Light created Life [Archive] - Page 8

Taffer

10th November 2006, 06:41 AM

okay I get it.

so any amount of energy could well have existed preBang and in the absence of space/time as we know it?
and probably did
thats God

Because of who and what we are we look at God with our Bible in hand but God is still the same God.
We all just relate to Him differently.
And my Bible teaches me that your relationship with God isnt my issue.
You guys are not wrong just different. I am so relieved.
Welcome to the fold brethren!:biggrin:

Heh. While mostly incoherent, you do a good impersonation of LCL here. ;)

But to answer your question as simply as I can, I'll just say "No™". All 'things' begin at the big bang, so there cannot be any 'before' or 'nothing' or 'anything' in this context. To continue the example, if 'thing' stands for 'phyiscal objects', and as I have said all 'things' began at the big bang, 'before' the big bang was not 'nothing', but rather 'no'. Which equates to ' '. Also, time began at the big bang as well, so even talking about 'before' is nonsense.

I will safely say that "no, no energy existed before the big bang". I have various metaphysical reasons for this, including of which the view that 'before' the big bang was not 'inside' our universe, and anything which we talk about ('energy', matter, time, space, etc) is by definition in our own universe. Because anything 'outside' our universe is not causally linked to our universe (the universe is a closed system, it appears), anything 'outside' our universe does not exist. Therefore, 'before' the big bang there was not 'nothing existing', but rather 'non-existance'. Whatever was 'there' is unknowable to us.

So saying "God was there!" is equally as nonsensical as saying "scientific theory X was there!".

bruto

10th November 2006, 06:59 AM

My crackpot theory of the day is that God, before the big bang, realized that he faced a terrible dilemma. He could not act or do anything at all without incurring irreconcilable logical contradictions. Even existence itself was a compromise. Being divine and perfect he could not bear the thought. Besides, it was unbelievably boring. So in frustration he blew himself up. Whether out of frustration, moral obligation, or just reckless adventure, the result was... BANG! Good theists could see this as a model for love and sacrifice, and bad ones as a model for suicide bombing. The Quakers are right, there's a little bit of God in all of us. Just not a whole lot anywhere else :D

Loss Leader

10th November 2006, 07:02 AM

What in the blue hell are you babbling about ?

I can't figure it out, either! He speaks in sentence fragments laced with sarcasm. I have no idea what his actual point is, what he thinks happened or even whom he believes is "busted."

Belz...

10th November 2006, 07:08 AM

Luthon, I wanted the info and thanks to Belz Taffer Loss Leader bruto for the stuff, I consider it to be primo.

I'm going to need a translator.

The twist leads to my next question which the info itself begs. How?
How the Big Bang?

It's a much better question than "why".

Though someone can surely answer your question better than I.

Exist there any ideas or informations pertaining to the 'before time'?

It's hard to find data on the nonsensical.

Now , point particles, thanks Belz, 'point' indicates having specific location without mass. 'Little bundle of energy' work for youse?

Nope.

Belz...

10th November 2006, 07:09 AM

Belz I am trying to be funny.

And failing miserably.

Loss Leader

10th November 2006, 07:12 AM

so any amount of energy could well have existed preBang and in the absence of space/time as we know it?
and probably did
thats God

Great, so just answer what created God and we can all go home.

And if God just is and always has been, give yourself an F and start philosophising all over again from the beginning.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 07:16 AM

This is only true, though badly written, if there is something BEYOND what science can know. So far such a conclusion seems unwarranted.
Only if you ignore first Heisenberg, and then Planck length and Planck time. Life per se on up through HPC also leave plenty of room for ??? so far, too.

And, wow! Look at all those pages. Did I miss anything new and/or important? :boxedin:

Belz...

10th November 2006, 09:13 AM

Nothing that warrants a post by you, Hammy, I'm sure.

Tanstaafl

10th November 2006, 09:30 AM

The Universe isn't expanding into space - the Universe is space. There's no outside from which to watch it expanding. Likewise, there was no space (or time) before the Big Bang. Just like the example of going north from the North Pole - a singularity. The Big Bang was also a singularity, a terminus, the first event ever. God didn't say "let there be light" before the Big Bang because there was no before.

The explanation of this that helped me the most was that the universe isn't expanding into space, but rather space is expanding.

At least I hope that cleared it up for me rather than leading me astray. :boggled:

TobiasTheViking

10th November 2006, 09:57 AM

it did :)

right on the mark Tanstaafl

hammegk

10th November 2006, 10:00 AM

Did someone let a belz? Something smells odd.

Belz...

10th November 2006, 12:10 PM

Ah,

Now we've got super-troll on our hands.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 12:34 PM

But remember what mama said: Don't Play In Traffic.

Will you manage to cross the street ok, Belz?

>plonk< since you appear to be too dumb to figure out Ignore.

bruto

10th November 2006, 12:38 PM

But remember what mama said: Don't Play In Traffic.

Will you manage to cross the street ok, Belz?

>plonk< since you appear to be too dumb to figure out Ignore.

Pardon my confusion, but if all you are interested in is being irritating enough to trigger someone to put you on Ignore, wouldn't it be more economical simply to ignore yourself?

hammegk

10th November 2006, 12:48 PM

:rub:

Feel better now?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

10th November 2006, 12:53 PM

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.
How many times can I subtract -2 from 6? 6 - -2 = 8 (one), 8 - -2 = 10 (two), 10 - -2 = 12 (three), ...

$6 \div -2 = \infty$

Just doing the math. :D

~~ Paul

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 01:52 PM

The explanation of this that helped me the most was that the universe isn't expanding into space, but rather space is expanding.

At least I hope that cleared it up for me rather than leading me astray. :boggled:

"Infinity , by definition cannot be conceived as cut or divided in any fashion." Jean Juneau " Greseillment'

Okay , so what is 'space' expanding into?

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 01:55 PM

You still teaching LCL math!!!
LCL spit it out and take your lumps you are even boring me.
Say your little thing LCL, whats holding you to your position?

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 02:02 PM

Did someone let a belz? Something smells odd.

Belz I have experience with these old useless turds. Ignore him,
he deserves less and he will get it, but not here. We uphold societal norms to the best of our ability. we respect our elders.

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 02:12 PM

Okay , so what is 'space' expanding into?

Your question makes no sense.

hammegk

10th November 2006, 02:16 PM

Belz I have experience with these old useless turds. Ignore him,
he deserves less and he will get it, but not here. We uphold societal norms to the best of our ability. we respect our elders.
A Canuck throwing monkey poo. You'll fit right in to the noobie bunch, eh?

