell someone that they are wrong about sonething and they show me that they are, in fact, right I apologise. I believe that I've apologised to you at one point in this thread. It's called good manners.
I have come to realise that there is not a united front against me, though it may seem that way at times. You all do have a particular point of view, but it is just fate that it is almost opposite mine. But I am the one who walked into a shooting gallery with a target on my chest.

But I'm not tilted one way or the other. Show me some evidence and I'll change my point of view. That's the very definition of unbiased.
I am working on evidence.

Let us know when you actually get somewhere.
I would not be here if I were not getting somewhere. Convincing the people here is not the only definition of getting somewhere. I am listening to the thoughts of others and they don't have to agree with me for me to get something out of them.

But you aren't polling science, you are polling a few internet sites and one simplified reference book (according to your website).
There is more to it than that, I have have been through more than one book. And there is a lot of experiences that can't be easily measured.

TobiasTheViking

8th November 2006, 11:59 AM

but how can you continue using an argument if you have no evidence to back the argument up?

That makes no sense.

zizzybaluba

8th November 2006, 12:15 PM

There is more to it than that, I have have been through more than one book. And there is a lot of experiences that can't be easily measured.

Can't easily be measured, or can't be measured at all?

TobiasTheViking

8th November 2006, 12:25 PM

I have have been through more than one book.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Got any evidence that you have read more than one book?

Oh wait, you said "been through more than one book", i guess that doesn't mean you necessarily read it.

Loss Leader

8th November 2006, 12:46 PM

I have said countless times that I understand that there is no good or bad, right or wrong at the particle level. There is no mental element for them to think those things. Still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. That is what I said.

This makes no sense. You just said that there is no good or bad or right or wrong at the particle level but still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. If you admit that these things do not exist at the particle level, how can the words describe anything? And how can the words describe "essentially ... about the same thing"? It either describes something that exists or it doesn't describe anything at all.

Please clarify your point because you appear to be making no sense.

Of course no society has particle conformity, but societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

What evidence do you have that societies work at being ordered and purposeful? I have a graduate degree in political science and I never heard anyone claim that societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

Science is great, but there is more to the drama. There has to be points where science meets other fields of study.

Why do there have to be points where science meets other fields of study? What evidence do you have that this is true? Remember, the fact that something seems that way to you or that you're just sure is not evidece.

I am working on evidence.

No, you're not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 12:49 PM

Now that I think about it, aren't all computer operations just a huge number of subtraction problems? I mean, a computer does not multiply or divide. It doesn't do exponents or anything else. It just finds the difference between numbers. It is, in point of fact, a difference engine.

[quote]There are no four basic operations of math.
I asked if math can be done without using those four basic operations, and it can't. I have seen it said here that computers only use one, but that one is connected to the others. One is not none. If no math can't be done without them, no wonder they are taught first. That alone says that they are basic.

I have been reading that there is no difference between math and arithmetic. That it is the branch of math dealing with basic techniques of calculations with numbers. Basic techniques. No wonder it is taught first.
I believe Bruto, and the other guy who earlier talked about axioms, that other things could have been taught that work just as well. But What I am saying is they choose to do it the way they did, and that way fits on the graph. I had nothing to do with their decision but I figured that they must know what they are doing. If I had used something else other then what I did, the question would have still been why?

I have to admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication that I could find, other then the obvious, that one is addition and the other is multiplication. I liked that thing about the
0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

But suppose there are really only two basic operations? Two more came out of them. And math is all the better for them. At one point in the scheme of things there were only three forces. As the drama continued to unfold a fourth emerged, and the universe is all the better for it.
In math, there are more then 4 operations, I think Rand Fan said that exponents desired to be one if multiplication is one. And in the universe life may be seen as another force.

I am thinking that math has to be linked to the four forces for it to have universal reach. Order and math just seem to go together. Okay this is an assumption, but it is from where I will start the search.

And energy and matter are not two forms of the same thing.I am looking back to see what was said about this, but I don't think that it was as clear cut as absolutely not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 12:58 PM

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Got any evidence that you have read more than one book?

Oh wait, you said "been through more than one book", i guess that doesn't mean you necessarily read it.
Oh yeah. Now I rememeber why I don't like you. And I was thinking of making a fresh start too. I have tried that twice already, but we just don't work. I am afraid I am going to have to continue to ignore you.

TobiasTheViking

8th November 2006, 01:18 PM

Oh yeah. Now I rememeber why I don't like you. And I was thinking of making a fresh start too. I have tried that twice already, but we just don't work. I am afraid I am going to have to continue to ignore you.

no the reason you don't like me is because i hold you to your questions and don't let you evade them.

As for your wanting to make a fresh start, i don't believe it.

I have tried with you many many many many many times.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 01:20 PM

This makes no sense. You just said that there is no good or bad or right or wrong at the particle level but still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. If you admit that these things do not exist at the particle level, how can the words describe anything? And how can the words describe "essentially ... about the same thing"? It either describes something that exists or it doesn't describe anything at all.

Please clarify your point because you appear to be making no sense.
Capture was holding, and violating with infringing. The definition works at both levels, which is why they are used at both levels.

What evidence do you have that societies work at being ordered and purposeful? I have a graduate degree in political science and I never heard anyone claim that societies work at being ordered and purposeful.
Societies pass laws to create order. Tax breaks, fines, and incentives are used for certain purposes.
Purposeful actions? Going to work to make money to support ones lifestyle seems to me to be purposeful action.

Why do there have to be points where science meets other fields of study? What evidence do you have that this is true? Remember, the fact that something seems that way to you or that you're just sure is not evidece.
I say that because there is more to the drama than science. At some point it has to reach something else where someone says the doctrine of science would not allow it to go. What about this for evidence, do you think science meets any other subject?

Solus

8th November 2006, 01:29 PM

Of course you can. But when someone says "visble light" they are talking about what they can see with their eyes.

I have said countless times that I understand that there is no good or bad, right or wrong at the particle level. There is no mental element for them to think those things. Still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. That is what I said.

In human terms, it can also mean "not going by the rules as expected." My point was that seeing those words showed actions that we can relate to.

Of course no society has particle conformity, but societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

But it could.

That is a good way.

They serve as a blueprint to search for the information.

Science is great, but there is more to the drama. There has to be points where science meets other fields of study. Studies that sometimes have to be done by thought. At least until science develops another device that allows a more detailed look.

I have come to realise that there is not a united front against me, though it may seem that way at times. You all do have a particular point of view, but it is just fate that it is almost opposite mine. But I am the one who walked into a shooting gallery with a target on my chest.