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 02:24 PM

Heh. While mostly incoherent, you do a good impersonation of LCL here. ;)

But to answer your question as simply as I can, I'll just say "No™". All 'things' begin at the big bang, so there cannot be any 'before' or 'nothing' or 'anything' in this context. To continue the example, if 'thing' stands for 'phyiscal objects', and as I have said all 'things' began at the big bang, 'before' the big bang was not 'nothing', but rather 'no'. Which equates to ' '. Also, time began at the big bang as well, so even talking about 'before' is nonsense.

I will safely say that "no, no energy existed before the big bang". I have various metaphysical reasons for this, including of which the view that 'before' the big bang was not 'inside' our universe, and anything which we talk about ('energy', matter, time, space, etc) is by definition in our own universe. Because anything 'outside' our universe is not causally linked to our universe (the universe is a closed system, it appears), anything 'outside' our universe does not exist. Therefore, 'before' the big bang there was not 'nothing existing', but rather 'non-existance'. Whatever was 'there' is unknowable to us.

So saying "God was there!" is equally as nonsensical as saying "scientific theory X was there!".

Taffer, simplify it, just say ' Nothing existed before me, I have metaphysical reasons which I cannot divulge because they are secrets of Xenu' My world is the ONLY thing and nothing else matters " it appears".
Before ME there was nothing or at least nothing I know about so it doesnt matter.'
Okay little boy its all about you.
But your not MY little boy, so shut the f up and back off because my impatience with self centred little twats is something you cannot sustain!

Just say it Taffer!!! If I cant see it it , it cant be real.!!
i am a self indulgent jerkoff that cannot concieve space or time for what it is bnut only for what my masters tell me it is.
scientology is in every town and you fit the profile to a tee.
why fake it Taffer join tonight

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and remain civil and polite. Do not use insults to argue your point.

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 02:32 PM

Taffer my boy, GOD IS what was there and He is why you are what you are.
I know it may conflict with what your mamma told you but you Taffer are NO accident.
Forgive your Mother, Taffer , she did what she could do. Be a man.

So I see all of you. Trying to get out of ' before the Bang"
WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

BEFORE THE BANG JERKWADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are such debaters! Oh Yes!! But you have given up that there was abefore the the BAng!!

So what was it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apply your collective genius to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pathetic, as are all who seek to elevate themselves above their station.

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????

Canadian Malcontent

10th November 2006, 02:55 PM

YOU WANT A FREAKING REFERENCE!!!!?????

THE Oxford or Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary ( nothing else will do)....
look up 'Eternity' ( cuz it seems your the only one who doesnt know what the word means)
You people make me sick, Huntster must be sick to hang around so long,
Huntster and drkitty should go dancing on Saturday night.

Face it losers , You know ko--, nada.
You have al;ittle story about what you see with your little instruments and you pretend authority.
What did your parents or priest do to you to make you like this?
Now I feel sorry for you as I do my Roman Catholic mother asking " Who. Did what to them to make them like that?"

Huntster, Catholocism is to me a cult. I do not suggest that a person cannot be Christian and Catholic as I have seen the hand of GOD in my Catholic brethren , I am not down with ANY human authority when it comes to God. Its every man for himself and for all. There is no designated authority. Authority does not exist unless I grant it. And if you have a problem with that please do not answer just f off.

As for the rest of you ........... Do you agree with Taffer? "Before the bang was 'nonexistense'?
Does EVERYTHING begin with your perception of it?
Quantum mechanics says you are right.
Me, I believe what is readily apparent to me. There was something before the stars we see and thjere will be something after.
Unlioke you I am not the Beginning and the End.
I am just a little guy trying to get through the day.
Like Shultz "I know nothinnnng!"

Cosmo

10th November 2006, 03:11 PM

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 03:22 PM

As for the rest of you ........... Do you agree with Taffer? "Before the bang was 'nonexistense'?

Yes.

Can you make your point without hurling insults, pretty please with sugar on top?

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 06:59 PM

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.
Aren't science trying to unite 4 forces? You are pointing out here some of what I have been saying all along. Depending on how something is looked at, you can get just about anything you want. I have heard that science was not subjective, but as I said, some of the people who "work with it" are. I said 4 forces, 4 operations of math, energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, and other things because that is what (most of)science was currently saying. Like I said, I didn't make that stuff up. Flowing to anything you think at the time seems sought of a mess.

No. WHY can intelligence ONLY be expressed in life if all energy and matter is intelligent ?
Like with the human being the highest life form thing-they are the only ones that can say. A rock can know the secrets of the universe, but it can't say.

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.
That is not what I meant at all. I have been thorugh some of the theories about how the universe could have came about without a conscious design, and they don't work for me. As I see it, science is all about finding out how it was done. Every place they look they see deeper and deeper design.

Show ONE piece of evidence that there IS a soul, and we can start a thread on that, if you want.
I think it has to do with the mental/emotional nature of life. But as you must know, everything that has to do with life can't readily be layed hands on, but that does not mean that it is not there. We can start one on what that is all about. This thread here is getting out of hand.

Why not ? I've been completely wrong before. Can you ?
I have been completely wrong before too. But I am going to withhold judgement on myself on this thing for right now. Afterall, it does desire a wider read then this.

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 said that "1 & 0" of multiplication could not be done with addition and someone said that "0" could, but they said nothing about "1".
Read it for yourself please.

What ? No, it's just a tool, Light.
Yes but the math of the universe would still be there whether or not we knew it. Just like its physics are there.

No. It would only show that it's a REALLY useful tool.
One that science here expects them to see about the same way we do.

Loss Leader

10th November 2006, 07:05 PM

As for the rest of you ........... Do you agree with Taffer? "Before the bang was 'nonexistense'?

Yes. Speaking about what existed before the beginning of the universe is as meaningless as speaking about whether Elmo is really Grover's nephew in real life.

Does EVERYTHING begin with your perception of it?

No. Nothing does. And here is where you reveal a basic misunderstanding. The conception of the universe that Taffer and others have offered is not intuitive. It is not consistent with the gross inpressions of our senses and our inborn beliefs about the workings of the world. It is a difficult position carved out of reason, offering little emotional comfort and causing quite a bit of nausia. We believe it only because it is what the objective evidence indicates.

Me, I believe what is readily apparent to me. There was something before the stars we see and thjere will be something after.

Yes, you do. Your beliefs are based on emotion, first appearance and unexamined clues. There is nothing noble about it.

Unlioke you I am not the Beginning and the End.
I am just a little guy trying to get through the day.
Like Shultz "I know nothinnnng!"

You confuse our positions. Mankind is far, far less important in our conception of the universe than in yours. It is we who approach the world with humility. It is you who demand personal attention from an all-powerful father. We must be far more self-reliant.

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 07:20 PM

.
I said that "1 & 0" of multiplication could not be done with addition and someone said that "0" could, but they said nothing about "1".
Read it for yourself please.

You didn't ask it this way before. Let me try and explain.
This borrows a bit from group theory, and I'm a little rusty, but the wikipedia article has the basics down pat.

Under the binary operation of addition, 0 is what's called the identity element.
That is, for any Real Number a,
a + 0 = a

Under the binary operation of multiplcation, 1 is the identity element.
That is, for any Real Number a,
a * 1 = a

See a pattern here?
A number (or for that matter any element of a group) combined via the group's operation with the identity element will result in the original number.

bruto

10th November 2006, 07:56 PM

You didn't ask it this way before. Let me try and explain.
This borrows a bit from group theory, and I'm a little rusty, but the wikipedia article has the basics down pat.

Under the binary operation of addition, 0 is what's called the identity element.
That is, for any Real Number a,
a + 0 = a

Under the binary operation of multiplcation, 1 is the identity element.
That is, for any Real Number a,
a * 1 = a

See a pattern here?
A number (or for that matter any element of a group) combined via the group's operation with the identity element will result in the original number.

I think, though I'm not entirely sure, that LCL's question has more to do with the fact that there is no convenient way to express "1 x 0" in the common notation of addition; There's a point to that, since in a sense, 1 x 0 is the expression for not doing anything at all, and not performing any addition (verbally one could say "I take one no times," or "I count no instances of 1). Of course, since both addition and multiplication are commutative, it also means one instance of zero, in which case, it could be restated as an addition: 0+0. I take one instance of zero and no more.

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 08:03 PM

I think, though I'm not entirely sure, that LCL's question has more to do with the fact that there is no convenient way to express "1 x 0" in the common notation of addition; There's a point to that, since in a sense, 1 x 0 is the expression for not doing anything at all, and not performing any addition (verbally one could say "I take one no times," or "I count no instances of 1). Of course, since both addition and multiplication are commutative, it also means one instance of zero, in which case, it could be restated as an addition: 0+0. I take one instance of zero and no more.

In that case...
borrowed from the wikipedia article on multipication

* The sum of zero numbers is zero.

This fact is directly received by means of the distributive property:
m · 0 = (m · 0) + m − m = (m · 0) + (m · 1) − m = m · (0 + 1) − m = (m · 1) − m = m − m = 0.

So,

m · 0 = 0

no matter what m is (as long as it is finite).

Loss Leader

10th November 2006, 08:07 PM

Of course, since both addition and multiplication are commutative, it also means one instance of zero, in which case, it could be restated as an addition: 0+0. I take one instance of zero and no more.

Isn't 0+0 two instances of zero? One instance of zero would just be 0.

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 08:29 PM

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 08:45 PM

0+5=5 0x5=0 1+5=6 1x5=5

Now I agree with what the guy did to make zero work. Get 1 to work that same way without using the binary "what its."

1 is not the identity element under addition, 0 is.
You expect 1 to behave as an identity element under addition, and it's like trying to squeeze lemon juice out of an apple.

Take a look at the chart of identity elements on the wikipedia page: identity element

Taffer

10th November 2006, 08:47 PM

Taffer, simplify it, just say ' Nothing existed before me, I have metaphysical reasons which I cannot divulge because they are secrets of Xenu' My world is the ONLY thing and nothing else matters " it appears".
Before ME there was nothing or at least nothing I know about so it doesnt matter.'
Okay little boy its all about you.
But your not MY little boy, so shut the f up and back off because my impatience with self centred little twats is something you cannot sustain!

Just say it Taffer!!! If I cant see it it , it cant be real.!!
i am a self indulgent jerkoff that cannot concieve space or time for what it is bnut only for what my masters tell me it is.
scientology is in every town and you fit the profile to a tee.
why fake it Taffer join tonight

What. The. Fu...? :boggled:

Taffer

10th November 2006, 08:49 PM

bruto

10th November 2006, 09:14 PM

Isn't 0+0 two instances of zero? One instance of zero would just be 0.

True, but I could probably weasel out of it by saying that zero is funny that way, since everything is more or less by definition itself plus zero. It all depends on how you look at it. Zizzybaluba did it better.

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 09:32 PM

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.

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.

:)Just our luck. You are going to love this. I was joking when I said fine. I was brushing you off. But it serves you right if you thought I was serious. I have told you at least 3 times why I did not have to answer that question right now. The soul fits there. Those things fit the soul. And they all line up. Coincidence? Maybe. But it happened 12 times.

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 10:01 PM

1 is not the identity element under addition, 0 is.
You expect 1 to behave as an identity element under addition, and it's like trying to squeeze lemon juice out of an apple.

Take a look at the chart of identity elements on the wikipedia page: identity element
So you are saying that under the binary what its, 0x1=1? Or are you saying I could not even use zero?

Taffer

10th November 2006, 10:08 PM

So you are saying that under the binary what its, 0x1=1? Or are you saying I could not even use zero?

I think he's saying that you don't understand the nature of what you're talking about. Do you have a response for my explanation between the differences? The word problems?

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 10:21 PM

True, but I could probably weasel out of it by saying that zero is funny that way, since everything is more or less by definition itself plus zero. It all depends on how you look at it. Zizzybaluba did it better.
Weaseling out of stuff? Believe it or not, I respect your education, Zizzybaluba too. And others. To know enough to readily have something like that on hand. To literally bend space and time. And be right...in a way. That is the kind of stuff that can really put something to the test.
I am also glad that you had to reach into another dimesion to get your point across. No point is safe from that kind of stuff. From the right angle the Sun can be made to sit on the point of a pin.

lightcreatedlife@hom

10th November 2006, 10:30 PM

I think he's saying that you don't understand the nature of what you're talking about. Do you have a response for my explanation between the differences? The word problems?
Why would I need one?

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 10:39 PM

So you are saying that under the binary what its, 0x1=1? Or are you saying I could not even use zero?

1 is the identity element under multipication.
So for any Real Number n,
n x 1 = n
0 is a Real Number, therefore let n = 0
0 x 1 = 0 QED and off to sleep.

zizzybaluba

10th November 2006, 10:41 PM

Taffer

10th November 2006, 10:42 PM

Why would I need one?

Because you appear to still be under the same false understandings of the nature of mathematics and prime functions as you were before, and continue to use it as 'evidence' for your 'theory'.