I am working on evidence.

I would not be here if I were not getting somewhere. Convincing the people here is not the only definition of getting somewhere. I am listening to the thoughts of others and they don't have to agree with me for me to get something out of them.

There is more to it than that, I have have been through more than one book. And there is a lot of experiences that can't be easily measured.

LCL you have must a PHd in physics consdering you know SO much about the behavior of energy. Oh wait I forgot, learning is an evil thing as far as you are concerned ;) .

I less than three logic

8th November 2006, 01:33 PM

bruto

8th November 2006, 01:58 PM

[quote=Loss Leader;2073119]

I have to admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication that I could find, other then the obvious, that one is addition and the other is multiplication. I liked that thing about the
0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

I

Addition and multiplication are both binary operations, in the sense that you must start with two numbers and then perform an operation on them. It's really only a matter of what the numbers are counting. In addition you're counting things. In multiplication you're counting groups of things.

But the idea of taking two numbers first and then operating on them is usually not made explicit when one does ordinary arithmetic, (unless you use a mechanical adding machine or a Hewlett Packard calculator with reverse polish notation). 5+1 means "take five, then take one, put them together, and count the total." 5 x 1 means "take five once, and count how many times you did this to get the total."

Imagine, if you will, that you are a primitive man, standing on the shore, gathering clams for dinner. 1+5 means you take one clam from the beach, put it in the stack of clams you are planning to eat, and then you take a handful of five more and add them to the stack. When you count the stack you find you have 6 clams. If you do this often enough, you memorize the result and no longer need to count the clams after you've made your stack, and addition, rather than mere counting, is born.

1 x 5 means you take five clams and put them on the stack once. One group of five is five. 2 x 5 would mean you take five, put them on the stack, then take five again, and add them to the stack. If you are a genius among cave men, you notice that if you always add clams five at a time, you can consider the clams in each handful of five as having already been counted, and streamline the addition by simply remembering the sum that results when you count handfuls instead of individual clams. Thus multiplication is born. Multiplication is the addition of previously determined additions. 5 x 2 is exactly the same as 5 + 5. 5 x 3 is exactly the same as 5 + 5 + 5, and so forth. When you multiply you just are counting how many times you added the fives together, and relying on memory for the total. Addition is the memorization of learned counting. 5 + 1 is exactly the same as (1+1+1+1+1) + 1. It's all just a matter of how fast you want to count your clams.

Loss Leader

8th November 2006, 03:15 PM

I have to admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication that I could find, other then the obvious, that one is addition and the other is multiplication. I liked that thing about the 0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

But suppose there are really only two basic operations? Two more came out of them. And math is all the better for them. At one point in the scheme of things there were only three forces. As the drama continued to unfold a fourth emerged, and the universe is all the better for it.
In math, there are more then 4 operations, I think Rand Fan said that exponents desired to be one if multiplication is one. And in the universe life may be seen as another force.

I am thinking that math has to be linked to the four forces for it to have universal reach. Order and math just seem to go together. Okay this is an assumption, but it is from where I will start the search.

So, to summarize:

Your initial graph had the four fundamental forces of the universe each aligned with one of the four basic operations of math.

You now admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication. You admit that maybe there were two basic operations (although I'm not sure why you don't admit that there is just addition). Then you admit that in math there are more than four operations.

Those were your words right above.

So you should admit that the portion of your chart that lines mathematical symbols up with the four forces of the universe is flawed. It is wrong. You just admitted there are no basic four operations in math. Instead, you somehow, you just decide "that math has to be linked to the four forces for it to have universal reach. Order and math just seem to go together."

Even if this statement is true, why would your chart linking four operations of math to four universal forces be right? Maybe they are "linked," whatever that means, but why are you still insisting that they are linked in this exact way?

If you answer that they just seem to fit, remember that you JUST ADMITTED that there are no basic operations of math to fit. Both things can't be true.

Please revise your chart.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 05:59 PM

So, to summarize:

Your initial graph had the four fundamental forces of the universe each aligned with one of the four basic operations of math.

You now admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication.
That I could find, other then the obvious, one is addition and the other is multiplication. And what about that 1x5=5 and 1+5=6. If that holds, that can count as a fundamental difference.

You admit that maybe there were two basic operations (although I'm not sure why you don't admit that there is just addition).
Even if there were two, two more came out of them. That would make four.
Remember the Electroweak force? At one point there are three. At another point there are one. Current thinking puts it at four.

Since you seem to be saying that addition is the only operation, and two have been talked about here, then one came from one, and two more from them. Current thinking puts it at four basics.

Then you admit that in math there are more than four operations.
I always have known of more, and was told here, but the four I mentioned, they are taught as the basics. And since no math can be done without them, I think that that is right. The other operations are good to know of course, but here are the basics.

So you should admit that the portion of your chart that lines mathematical symbols up with the four forces of the universe is flawed. It is wrong.
No I don't.

You just admitted there are no basic four operations in math. Knowing about the electroweak does not stop there from being four now. And the same type of thing goes for math.

Even if this statement is true, why would your chart linking four operations of math to four universal forces be right?
They seem to fit. Basics together.

Maybe they are "linked," whatever that means, but why are you still insisting that they are linked in this exact way?
I think that they are until I find something better.

If you answer that they just seem to fit, remember that you JUST ADMITTED that there are no basic operations of math to fit. Both things can't be true.
There being more then four operations, takes nothing away from there being four basic ones. And remember that is what is being taught around the world. I didn't make this stuff up. If math taught something different, I would not be able to say that.

Belz...

8th November 2006, 07:23 PM

I have said countless times that I understand that there is no good or bad, right or wrong at the particle level. There is no mental element for them to think those things. Still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. That is what I said.

Yet you said that:

A) Energy has intelligence
B) Matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy.

Shouldn't this mean that matter has intelligence at ALL levels ?

Of course no society has particle conformity, but societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

Which demolishes your analogy. Particles aren't "purposeful" by your own admission.

They serve as a blueprint to search for the information.

Your unwillingness to test them, though, pretty much means you'll never find it.

Science is great, but there is more to the drama. There has to be points where science meets other fields of study. Studies that sometimes have to be done by thought. At least until science develops another device that allows a more detailed look.

Sounds to me like someone who's trying to fit their feelings into the big picture, as though their beliefs, so strongly held, have any objective meaning to the universe. Like lovers who believe NO ONE in the world loves as much as they. Pitiful.

You all do have a particular point of view, but it is just fate that it is almost opposite mine.