Loss Leader

11th November 2006, 05:09 AM

Just our luck. You are going to love this. I was joking when I said fine. I was brushing you off. But it serves you right if you thought I was serious. I have told you at least 3 times why I did not have to answer that question right now. The soul fits there. Those things fit the soul. And they all line up. Coincidence? Maybe. But it happened 12 times.

Light, for the second time, LCL, you keep using the phrase "fundamental connection." 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.

bruto

11th November 2006, 06:37 AM

Weaseling out of stuff? Believe it or not, I respect your education, Zizzybaluba too. And others. To know enough to readily have something like that on hand. To literally bend space and time. And be right...in a way. That is the kind of stuff that can really put something to the test.
I am also glad that you had to reach into another dimesion to get your point across. No point is safe from that kind of stuff. From the right angle the Sun can be made to sit on the point of a pin.

I was sort of joking, of course, but you are the one who keeps bending things to fit your notion of symmetry, and your insistence that all these things come in packs of four, and that somehow or other, there's a fundamental difference between multiplication and addition, based, it seems, entirely on your poor understanding of basic mathematical principles.

bruto

11th November 2006, 02:22 PM

Adding to the above, too late to add in an edit: what I mean to say, LCL, is that I think you are trying to preserve an idea that there is some fundamental, interesting and significant difference between operations that is based, essentially, on a glitch in the way we commonly notate them, and not much else. It's true that as we commonly write down the operations of addition and multiplication, it is not conveniently possible to express "1 x 0" as a simple addition, but this is because we write the operations in a socially convenient form, not because it is not a statement about the same kind of counting that both addition and multiplication denote. "1 + 0" means " I took one thing and put it on the stack and then added nothing more to the stack." "1 x 0" simply means "I didn't bother to put anything on the stack." However you learned to notate it in third grade, it's still just calculation, and as such, and as the root of its name implies, it's just counting pebbles.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th November 2006, 02:50 PM

I was sort of joking, of course, but you are the one who keeps bending things to fit your notion of symmetry, and your insistence that all these things come in packs of four,
I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA, the forces, math and other places I wondered if those things somehow matched up. The analogies and coincidences and whatever else you want to call them were just as visible as that four thing. Actually the only thing that graph is saying is that "viewed from this angle, those things can be made to line up this way."
Science defined those things, what are the chances of them somehow being just the right words, even though those things are said HERE to have NO relationship to one another. And wouldn't life be based on the things that make it up?

and that somehow or other, there's a fundamental difference between multiplication and addition, based, it seems, entirely on your poor understanding of basic mathematical principles.
There is a difference between multiplication and addition. They have two different names. Under the binary what its, yes. What you say is true. But since someone here said that we made math up, and the fact that it is theorical, and/or used to describe such things, I suppose someone could make a system of numbers do just about whatever they want them to do.

RandFan

11th November 2006, 03:42 PM

I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA, the forces, math and other places I wondered if those things somehow matched up. There is a well understood phenomenon. Some people find meaning in 3 some in 7 some in 13. These people look for paterns to match the meaning.

Science defined those things, what are the chances of them somehow being just the right words, even though those things are said HERE to have NO relationship to one another. Again, there are perhaps millions of such coincidences that have no meaning. Numerology is based on this kind of data mining.

And wouldn't life be based on the things that make it up? No.

There is a difference between multiplication and addition.
No. It's just a mathmatic trick. Computers only do addition.

I suppose someone could make a system of numbers do just about whatever they want them to do.I don't know if that is true or not. It certainly doesn't prove anything.

Loss Leader

11th November 2006, 04:35 PM

I.what are the chances of them somehow being just the right words, even though those things are said HERE to have NO relationship to one another.

Actually, Light, the chances are excellent. In fact, they are beyond excellent - they are almost predestined.

Human language evolves. It grows and changes. Old meanings fade away leaving us with words with no memory of their creation. How often do you really ponder the fact that "goodbye" is a corruption of the phrase "God be with ye"? And when you are "gonna" do something, you are not "going to" a place at all. The metaphor of moving from one place to another has been adapted to mean you intend to do something in the future. "I'm gonna watch TV" or "I'm going to the store" are both acceptable. But you would never say "I'm gonna the store." We have made a new word "gonna" out of an old phrase "going to" and they mean two different things.

As humans invent new concepts, they use old words to describe them. Now, the old words may not fit perfectly - they may not fit at all - but in two generations nobody will ever remember that.

The words that you think fit so perfectly on your graph - that you keep marveling that these fits happened over and over again twelve times - they only fit because the words were developed by humans. The basic concepts behind those words actually have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Nothing at all.

All that you have discovered is a quirk of language. That is it.

Read "The Unforlding of Language" by Guy Deutcher to learn more.

P.S. What do you mean when you say "fundamentally connected"?

supercorgi

11th November 2006, 06:10 PM

Wow, you guys are still going at it?! :eek: I admire your staying power.

zizzybaluba

11th November 2006, 07:30 PM

There is a difference between multiplication and addition. They have two different names. Under the binary what its, yes. What you say is true. But since someone here said that we made math up, and the fact that it is theorical, and/or used to describe such things, I suppose someone could make a system of numbers do just about whatever they want them to do.

NO. You need rigorous proof to describe the behavior of a "system of numbers". No proof, no dice.
From the film π (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/):
"As soon as you discard scientific rigor, you're no longer a mathematician, you're a numerologist. "

When you begin to study abstract mathematics, you'll realize that numbers are merely labels for elements of a certain set. There's so much more to math that simply numbers.

bruto

11th November 2006, 08:13 PM

I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA, the forces, math and other places I wondered if those things somehow matched up. No, you did not just wonder, you declared and concluded and diagrammed. In this case, I think you declared wrong. The analogies and coincidences and whatever else you want to call them were just as visible as that four thing. Actually the only thing that graph is saying is that "viewed from this angle, those things can be made to line up this way." If that's really all you're saying, fine. But what you're saying then is that you have organized things by your own rules, essentially arbitrarily. If you equivocate now about what you are doing when you make a theory of everything, then you lose your theory of everything. It's just a picture and explains nothing.
Science defined those things, what are the chances of them somehow being just the right words, even though those things are said HERE to have NO relationship to one another. And wouldn't life be based on the things that make it up? I'm afraid that last paragraph made no sense.

There is a difference between multiplication and addition. Of course there is a difference. One is a way of counting things, and one is a way of counting groups of things. They are intimately related enough that all multiplication can be expressed as an addition, though. It's a difference, but it's the difference between counting clams and counting handfuls of clams. The characteristics, physical, emotional and social, that you seem to see in these differences are made up. They have two different names. Under the binary what its, yes. What you say is true. could you try to explain what you mean when you say again "under the binary what its?" That phrase makes no sense at all. Are you saying that you do not accept that addition and multiplication are binary operations? But since someone here said that we made math up, and the fact that it is theorical, and/or used to describe such things, I suppose someone could make a system of numbers do just about whatever they want them to do. Try making up a system of numbers that actually works, and call back when you do.