That should tell you something.

But I am the one who walked into a shooting gallery with a target on my chest.

That's true, and you should be encouraged by the fact that you did. However, you need to take the next step, and learn from others.

I asked if math can be done without using those four basic operations, and it can't.

Yes, it can. Subtraction can be done with addition. Same with multiplication and division. This has been told to you.

Also, please tell me how to describe complex integral mathematics with the "four basic" operations.

0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

Golly. That's not how it was explained to you:

4x5 = 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4.

I am thinking that math has to be linked to the four forces for it to have universal reach.

Well, that's the problem. You're trying to link things that have nothing in common. "Math" is a language that WE invented. The four forces are a description of the physics WE observe.

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 07:34 PM

no the reason you don't like me is because i hold you to your questions and don't let you evade them.

As for your wanting to make a fresh start, i don't believe it.

I have tried with you many many many many many times.
Fine. Whatever you need.

RandFan

8th November 2006, 07:46 PM

Unlike... oh, never mind.

'Luthon64:D

lightcreatedlife@hom

8th November 2006, 08:20 PM

Yet you said that:

A) Energy has intelligence
B) Matter owes how it looks and behaves to energy.

Shouldn't this mean that matter has intelligence at ALL levels ?
Yes it does. But. It can only be expressed through life, human life in particular. The intelligence/plan in the energy allowed for the universe to take shape. Life to emerge. But it is only through human life (that we know of) that the whole thing can be pondered.

Which demolishes your analogy. Particles aren't "purposeful" by your own admission.
That is why I think it is the energy (acting on the particles' characteristics) that is behind the order of matter.

Your unwillingness to test them, though, pretty much means you'll never find it.
No it doesn't. I will get to it. You all are helping to point me in the right direction.

Sounds to me like someone who's trying to fit their feelings into the big picture, as though their beliefs, so strongly held, have any objective meaning to the universe. Like lovers who believe NO ONE in the world loves as much as they. Pitiful.
There is some of that in there too. Like I said. I am not religious and have no creed, or image of God. Nor do I think that worship has anyplace anywhere. But I believe that there has to be something. It might not be true. But I see 14 billion years of order and see a designer. I just can't escape the image of finally looking upon the answer (and not that I think death entities one to such information) and have someone say "were you blind?" Not that I am saying that anyone here is. And I can very much understand why science can't afford to rely on something like "God did it."

That should tell you something.
It tells me that different people have different ideas. That happens.

That's true, and you should be encouraged by the fact that you did. However, you need to take the next step, and learn from others.
I am learning. I will study logic, and particle interactions. Math? NO. But others know it if it is needed.

Yes, it can. Subtraction can be done with addition. Same with multiplication and division. This has been told to you.
I am saying that no math can be done without the 4 basics-I think.

Also, please tell me how to describe complex integral mathematics with the "four basic" operations.
I will take a look.

Golly. That's not how it was explained to you:

4x5 = 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4.
I got that part. Can I please stop seeing it? I was talking about "0 and 1" in relation to addition and multiplication.

Well, that's the problem. You're trying to link things that have nothing in common. "Math" is a language that WE invented. The four forces are a description of the physics WE observe.
Really? The universe would not be mathematical if humans didn't invent math? I thought that life on another planet would still do math about the same way. Perhaps using the "stack" method that someone mentioned, or something else, but nothing that life at the same level of development would not be able to understand.
The same, I thought, would apply to their physics.

bruto

8th November 2006, 08:22 PM

And what about that 1x5=5 and 1+5=6. If that holds, that can count as a fundamental difference.

1+5 = 6 : You put a clam on the pile, and then put another 5 clams on the pile all at once, and count the clams. After months of doing this, you realize that if you remember how many "5" is, you don't have to count them individually every time. That's addition.

1 x 5 =5 : You add five clams to the pile once, and count the clams. After years of doing this it dawns on you that if you add the same number every time, you can memorize the sums, and then all you have to do is count how many times you did it. That's multiplication.

Addition: You put things on the pile and count them, using memorized sums to speed up the process.

Multiplication: You put groups of things which have already been counted onto the pile and count the instances, using memorized sums of sums (products) to speed up the process even more.

It's really all just counting.

edit to add: don't forget too that EVERY number is ALWAYS expressible as "1 x that number." and EVERY quantity is also ALWAYS expressible as "0 + that number."

So we can rewrite the example equations this way:

(1 x 5) +(1 x 0) = 5

(1 x 5) + (1 x 1)=6

Voila. One addition, one multiplication. Spot the fundamental difference.

Loss Leader

8th November 2006, 08:30 PM

I liked that thing about the
0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

What in the world is there to work out? Multiplication means "count by sets." 4x5 means count four sets of five; 5 + 5 + 5 + 5. That's addition and it adds up to 20.

0x5 means count no sets of five (or, for that matter, count five sets of nothing). Five sets of nothing or no sets of five bothe equal nothing.

1x5 means count one set of five (or five sets of one). 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 is 5. Or, 5 is 5.

1+5 means take five things and count one more. That equals 6.

What is the problem?

Taffer

8th November 2006, 10:07 PM

I have said countless times that I understand that there is no good or bad, right or wrong at the particle level. There is no mental element for them to think those things. Still the word is essentially used to describe about the same thing. That is what I said.

Words are a human construct, not a property of nature.

Of course no society has particle conformity, but societies work at being ordered and purposeful.

So because particles and societies are both ordered, they are caused to be so by the same thing? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

But it could.

"But you don't know it can't exist." :rolleyes:

Science is great, but there is more to the drama. There has to be points where science meets other fields of study. Studies that sometimes have to be done by thought. At least until science develops another device that allows a more detailed look.

Ahh, the classic "it's beyond science" argument. :rolleyes:

I have come to realise that there is not a united front against me, though it may seem that way at times. You all do have a particular point of view, but it is just fate that it is almost opposite mine. But I am the one who walked into a shooting gallery with a target on my chest.

Yes, you did. Honestly for a moment, though, you are one of the nicer people who have come here and argued for their theories. You haven't become too angry, and (while it may seem so at times) you have learned something. But, seriously, did you expect us not to scientifically and logically analyse your argument?

I am working on evidence.

I wish you all the best.

I would not be here if I were not getting somewhere. Convincing the people here is not the only definition of getting somewhere. I am listening to the thoughts of others and they don't have to agree with me for me to get something out of them.

I'm glad to hear that. Some, who have been in a similar position to you, haven't. *cough II cough* :D

There is more to it than that, I have have been through more than one book. And there is a lot of experiences that can't be easily measured.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Can you explain?

Taffer

8th November 2006, 10:33 PM

I asked if math can be done without using those four basic operations, and it can't. I have seen it said here that computers only use one, but that one is connected to the others. One is not none. If no math can't be done without them, no wonder they are taught first. That alone says that they are basic.

But you miss the point. Of course one (or two) operations are needed. But the point is, that's all. All math operations can be done with one (or two if you count subtraction as seperate) basic operation. Addition.

I have been reading that there is no difference between math and arithmetic. That it is the branch of math dealing with basic techniques of calculations with numbers. Basic techniques. No wonder it is taught first.
I believe Bruto, and the other guy who earlier talked about axioms, that other things could have been taught that work just as well. But What I am saying is they choose to do it the way they did, and that way fits on the graph. I had nothing to do with their decision but I figured that they must know what they are doing. If I had used something else other then what I did, the question would have still been why?

It would still have been why. Because you have not shown any reason to use those in the first place. Your use of the math operations is arbitrary, because it happened to fit your argument. You cannot do this and expect to be taken seriously. Also, please understand that, just because we are taught that there are 4 basic math operations, doesn't mean there really is 4. Many things we are taught early in life is wrong.

I have to admit that there is no fundamental difference between addition and multiplication that I could find, other then the obvious, that one is addition and the other is multiplication. I liked that thing about the
0x5=0 and that thing about there being 0*5s. But I have not been able to work out how "1" fit in that. 1x5=5 1+5=6.

There is no difference other then the name, and your example hear shows how clearly you do not understand this. Allow me to once again explain. I will use words this time.

Let '*' equal 'lots of', let '+' equal 'and then x more' where 'x' is the number being added, and let '=' equal 'is the same as'.

0*5=0 is really saying 'zero lots of five is the same as zero'. This is obvious.
1*5=5 is really saying 'one lot of five is the same as five'. This is also obvious.
1+5=6 is really saying 'one and then five more is the same as six'. This is, naturally, obvious. But more importantly, you should be able to see why "1*5" and "1+5" are asking different things, not because of some difference between '*' and '+', but because they are simply asking different things. However, if we were to compare '2*5' and '5+5', we will see how '*' and '+' are different ways of asking the same thing.
2*5=10 is really saying 'two lots of five is the same as ten'.
5+5=10 is really saying 'five and then five more is the same as ten'. Obviously, "two lots of ten" is exactly the same as "five and then five more".

But suppose there are really only two basic operations? Two more came out of them. And math is all the better for them. At one point in the scheme of things there were only three forces. As the drama continued to unfold a fourth emerged, and the universe is all the better for it.
In math, there are more then 4 operations, I think Rand Fan said that exponents desired to be one if multiplication is one. And in the universe life may be seen as another force.

Ok, no. Just, no. Bad analogy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and more. And no, "two more" did not come out of them. I have explained above that addition and multiplication are the same thing. This is important, so listen. Just because we write + and * with different symbols does not mean they are different! Multiplication is just multiple additions. Our use of treating them seperately does not make them so. They are, quite simply, short cuts. If it helps, think of multiplication as a shortened version of many additions. We use a different symbol to make this clear. They are not different!

I am thinking that math has to be linked to the four forces for it to have universal reach. Order and math just seem to go together. Okay this is an assumption, but it is from where I will start the search.

What four forces? What order? If you are going to look for evidence, you need to start from a logical place, not just make things up and see where they lead you.

I am looking back to see what was said about this, but I don't think that it was as clear cut as absolutely not.

Wrong. Matter and energy are not two forms of the same thing.

Taffer

8th November 2006, 10:35 PM

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 01:41 AM

Hey LCL and all,

I would like to, with the rest of you, put together knowledge that can be applied to 'Light created Life' and not neccessarily to LCL's many arguments/posts. Just the concept.

This is my offering to the exercise. Mostly questions, the God part is my personal context.

Quantum theory (as I know it) suggests that photons are little bundles of energy held together by sound. ' ..and God SAID "Let there be Light" '
Thats what we call the Big Bang.

In the initial moment of the said 'Bang' did matter yet exist?
Or, was there light/energy only?

( Wow i think I may have come up with a semi-interesting question, can I get a little gold star?)

If the 'Bang' was a light/energy only event, how did this matter appear?
Was it condensification of light/energy?
If so, how so?

If not, then what of the origin of matter?

Of matter, how far do we boil it down? ( subatomic particles and their relationships)
The composition of the rendings of matter. Do we again come down to little bundles of energy?

Please answer. The mouthing off has been fun but now I would like to get more out of this for myself.

Anacoluthon64

9th November 2006, 01:58 AM

Quantum theory (as I know it) suggests that photons are little bundles of energy held together by sound. ' ..and God SAID "Let there be Light" '
Thats what you skeptiks call the Big Bang.Crikey, guv, just how many feet can you get into that mouth of yours all at once?

'Luthon64

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 02:10 AM

I am flattered by the effort made here to enlighten me and my kind.
thank you

I am looking for a working hypothesis of LCL regardless of its ultimate strength or weakness.
How do you ever expect us to see the light if you do not pander to our vanity?!

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 02:13 AM

Crikey, guv, just how many feet can you get into that mouth of yours all at once?

'Luthon64

Help me Luthon, I want to know.

Big Al

9th November 2006, 02:30 AM

TobiasTheViking

9th November 2006, 04:00 AM

Fine. Whatever you need.

Ah, good, so you will provide me with whatever i need. :D progress at last.

I need answers, or a time frame, so, please give me either of those for my question the 11th of september.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

If you don't have the evidence you can just stop using it as a claim, that will be satisfactory as well.

I am glad you have finally come to your senses and want to provide me with what i want.

:)

Taffer

9th November 2006, 05:39 AM

Quantum theory (as I know it) suggests that photons are little bundles of energy held together by sound. ' ..and God SAID "Let there be Light" '
Thats what we call the Big Bang.

Er, no. "Sound" does not 'hold together' photons.

In the initial moment of the said 'Bang' did matter yet exist?
Or, was there light/energy only?

( Wow i think I may have come up with a semi-interesting question, can I get a little gold star?)

If the 'Bang' was a light/energy only event, how did this matter appear?
Was it condensification of light/energy?
If so, how so?

If not, then what of the origin of matter?

Of matter, how far do we boil it down? ( subatomic particles and their relationships)
The composition of the rendings of matter. Do we again come down to little bundles of energy?