TobiasTheViking

11th November 2006, 08:25 PM

Taffer

11th November 2006, 09:24 PM

I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA,...

No, there is five, if you count RNA. And 'four' isn't really meaningful, since a codon (which determines which amino acid is produced) is actually 3 base pairs.

There is a difference between multiplication and addition.

No. They. Aren't. It doesn't matter if they have a different name. Multiplication is just multiple additions.

Tricky

12th November 2006, 06:35 AM

Wow, you guys are still going at it?! :eek: I admire your staying power.
Seconded. Thanks Bruto, Zizzy, Taffer, Tobias et. al.

Somewhere in the middle of this interminable thread, LCL asked me why I was still here discussing it if I though he was so wrong about everything. I said something like, "Because I can't stand to see BS go unchallenged," yet I've done a very poor job lately of challenging it. I feel the need to spread out and talk about other things. LCL, by comparison, focusses all of his energy into one thread, never looking left or right. It is hard to match that kind of enthusiasm. So I'm glad some of you guys have. I'll try to come back and take my turn as BS-sitter for a while. You guys have been great.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 06:41 AM

There is a well understood phenomenon. Some people find meaning in 3 some in 7 some in 13. These people look for paterns to match the meaning.
considering that the universe is mathematical, it seems reasonable to look for connection behind the numbers. After all, isn't that what math is all about?

No. It's just a mathmatic trick. Computers only do addition.
I have heard only addition, only subtraction and in one case 1x0=1. But while I believe what you say is true, it comes down to this:
I said that math said that there were 4 basic operations to math. And that is what it did.
Arithimetic was separated from math for some reason, but it is the branch of math that teaches the basic operations of math. There are other operations of math taught there, but math said 4 basic operations. It knows more about the subject, and it said-not me-and teaches it around the world.
Why are they basic? Because no math can be done without them. That is enough basic for me. Maybe some in theory-but even that seems pretty hard. And using only addition, or only subtraction, is still using one of those 4 operations.

I don't know if that is true or not. It certainly doesn't prove anything.
So sure about the other things though?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 06:48 AM

No, there is five, if you count RNA. And 'four' isn't really meaningful, since a codon (which determines which amino acid is produced) is actually 3 base pairs.
Yes I am sure that adding something else would make it 5, and seen from another view you could probably get more.

No. They. Aren't. It doesn't matter if they have a different name. Multiplication is just multiple additions.
That is true, so why was it given another name? And wouldn't it be kind of confusing without them being two separate operations?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 06:50 AM

Seconded. Thanks Bruto, Zizzy, Taffer, Tobias et. al.

Somewhere in the middle of this interminable thread, LCL asked me why I was still here discussing it if I though he was so wrong about everything. I said something like, "Because I can't stand to see BS go unchallenged," yet I've done a very poor job lately of challenging it. I feel the need to spread out and talk about other things. LCL, by comparison, focusses all of his energy into one thread, never looking left or right. It is hard to match that kind of enthusiasm. So I'm glad some of you guys have. I'll try to come back and take my turn as BS-sitter for a while. You guys have been great.
See. Not a team. It just works out that way.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 06:55 AM

So, you admit to being a liar? Not meaning what you say? Being decieftful? Being a crook?
Wow, a crook too? You seem sort of bitter.

Why are you suddenly talking about the soul?
Your question related to that part.

Do you have any proof of the existance of this so called soul, whatever it is.
It is what connects us mentally, emotionally and even physically to everything else-sort of. Why am I a crook? Or were you just babbling?

TobiasTheViking

12th November 2006, 07:04 AM

Wow, a crook too? You seem sort of bitter.

Your question related to that part.

It is what connects us mentally, emotionally and even physically to everything else-sort of. Why am I a crook? Or were you just babbling?
Crook: An abrupt bend in a tree or log; a defect.

You didn't reply to my question, i asked for a timeframe, you answered with something about the soul.

My question was "When can i expect an answer". I fail to see how the soul is relevant to that question.

And no, i'm not bitter.

So, when can i expect an answer?

Taffer

12th November 2006, 07:09 AM

considering that the universe is mathematical, it seems reasonable to look for connection behind the numbers. After all, isn't that what math is all about?

Not really, no. At least, not in the way you think it means.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 07:12 AM

No, you did not just wonder, you declared and concluded and diagrammed. In this case, I think you declared wrong.
That is your right. I think it is right.

If that's really all you're saying, fine. But what you're saying then is that you have organized things by your own rules, essentially arbitrarily.
My rules? I took that best know characteristics for those things, used the words that science defined them with. Oh wait. I can't use popularity because sometimes everybody is wrong. But the things I have said come from a science community that has developed a pretty good track record. And arbitrary? Aren't all words artibitrary? I am hearing a lot of that is what it says, but they didn't mean that. I see a good part of an exercise in tell me what you see, and I can find another way of seeing it. But I am not mad. Those things make for a good test.

If you equivocate now about what you are doing when you make a theory of everything, then you lose your theory of everything. It's just a picture and explains nothing.
All anyone does (at first) is state a position. As you said these things have to be tested, but first they have to be thought about. I am going to give the thing time and testing.

Taffer

12th November 2006, 07:15 AM

Yes I am sure that adding something else would make it 5, and seen from another view you could probably get more.

What? No, there are 4 in DNA, and 4 in RNA, but 5 overall if you consider both DNA and RNA. DNA uses adanine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). RNA uses A, G, C and Uricil (U). So, if one considers both DNA and RNA, there are 5 bases (A, T, C, G, U).

That is true, so why was it given another name?

Because it's easier to say then "multiple additions". Consider the following two phrases: "I take five and perform multiple additions of five eight times", and "five multipled by eight". Which is easier to say? Another way to think of multiplication is like this: 8x5 is the same as 8+8+8+8+8, or as a word problem "five multiples of eight". They are not seperated, LCL.

And wouldn't it be kind of confusing without them being two separate operations?

No, not at all. I'm not confused. No-one else is, either, as far as I can tell, except you. And I fear that this is only because you are trying to use this as a basis for your 'theory'.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 07:16 AM

Crook: An abrupt bend in a tree or log; a defect.

So you called me a defect? Oh that does it. Now you are suspended on top of all the other suspensions. I didn't know that that was possible until the motor vehicle people told me.