Please answer. The mouthing off has been fun but now I would like to get more out of this for myself.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) might help as well, as well as the above link.

Please, also understand that "light" and "energy" are not the same.

Loss Leader

9th November 2006, 06:51 AM

Er, no. "Sound" does not 'hold together' photons.

He was serious? I assumed the whole "sound" thing was just sarcasm aimed at showing LCL how ridiculous his ideas were.

"Sound" does not and cannot hold anything together in any way. Sound is physical vibration through a medium. In space or before the birth of the universe, there was no medium. There was no sound. The fact that the Bible states, "God said, 'let there be light'" is evidence that the people who wrote the Bible new nothing about physics. It is not evidence of some sort of physics that we do not understand.

bruto

9th November 2006, 07:55 AM

What sort of petty, human-scaled, neolithic godling is it that can't create anything without saying it out loud? I picture old Jehovah trying to create something, and the universe responding "You forgot to say 'may I!'"

Surely even a second-rate demigod could do better than that.

Taffer

9th November 2006, 08:29 AM

He was serious? I assumed the whole "sound" thing was just sarcasm aimed at showing LCL how ridiculous his ideas were.

Perhaps. But I've seen him post the same elsewhere (can't seem to find it right now, probably buried deep within the 'Materialism' thread), and thought I'd set the record straight. If I missed the joke, my apologies. :o

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 08:51 AM

In the initial moment of the said 'Bang' did matter yet exist?
Or, was there light/energy only?

( Wow i think I may have come up with a semi-interesting question, can I get a little gold star?)

If the 'Bang' was a light/energy only event, how did this matter appear?
Was it condensification of light/energy?
If so, how so?

If not, then what of the origin of matter?
I’ll attempt to address this part for you. I am by no means an authority on the subject, I’m just an arm chair enthusiast, but I think I can explain this somewhat coherently.

First, I don’t think it is fair to say there was light at the Big Bang; you seem to be thinking of it as an explosion. Like a star going supernova or something, but that isn’t the case. The Big Bang would be the expansion of space and time itself, not an explosion of matter and energy into existing space. So, as I said, I doubt there was light. What there was was heat, and plenty of it. So much so, that light probably couldn’t exist, at least not right away. Heat is energy contained in excitement of particles, there was so much heat at the start of the Big Bang that the subatomic particles that make up mass and the photons of electromagnetic energy (light) were so excited (moving, full of energy, not a happy or anticipation type of excited :)) that they over came the nuclear forces. The strong nuclear force and the electroweak force couldn’t hold the subatomic particles together; instead they were free-roaming, moving around within a quark-gluon plasma. Eventually, as the universe continued to expand, the heat started to dissipate and the forces regained control over the subatomic particles causing them to interact and combine with each other to form protons, neutrons, and such. These processes are described by QCD and are a bit over my head. I should note that all of this probably happened within less than half a second after the Big Bang.

After the formation of the protons and neutrons, and while the universe was still within a sufficient temperature range, these nucleons began to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and some helium, through a process called nucleosynthesis.

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 09:31 AM

Thanks I less than three.
Okay lets go with that it sounds plausible.
What was before the Big Bangerino?
Who has the Best explanation of what photons are and why they behave as they do? And what is the explanation?
What are the similarities between photons and quarks ect., how do they compare?
What if the wave of sound were so short that it couldnt become ambient but just had to compress as a ... uhhhh .. photon!? Or for that matter so long but soooo dense? Or something?
Seriously im glad some of you got off on the sound/light dealy as sarcasm but I read it somewhere ( no Not the National Enquirer) Discovery mag or Pop. Sci. Okay it may have been just a idea but I like it it totally fits the whole Genesis thing which you know I groove on.

Ok so I... three has got the particles getting hot, cool, where do the particles come from? Does space/time mobiate itself ( as in mobius) and a particle results when the juncture kinks?
Whats going on here man?
I'm freaking out!!!
CM
'

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 09:35 AM

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 09:35 AM

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 09:37 AM

I..three ,
Good point I will do my best in the future.
I am unused to writing..... thoughts........ communication.
Thats partly why I am here, to exercise.
Thanks
CM

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 09:46 AM

I..three ,
Good point I will do my best in the future.
I am unused to writing..... thoughts........ communication.
Thats partly why I am here, to exercise.
Thanks
CM
No, I agree. I’m not the best at getting what’s in my head out so people can understand what I meant. Especially while speaking, it often comes out as complete nonsense despite the fact the words sounded alright in my head. I do much better with written communications because I can read it back to myself to confirm I’ve said what I thought I said. Posting on the forum helps quite a bit as well.

Belz...

9th November 2006, 09:54 AM

I say that because there is more to the drama than science. At some point it has to reach something else where someone says the doctrine of science would not allow it to go. What about this for evidence, do you think science meets any other subject?

This is only true, though badly written, if there is something BEYOND what science can know. So far such a conclusion seems unwarranted.

Even if there were two, two more came out of them. That would make four.
Remember the Electroweak force? At one point there are three. At another point there are one. Current thinking puts it at four.

Irrelevant. You contended that they were FUNDAMENTAL. Clearly they are not because, under certain conditions, they can be combined.

They seem to fit.

What they "seem" to do is irrelevant.

Shouldn't this mean that matter has intelligence at ALL levels ?
Yes it does. But. It can only be expressed through life, human life in particular.

Why ?

That is why I think it is the energy (acting on the particles' characteristics) that is behind the order of matter.

No. You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to have matter beign the same as an energy that has intelligence, and then ascribe that intelligence ONLY to some forms of said matter. So which is it ?

You all are helping to point me in the right direction.

Which unfortunately you seem unwilling to take.

But I believe that there has to be something. It might not be true. But I see 14 billion years of order and see a designer.

Exactly how you get from "order" to "designer" baffles me. Please elaborate.

It tells me that different people have different ideas. That happens.

No, it shows that knowledgeable people who disagree on a lot of things agree that you are wrong. It would point to the strong possibility that you are wrong. Completely. No matter how thinking about it hurts.

I got that part. Can I please stop seeing it?

No, you didn't. You said 1x5 = 5 and 1+5 = 6. But that's NOT how multiplication and addition are the same. 1x5 = 5, and that's it.

The universe would not be mathematical if humans didn't invent math?

Precisely. Math is a human invention. It doesn't even have anything to do with reality.

I thought that life on another planet would still do math about the same way.

Perhaps, but it would still be an invention.

Belz...

9th November 2006, 09:55 AM

So because particles and societies are both ordered, they are caused to be so by the same thing? Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Methinks that the wrong fallacy. More like a false equivocation, or something.