TobiasTheViking

12th November 2006, 07:31 AM

So you called me a defect? Oh that does it. Now you are suspended on top of all the other suspensions. I didn't know that that was possible until the motor vehicle people told me.
Considering your inability to properly communicate, yes i am.

Thanks for sidestepping my question again and once more prove that you are a liar.

bruto

12th November 2006, 07:39 AM

That is your right. I think it is right. But you're not addressing what I said. Every time someone questions your so-called theory, you try to say you weren't really declaring anything, just guessing, but then object when everyone says it's just a guess. You can't have it both ways. To try to have it both ways is dishonest.

My rules? I took that best know characteristics for those things, used the words that science defined them with. Oh wait. I can't use popularity because sometimes everybody is wrong. But the things I have said come from a science community that has developed a pretty good track record. And arbitrary? Aren't all words artibitrary? I am hearing a lot of that is what it says, but they didn't mean that. I see a good part of an exercise in tell me what you see, and I can find another way of seeing it. But I am not mad. Those things make for a good test. Well, are the words arbitrary or are they not? If they are not, then you must consider criticism of how you use them very carefully. If they are, then your analogies and connections based on the words are themselves arbitrary. In other words, you arrange things by your own rules. You can't honestly argue both sides.

All anyone does (at first) is state a position. As you said these things have to be tested, but first they have to be thought about. I am going to give the thing time and testing. Good idea. The time and testing and thinking about are supposed to happen, though, before the presentation of the finished product. Once again, you can't have it both ways. You defend your ideas one time as a finished, certain and complete system based on logical necessity, and the next time dodge specific criticism on the grounds that it's all just a tentative idea out for testing. Make up your mind.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 07:40 AM

What? No, there are 4 in DNA, and 4 in RNA, but 5 overall if you consider both DNA and RNA. DNA uses adanine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). RNA uses A, G, C and Uricil (U). So, if one considers both DNA and RNA, there are 5 bases (A, T, C, G, U).
Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thyme were what I was referring to when I said DNA. And you understood what I said. I said nothing about RNA. In any case 5 dones not bother me much. The graph is about 4 supporting 5.

Because it's easier to say then "multiple additions".
And it has to do with what else you said. Multiplication is used to add groups. That is enough for it to be separate-but the same as addition.

No, not at all. I'm not confused. No-one else is, either, as far as I can tell, except you. And I fear that this is only because you are trying to use this as a basis for your 'theory'.
That is not it. Forget the graph, right now I am trying to hold on to my own sanity. There are four operations. I have always known that they are two pairs, but that takes nothing away from there being four of them. Okay. Someone can very well say (as they have) that really there are only two, but it takes away the advantages, and the reasons for there being four. Just like the thing about there only being 3 forces, or even 1, does not stop there being four right now. One family-four of them. Those others are step children. At least that is how they are treated.

Taffer

12th November 2006, 07:50 AM

Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thyme were what I was referring to when I said DNA. And you understood what I said. I said nothing about RNA. In any case 5 dones not bother me much. The graph is about 4 supporting 5.

You cannot choose only DNA to talk about. DNA and RNA are both intricate parts of the genetic systems of living organisms (well, eukaryotes anyway). If you wish to talk about bases, you have to consider all of them.

And it has to do with what else you said. Multiplication is used to add groups. That is enough for it to be separate-but the same as addition.

No. It. Isn't. There are 2 operations in maths, addition and subtraction (or 1, if you consider subtraction addition of a negative). Multiplication is not another operation. There is the addition operation, and the subtraction operation. All else is derived from there, including multiplication (multiple additions) and division (multiple subtraction). Just because we teach them as 4 different things doesn't make them actually different.

That is not it. Forget the graph, right now I am trying to hold on to my own sanity. There are four operations. I have always known that they are two pairs, but that takes nothing away from there being four of them. Okay. Someone can very well say (as they have) that really there are only two, but it takes away the advantages, and the reasons for there being four. Just like the thing about there only being 3 forces, or even 1, does not stop there being four right now. One family-four of them. Those others are step children. At least that is how they are treated.

See above. You are completely, utterly, totally, wrong. There are 2 basic operations (or 1 if you consider subtraction as negative addition). As I said before, multiplication is just multiple additions, vice versa for division. The underlying operation of multiplication is addition!

zizzybaluba

12th November 2006, 07:53 AM

Taffer

12th November 2006, 07:54 AM

Thyme, part of a more important four basics, along with oregano, basil, and garlic.

:D

I didn't even notice that, classic!

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 07:57 AM

But you're not addressing what I said. Every time someone questions your so-called theory, you try to say you weren't really declaring anything, just guessing, but then object when everyone says it's just a guess. You can't have it both ways. To try to have it both ways is dishonest.
I have never said I was just guessing. I have been over this over and over how I arrived at what I said. What I am not shouting from the roof tops that it is the absolute truth. I believe it. But it has not been proven to be the truth. And some of it may not be able to be proven this side of life-right now. What is there however, I will be (and have been) standing by. That is what you are hearing from me.

Well, are the words arbitrary or are they not? If they are not, then you must consider criticism of how you use them very carefully.
What I was saying is if you are saying "arbitrary" they are no more so then any other word used anywhere.

Good idea. The time and testing and thinking about are supposed to happen, though, before the presentation of the finished product. Once again, you can't have it both ways. You defend your ideas one time as a finished, certain and complete system based on logical necessity, and the next time dodge specific criticism on the grounds that it's all just a tentative idea out for testing. Make up your mind.
[/quote]See statement above.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 08:09 AM

You cannot choose only DNA to talk about. DNA and RNA are both intricate parts of the genetic systems of living organisms (well, eukaryotes anyway). If you wish to talk about bases, you have to consider all of them.
So I can't talk about DNA without mentioning RNA? I think I can. There are four parts to DNA. Is that wrong? Why do I even ask, of course it is.

No. It. Isn't. There are 2 operations in maths, addition and subtraction (or 1, if you consider subtraction addition of a negative). Multiplication is not another operation. There is the addition operation, and the subtraction operation. All else is derived from there, including multiplication (multiple additions) and division (multiple subtraction). Just because we teach them as 4 different things doesn't make them actually different.
So if I wanted to add groups of numbers which operation would I use?

See above. You are completely, utterly, totally, wrong. There are 2 basic operations (or 1 if you consider subtraction as negative addition). As I said before, multiplication is just multiple additions, vice versa for division. The underlying operation of multiplication is addition!
From one angle there are 2 basic operations that are paired. That still makes 4 basic operations of math.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 08:12 AM

Not really, no. At least, not in the way you think it means.
Of course not.

TobiasTheViking

12th November 2006, 08:24 AM

Of course not.
i am sure you will prove yourself a liar once more by contradicting the statement you just made.