Belz...

9th November 2006, 10:00 AM

What was before the Big Bangerino?

There is no "before" the big bang.

Who has the Best explanation of what photons are and why they behave as they do? And what is the explanation?

Photons are the mediator fundamental particle of the electromagnetic force.

What are the similarities between photons and quarks ect., how do they compare?

None, aside from the fact that a quark and its antiquark might be partly converted into photons.

What if the wave of sound were so short that it couldnt become ambient but just had to compress as a ... uhhhh .. photon!? Or for that matter so long but soooo dense? Or something?

Sound is a shockwave in a solid object. You don't have those at the molecular level downwards.

Quantum theory (as I know it) suggests that photons are little bundles of energy held together by sound. ' ..and God SAID "Let there be Light" '
Thats what we call the Big Bang.

Not sure that makes any sense at all.

In the initial moment of the said 'Bang' did matter yet exist?
Or, was there light/energy only?

No, and no.

If the 'Bang' was a light/energy only event, how did this matter appear?

"Energy" as in potential for work, probably. Matter formed later, once the laws of physics coalesced.

Of matter, how far do we boil it down?

Well, we know of electrons, neutrinos, quarks (up and down) and their heavier counterparts, gluons (strong nuclear force), photons (electromagnetism), Z and W particles, if they still call them that way (weak force) and, possibly, gravitons, if some theories hold.

I less than three logic

9th November 2006, 10:05 AM

I think by "sound" CM might be referring to a misconception of a description of string theory. That the equations of a particle seem to describe the same thing as a vibrating string, because they sometimes use the analogy of a guitar with the frequency of the vibrations of string theory corresponding to notes like the frequency of the vibrations on a guitar make different sounds.

bruto

9th November 2006, 10:09 AM

Taffer I dont do Materialism, but your right, its somewhere. Maybe 'bumper sticker'
Look the 'substance' of energy... matter ... light .......... stuff has to start somewhere , why not sound?
Maybe sound mobiated in some kind of anamoly in the space/time continuum.
Thanks for your humour all.
Yf,
CM
Why not sound? Well, let's skip over all the possible ways to argue for and against a creator god in the first place, and cut to the chase. If there is a god who created the entire universe out of nothing, then there was nothing until he did it. No matter. No stuff. Just God. Sound is a purely physical phenomenon. For it to occur there must be a physical universe, acting in certain physical ways according to physical laws. Sound is easily defined and analyzed in physical terms. It is not very mysterious. No particles, no matter = no sound. You cannot logically reconcile sound as the source or precursor of matter unless you redefine sound to mean something that differs so substantially from its accepted meaning that it means something else. Of course you could redefine any word to mean something new and believe you have won the argument. Many people do. Their arguments, when they do it, are nonsense. In logic, it's called the fallacy of equivocation.

It would be much more economical, whatever your faith or lack of it, to concede that the primitive writers of the scriptures used "said" and "word" and other sound-based expressions as useful standins for actions of divine will which are, after all, far too strange and mysterious for us actually to understand. You can choose for yourself whether this is because they are divine and thus cannot be understood by humans, or because they are nonsense and cannot be understood by definition. It makes little difference to the fact that these actions defy simple or meaningful description, and no adequate words exist for them. The people who wrote the scriptures were trying to tell a story to other people of little sophistication. Even if they did understand the difference, and perhaps even if, unlikely as it is, they did understand the metaphysical questions involved in creation and have answers for them, it still would have been foolish and counterproductive for them to launch into a treatise on ontology and cosmogony, or to introduce a new and specialized terminology, when all they wanted was for the people in the tribe to get with the program, do what they were told, and have faith. The language of scripture is the language of cultural convenience, and it's foolish to parse it for scientific truth.

bruto

9th November 2006, 10:24 AM

Methinks that the wrong fallacy. More like a false equivocation, or something.

I think it's more of a missing premise (an LCL specialty), since the cause of neither sort of order is identified, rather than implying that one premise is the cause of another.

An absurd example:

I saw some coins piled neatly on a table.

I saw some blocks piled neatly on the ground.

The same person must have made the pile.

The missing premise is "there is only one agency that can make neat piles."

TobiasTheViking

9th November 2006, 10:51 AM

What was before the Big Bangerino?
What is south of the south pole.. the question doesn't make sense. there is no answer that makes sense.

You can't say "nothing is below the south pole" because it doesn't really answer the question. In the same manner you can't answer what is before the big bang

Who has the Best explanation of what photons are and why they behave as they do? And what is the explanation?
Quantum physics. Photons are massless point particles(afaik) with a particle and wave duality behavior.

What are the similarities between photons and quarks ect., how do they compare?
Both are made of point particles.

What if the wave of sound were so short that it couldnt become ambient but just had to compress as a ... uhhhh .. photon!? Or for that matter so long but soooo dense? Or something?
The question doesn't make any sense, in and off itself. It is wrong on so many levels that an answer wouldn't make sense.

Ok so I... three has got the particles getting hot, cool, where do the particles come from?
the particles come from the energy density decreasing so the particles can form.

Loss Leader

9th November 2006, 11:05 AM

What if the wave of sound were so short that it couldnt become ambient but just had to compress as a ... uhhhh .. photon!?

CM, sound is the propogation of vibration through a medium. That's all it is. Something must vibrate (and fairly slowly) within a medium for there to be sound.

For that matter, there really is no such thing as "sound." "Sound" is what we call it when vibrations in the medium outside of our eardrum cause our eardrums to vibrate.

At the birth of the universe, there was no medium in which vibrations could propogate. They can't move through space. They can't move through superheated nutrino plasma. There was no sound.

It is not a possibility. It is not an "interesting question." It is not a theory the answer to which we will "never know." There was no sound.

And the concept that sound somehow bound subatomic particles together is utter nonsense. It is meaningless. It as impossible as saying, "Dogs knit parsimony throughout revolutions." It describes nothing that is real in any way.

Loss Leader

9th November 2006, 12:37 PM

Methinks that the wrong fallacy. More like a false equivocation, or something.

Yeah, I vote equivocation, too. He's using one word with two different meanings. That, to me, is equivocation.

Although, I'm sure you could find some other fallacies in there, as well. LCL's posts are like a fallacy find-a-word.

bruto

9th November 2006, 02:29 PM

Yeah, I vote equivocation, too. He's using one word with two different meanings. That, to me, is equivocation.

Although, I'm sure you could find some other fallacies in there, as well. LCL's posts are like a fallacy find-a-word.

You're probably right, since a suppressed premise is not actually a fallacy if the arguer can convince anyone that it is available on demand, and then actually produce it. If "order" is used two ways, the fallacy takes precedence over the suppressed premise, since even if the premise were to appear, the fallacy would prove fatal.

Canadian Malcontent

9th November 2006, 04:22 PM

CM, sound is the propogation of vibration through a medium. That's all it is. Something must vibrate (and fairly slowly) within a medium for there to be sound.

For that matter, there really is no such thing as "sound." "Sound" is what we call it when vibrations in the medium outside of our eardrum cause our eardrums to vibrate.

At the birth of the universe, there was no medium in which vibrations could propogate. They can't move through space. They can't move through superheated nutrino plasma. There was no sound.

It is not a possibility. It is not an "interesting question." It is not a theory the answer to which we will "never know." There was no sound.

And the concept that sound somehow bound subatomic particles together is utter nonsense. It is meaningless. It as impossible as saying, "Dogs knit parsimony throughout revolutions." It describes nothing that is real in any way.

BUSTED!!! " It is not an interesting question."

And I was so grooving on the reference to misconstrued string theory, as an explanation for my sound beliefs ,which I must have latched onto as 'something clever to say' that can be rolled into Bible upholding. How could I pass that up?

First I get my questions answered And HOW!!! Clearly and consisely, thats how. Could I ask for more ? Then I get semi-validated for my 'sound beliefs'. Then what? A little slap to round out the lesson and no gold star.
I feel like grasshopper. Well I can dream of growing up to be an efficient
"I will help you." guy.

So then God's Word was precipitated by the 'flashofheat' of the Bangerino.
As lightning precipitates thunder here on Earth.
Yes its all fitting together quite nicely.:biggrin:

The 'sound' being the 'wave in a medium' echo of God's Creative impulse expressed as the Bangerino.
ORRRR!
There is some as yet unknown 'wave in a vacuum' that causes Bangerinos,
or at least one ... bangerino.
The wave in a vacuum dealy would be the cause of the Big Bang.
Would then my beliefs be sound?

bruto you should be running the country with that insightful balanced perception of yours.

lightcreatedlife@hom

9th November 2006, 05:38 PM

This is only true, though badly written, if there is something BEYOND what science can know. So far such a conclusion seems unwarranted.
No. I was talking about how the methods of science cannot be applied to all areas of knowledge, therefore it cannot go there.

Irrelevant. You contended that they were FUNDAMENTAL. Clearly they are not because, under certain conditions, they can be combined.
I think science is trying to combine 4 fundamental forces in a formula. They say this even though they know that at one point they were/are one. Four forces are said to be responsible for the universe today.
Looked at from space everything on this planet combines into one.

Why ?
Because humans have the most developed brain.

No. You're trying to have it both ways. You're trying to have matter beign the same as an energy that has intelligence, and then ascribe that intelligence ONLY to some forms of said matter. So which is it ?
I never said that energy and matter were different forms of the same thing. And even then I was quoting Einstein. But I said that I think that all forms of life have some intelligence, the better developed the brain, the more it can be expressed. Life expresses what it knows though purposeful actions, matter not considered life cannot readily show purposeful action. Though as I have said earlier, polished rocks have colors and patterns that rival those of any lifeform. And minerals seem a step above rocks.

Which unfortunately you seem unwilling to take.
Not completely unwilling. I said I will study logic and particle interaction. But if you are talking about helping me to see that there is no soul, I don't think that we will not see eye to eye. While I am willing to hear what you have to say, I think I will see your evidence saying that there is.

Exactly how you get from "order" to "designer" baffles me. Please elaborate.
In the human world, complex structures mean that someone designed them. Thought went into their creation. Something as complex, and long running as the universe, has to have a designer. The designer that I have in mind only acted in the beginning, leaving the system free-running. Purpose? Consciousness.

No, it shows that knowledgeable people who disagree on a lot of things agree that you are wrong. It would point to the strong possibility that you are wrong. Completely. No matter how thinking about it hurts.
And I am sure that other logical people disagree with some of what you say. Wrong? possible. Completely? unlikely. Hurt? No. Ideas are meant to be passed around, and are not accepted everywhere they go.

No, you didn't. You said 1x5 = 5 and 1+5 = 6. But that's NOT how multiplication and addition are the same. 1x5 = 5, and that's it.
Thanks. I was saying that they are different.

Precisely. Math is a human invention. It doesn't even have anything to do with reality.
I thought putting numbers to the things around us helped to create our reality?

Perhaps, but it would still be an invention.
But wouldn't that show a fundamental connection?

Taffer

9th November 2006, 05:38 PM

Methinks that the wrong fallacy. More like a false equivocation, or something.

Actually, it's both. He equates the two, and uses post hoc reasoning to ascribe the cause of one as the cause of t'other.

Taffer

9th November 2006, 05:42 PM

I think it's more of a missing premise (an LCL specialty), since the cause of neither sort of order is identified, rather than implying that one premise is the cause of another.

An absurd example:

I saw some coins piled neatly on a table.

I saw some blocks piled neatly on the ground.

The same person must have made the pile.

The missing premise is "there is only one agency that can make neat piles."

It is also this too. Although generally, a missing premise isn't considered a fallacy, just poor debating technique.

Loss Leader

9th November 2006, 06:43 PM

But wouldn't that show a fundamental connection?

LCL, you keep using this phrase. What do you mean by "a fundamental connection"? What does it mean if two things are fundamentally connected? Can you give any examples that everyone can readily agree on of two things that are fundamentally connected?

Does it mean one thing caused the other? Does it mean both things were caused by the same thing? Does it mean one thing becomes the other?

I have no idea what you think it means to say that something is fundamentally connected to something else. Please explain how you see this concept.

Cosmo

9th November 2006, 08:56 PM

It's time to celebrate! Why, you ask?

Because this thread was started two months ago today! And look how far we've come in that time!

:hbd: :hbd: :hbd:

:bcake::bcake::wave1:wave1:wave1
:j1::j2::j1::j2:
:jedi::bowl::bike:

Anacoluthon64

9th November 2006, 10:05 PM

Methinks that the wrong fallacy. More like a false equivocation, or something.False Analogy (http://education.gsu.edu/spehar/FOCUS/EdPsy/misc/Fallacies.htm#analogy), a.k.a. Weak Analogy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wanalogy.html).

'Luthon64

Anacoluthon64

9th November 2006, 10:12 PM

BUSTED!!! " It is not an interesting question."