Hell, i even predict that you will do it on this or the next page.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 08:25 AM

Actually, Light, the chances are excellent. In fact, they are beyond excellent - they are almost predestined.

As humans invent new concepts, they use old words to describe them. Now, the old words may not fit perfectly - they may not fit at all - but in two generations nobody will ever remember that.
Are you saying that they should not work now because in the future they won't.

The words that you think fit so perfectly on your graph - that you keep marveling that these fits happened over and over again twelve times - they only fit because the words were developed by humans.
You know of any words developed by anything else?

The basic concepts behind those words actually have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Nothing at all.
Don't humans develop words to show relationship?

All that you have discovered is a quirk of language. That is it.
That fits in the right places.

Read "The Unforlding of Language" by Guy Deutcher to learn more.

P.S. What do you mean when you say "fundamentally connected"? a fundamental connection is a basic connection. That is why the the 4 forces are described with both words and so are the 4 basic operations of math.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th November 2006, 08:26 AM

i am sure you will prove yourself a liar once more by contradicting the statement you just made.

Hell, i even predict that you will do it on this or the next page.
You are a bitter baby.

TobiasTheViking

12th November 2006, 08:30 AM

You are a bitter baby.
Got any evidence to back up that statement?

You continue making unsubstantiated arguments.

Please, put on the table, what is you evidence that i'm bitter? And what is your evidence that i'm a baby?

Also, thanks for once more proving that you are deceitful by ignoring what i'm saying.

Could you please tell me when i could expect an answer to any of my questions.. a time frame would be ok. I am still waiting since the 11th of september.

zizzybaluba

12th November 2006, 08:34 AM

a fundamental connection is a basic connection. That is why the the 4 forces are described with both words and so are the 4 basic operations of math.

Jumpin' Jeebus on a pogo-stick!
Described by words?? How else would you have them described?

And for the love of crimeny, there is no significance to your "four basics" of arithmetic. Here's a thought question for you, where in your grand scheme does exponentiation and roots fit?

Taffer

12th November 2006, 09:07 AM

So I can't talk about DNA without mentioning RNA? I think I can. There are four parts to DNA. Is that wrong? Why do I even ask, of course it is.

*Sigh* Ok LCL. If you want to talk about DNA, there are indeed 4 bases. But they are only significant when paired into codons, which is 3. Secondly, why just DNA? What is special about it? Why not RNA as well?

So if I wanted to add groups of numbers which operation would I use?

Either would work fine, LCL. That is the point.

From one angle there are 2 basic operations that are paired. That still makes 4 basic operations of math.

No, that is not true at all. From no informed angle are there 4 basic operations. You are wrong. How many times do we have to tell you this?

RandFan

12th November 2006, 09:08 AM

considering that the universe is mathematical, it seems reasonable to look for connection behind the numbers. After all, isn't that what math is all about?? No.

I have heard only addition, only subtraction and in one case 1x0=1. But while I believe what you say is true, it comes down to this:
I said that math said that there were 4 basic operations to math. And that is what it did. I don't mind anthropomorphizing math so much by saying "math says" but in this instance it is just causing confusion IMO. Math says nothing. Humans simply figured out ways in which to logically deduce conclusions based on various logical operations called math.

Bear in mind that there are 3 additive primary colors (Red Yellow and Blue) and 3 subtractive primary colors (cyan magenta and green). There are 7 musical notes. These are not absolute BTW. There is no significance between musical notes and the religious notion of the trinity. That some people think there is doesn't make it so.

Arithimetic was separated from math for some reason, but it is the branch of math that teaches the basic operations of math. There are other operations of math taught there, but math said 4 basic operations. It knows more about the subject, and it said-not me-and teaches it around the world. Again, your applying human qualities to a concept is really not appropriate but I understand your meaning. It doesn't mean anything that there are 4 basic operations. That's just a way of looking at the concept and it could be seen that there is but one or two basic operations.

Why are they basic? Because no math can be done without them. That is enough basic for me. Maybe some in theory-but even that seems pretty hard. And using only addition, or only subtraction, is still using one of those 4 operations. So what? This doesn't really tell us anything.

Loss Leader

12th November 2006, 11:01 AM

Don't humans develop words to show relationship?

Humans develop words, period. There is nothing special or magical about the way it happens. Some words might completely misidentify the object. Some might just be convenient. Some might be picked because they just sound good and have no meaning beyond that. Which is correct: astronaut or cosmonaut? They're both about as right as they are wrong, mankind has never ventured out to the stars or the cosmos. The word is, at best, aspirational.

And you really have no idea who developed any new word. It certainly does not have to be a scientist or anyone who knows anything about anything. Many new words these days are coined by teenagers and Hollywood scriptwriters. A year ago, nobody knew what it meant to "jump the couch."

Reasoning by analogy based on similarity of words is as arbitrary as reasoning by spinning a wheel.

a fundamental connection is a basic connection.

Please explain what you mean by a "basic connection." What does it mean for two things to have a "basic connection"? Does it mean one caused the other? Does it mean both were caused by the same thing? Does it mnean both are the same? After all these pages, I have no idea what you mean when you say this.

Belz...

13th November 2006, 09:13 AM

But remember what mama said: Don't Play In Traffic.

Will you manage to cross the street ok, Belz?

>plonk< since you appear to be too dumb to figure out Ignore.

I find your mindless ranting amusing, troll. That's why you're not on the list, yet.

Belz...

13th November 2006, 09:21 AM

Aren't science trying to unite 4 forces? You are pointing out here some of what I have been saying all along. Depending on how something is looked at, you can get just about anything you want.

No, that's not what I said. There ARE various ways to look at some things, sometimes even objectively. But in the end, HOW many forces there are WILL depend on circumstances, not point of view. At planck time, chances are there was only ONE force, and that's not much debatable, if true.

I have heard that science was not subjective, but as I said, some of the people who "work with it" are.

Of course "they" are. Who cares, really ? The process of science seeks to eliminate subjectivity. That's the WHOLE POINT of science.

I said 4 forces, 4 operations of math, energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, and other things because that is what (most of)science was currently saying. Like I said, I didn't make that stuff up.

If that made it true you'd be the most correct person on Earth.

Like with the human being the highest life form thing-they are the only ones that can say. A rock can know the secrets of the universe, but it can't say.

Well, does it have intelligence or NOT ?

I have been thorugh some of the theories about how the universe could have came about without a conscious design, and they don't work for me.

Bolded the important part. If the only thing you're looking for is a comforting idea as to how the universe works and "why", then ignore science altogether and stick with religion. If you want REAL answers, whether or not they work "for you", then try a different approach.