And I was so grooving on the reference to misconstrued string theory, as an explanation for my sound beliefs , ...*Sigh* A response such as this was entirely predictable: you came looking for affirmation, rather than information, and now you think you have found it.

And, no, your beliefs are decidedly unsound. :D

'Luthon64

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 03:05 AM

Awww! Man!! BUSTED Again!

Luthon, I wanted the info and thanks to Belz Taffer Loss Leader bruto for the stuff, I consider it to be primo.
I just thought it would be comical to the readers to twist it around the way I did. Its what I like to call 'Religious logic'
The twist leads to my next question which the info itself begs. How?
How the Big Bang?
Reminds me of a song, " Nuthin' from nuthin' leaves nuthin' "
Exist there any ideas or informations pertaining to the 'before time'?
Luthin it is fascinating to me to traverse this discourse while preserving the ideaology and terminology of my 'sound beliefs'. Akin to the picnic game where racers hold a spoon in their mouth with an egg balanced on it.
Just to have been led to 'sound beliefs' is wonderful.
( It helps if one laughs at one's own jokes and is easily entertained, as am I.)

I... Three, yes I must have picked up the string theory / sound analogy, and woven it into my Bible/science tapestry as a remnant of the 'true cross' only to have you show it to be a dried up turd. This illustrates the importance of showing one's art. Its the only way to know if it stinks.

I assure you I never did imagine that God's Word as the Bang impetus was anymore than distantly related to the sound of my words, and maybe not related at all.

bruto you make as always a balanced insightful considerate observation ( you would make a great minister) but I am not giving up on the Bible just yet.

Commie, thank you. Now , point particles, thanks Belz, 'point' indicates having specific location without mass. 'Little bundle of energy' work for youse?

So whats up with the Bang impetus? Whats the theory there?

And thank you again, I find you to be a generous community.

Taffer

10th November 2006, 03:12 AM

I fear you are still thinking of 'energy' as a descrete entity, CM. 'Energy' is just a measure of force potentials, it is not a 'thing' which exists.

TobiasTheViking

10th November 2006, 03:26 AM

So whats up with the Bang impetus? Whats the theory there?

if you are asking.
What went bang, what caused it to go bang, why did it go bang.. I don't really think there is an answer.. atleast yet.

Well, nothing really went bang, there wasn't an explosion of such. Just something that was there that expanded, but besides for that, i don't know the answers, and i don't think anyone does.. atleast yet.

Anacoluthon64

10th November 2006, 03:31 AM

Luthon, I wanted the info and thanks to Belz Taffer Loss Leader bruto for the stuff, I consider it to be primo.Yes, it speaks volumes to their patience and indulgence that they have extended so many helping hands. I, however, am rather more suspicious of someone who poses such general questions in so provocative a manner, especially when "www.google.com" is really not that much of strain to type. Generally, only infants or those with severe physical, mental or neurological deficiencies need such spoon feeding.

'Luthon64

Belz...

10th November 2006, 04:51 AM

BUSTED!!! " It is not an interesting question."

And I was so grooving on the reference to misconstrued string theory, as an explanation for my sound beliefs ,which I must have latched onto as 'something clever to say' that can be rolled into Bible upholding. How could I pass that up?

First I get my questions answered And HOW!!! Clearly and consisely, thats how. Could I ask for more ? Then I get semi-validated for my 'sound beliefs'. Then what? A little slap to round out the lesson and no gold star.
I feel like grasshopper. Well I can dream of growing up to be an efficient
"I will help you." guy.

So then God's Word was precipitated by the 'flashofheat' of the Bangerino.
As lightning precipitates thunder here on Earth.
Yes its all fitting together quite nicely.:biggrin:

The 'sound' being the 'wave in a medium' echo of God's Creative impulse expressed as the Bangerino.
ORRRR!
There is some as yet unknown 'wave in a vacuum' that causes Bangerinos,
or at least one ... bangerino.
The wave in a vacuum dealy would be the cause of the Big Bang.
Would then my beliefs be sound?

bruto you should be running the country with that insightful balanced perception of yours.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about ?

Belz...

10th November 2006, 05:00 AM

No. I was talking about how the methods of science cannot be applied to all areas of knowledge, therefore it cannot go there.

Please mention which area of knowledge science cannot be applied to.

I think science is trying to combine 4 fundamental forces in a formula. They say this even though they know that at one point they were/are one. Four forces are said to be responsible for the universe today.

Did you read what I said ?

It doesn't matter. Depending on the circumstances there could be 1, 2, 3 or 4 forces, assuming we haven't missed any. So your claim that they are fundamental is wrong, just like saying an atom is a fundamental particle is wrong.

Because humans have the most developed brain.

No. WHY can intelligence ONLY be expressed in life if all energy and matter is intelligent ?

I never said that energy and matter were different forms of the same thing.

Oh, yes you did.

And even then I was quoting Einstein.

No points for that. You said you didn't, and now, one sentence later, you admit you did, but blame the dead scientist.

But I said that I think that all forms of life have some intelligence, the better developed the brain, the more it can be expressed. Life expresses what it knows though purposeful actions, matter not considered life cannot readily show purposeful action.

Yes, and there's your assumption that intelligence is the end goal of everything. Just like a wrangler-fish believing that the ability to emit light is the greatest thing in the universe. Your entire theory is based on it, and concludes it. Guess what that's called.

Not completely unwilling.

You're not "completely" unwilling to learn ? Wow. That's not very encouraging.

I said I will study logic and particle interaction. But if you are talking about helping me to see that there is no soul, I don't think that we will not see eye to eye.

Are you saying that there is no amount of evidence that will convince you that your pet soul doesn't exist ? That's very closed-minded of you. I'm sure that's not what you meant, in fact.

Show ONE piece of evidence that there IS a soul, and we can start a thread on that, if you want.

In the human world, complex structures mean that someone designed them.

Yes, and you provided the one very important piece of information : "In the human world". Trying to apply that to naturalistic processes is anthropomorphisation... or something.

And I am sure that other logical people disagree with some of what you say. Wrong? possible. Completely? unlikely.

Why not ? I've been completely wrong before. Can you ?

Thanks. I was saying that they are different.

Yes, and you were misrepresenting them in order to make it seem like you were right. 1x5 and 1+5 are NOT equivalent, just like 1x5 and 2x5 aren't, but they're the same operation.

I thought putting numbers to the things around us helped to create our reality?

What ? No, it's just a tool, Light.

But wouldn't that show a fundamental connection?

No. It would only show that it's a REALLY useful tool.