As I see it, science is all about finding out how it was done. Every place they look they see deeper and deeper design.

No, they see more and more basic processes. Who said anything about design except you ?

I think it has to do with the mental/emotional nature of life.

Thanks for NOT answering my question. That was NOT evidence of the soul's existence.

I have been completely wrong before too.

Then you admit you CAN be completely wrong about SOME things.

Yes but the math of the universe would still be there whether or not we knew it. Just like its physics are there.

There is no "math of the universe", Light. That's what I've been telling you.

One that science here expects them to see about the same way we do.

Debatable, but I'd agree with you. It simply means that the language of mathematics and logic is very objective, not that it holds some form of fundamental truth.

Belz...

13th November 2006, 09:30 AM

I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA, the forces, math and other places I wondered if those things somehow matched up.

And then proceded to make sure that they did.

How about all the things that AREN'T found in fours ?

There is a difference between multiplication and addition. They have two different names.

"Crâne" and "Skull" also have different names. They are, however, the same.

Under the binary what its, yes. What you say is true. But since someone here said that we made math up, and the fact that it is theorical, and/or used to describe such things, I suppose someone could make a system of numbers do just about whatever they want them to do.

No, they couldn't. Just because we made it up doesn't mean it's not objective or logical.

Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thyme were what I was referring to when I said DNA. And you understood what I said. I said nothing about RNA.

You're ignoring a whole bunch of life-stuff, then,

And it has to do with what else you said. Multiplication is used to add groups. That is enough for it to be separate-but the same as addition.

Separate but the same ? No, it's either one or the other.

I have never said I was just guessing. I have been over this over and over how I arrived at what I said.

And that's very easy to do when you're looking for a specific conclusion in advance.

Tricky

14th November 2006, 12:09 PM

Hey LCL. I found a graph that is better than yours as far as TOEs go. (http://www.jir.com/)

http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/OneGraph.jpg

Loss Leader

14th November 2006, 01:40 PM

Hey LCL. I found a graph that is better than yours as far as TOEs go.

Thanks for turning me on to the site. It's great.

bruto

14th November 2006, 02:35 PM

Hey LCL. I found a graph that is better than yours as far as TOEs go. (http://www.jir.com/)

http://www.jir.com/graph_contest/OneGraph.jpg

That's a beauty, all right, and it has one indisputable advantage over LCL's graph, which is that it is actually a graph.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 03:28 PM

*Sigh* Ok LCL. If you want to talk about DNA, there are indeed 4 bases. But they are only significant when paired into codons, which is 3. Secondly, why just DNA? What is special about it? Why not RNA as well?
Like I said before, The education of the people here appears to be fantastic. It not only gives you a lot of pockets to pull things out of. It appears to me that you know about that RNA stuff, and I hope no one here would let you say something that is not true. But as you just said, what I said about DNA was right. And I really did not say anything about talking DNA. I know your pockets are full and things just come bursting out, but that sought of thing happens a lot. I say something and there is a race to show an angle from which it is wrong. I have to keep focused in what I am talking about though.

No, that is not true at all. From no informed angle are there 4 basic operations. You are wrong. How many times do we have to tell you this?
There is one angle. That is what is being taught, and no math can be done without them. I got reason enough to stand there.

I have be looking into the 4 forces. The EMF in particular and someone said that: "However, it turns out that the EMF is the one responsible for practically all the phoenomena one encounters in daliy life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speacking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms. This includes the forces we experience in pushing and pulling ordinary material objects, which come from the intermolecular forces between the individual molecules in our bodies and those in the objects. It also includes all forms of chemical phenomena, which arise from interactions between electron orbitals. In addition, all optical phenomena are actually electromagnetic phenomena."

It seems to me that there is some bases for it to be the soul of life-if there was one.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 05:22 PM

And then proceded to make sure that they did.

How about all the things that AREN'T found in fours ?
What about them? The universe is made of a lot of things. I thought myself if 4 was so important, why don't we have only 4 fingers? The shape of the hand could have been made to work with that. "Then someone said that we have 4 fingers and a thumb." I think they are all fingers. But it is something how the thumb is the only one with a well known name.
But I got 4 from the four forces and wondered where it led.

"Crâne" and "Skull" also have different names. They are, however, the same.
Fine. I know that those things happen in a lot of places. But remember, I did not separate those things into four, I only pointed out that there are four of them. I just assumed that math had a good reason. And I must admit that I have learned something about them here, but look at this. It could be argued that "north and south" and "east and west" are the same. Traveling around the globe, about half way around, one turns into the other. Separating them into 4 though, allows something that was not easy with just 2 of them. Separating them made them 4, and different, even though, in a way, they are the same thing.

You're ignoring a whole bunch of life-stuff, then,
I wasn't. All I was doing was mentioning that one thing. Going down that street can be saved for another time.

Separate but the same ? No, it's either one or the other.
How about basically the same but different?

And that's very easy to do when you're looking for a specific conclusion in advance.
Even then though, what you are talking about can't make any sharp turns. Whatever method, would have to be done throughout.

wollery

14th November 2006, 05:58 PM

Like I said before, The education of the people here appears to be fantastic. It not only gives you a lot of pockets to pull things out of. It appears to me that you know about that RNA stuff, and I hope no one here would let you say something that is not true. But as you just said, what I said about DNA was right. And I really did not say anything about talking DNA.You brought up the subject of DNA -
I didn't make four special. Seeing four in DNA, the forces, math and other places I wondered if those things somehow matched up.And were promptly corrected -
No, there is five, if you count RNA. And 'four' isn't really meaningful, since a codon (which determines which amino acid is produced) is actually 3 base pairs.
I know your pockets are full and things just come bursting out, but that sought of thing happens a lot. I say something and there is a race to show an angle from which it is wrong. I have to keep focused in what I am talking about though. If Taffer's correction to your post doesn't prove to you that you're cherrypicking simplistic interpretations of science then there really is no hope of you ever learning.

There is one angle. That is what is being taught, and no math can be done without them. I got reason enough to stand there.Feel free to stand there, just look out for the bus of pure mathematics that doesn't use them.

[slight derail joke]
What do you get if you cross a bear with a goat?
The modulus of the bear, plus the modulus of the goat, multiplied by the sine of the angle between them.

What do you get if you cross a bear with a mountain goat?
Nothing, the mountain goat's a scaler.
[/slight derail joke]

....snip....

It seems to me that there is some bases for it to be the soul of life-if there was one."It seems to me".....

"some bases".....

"if there was one".....

Vague, full of unsupported assumptions, and not only do you offer no proof, but you aren't even certain of the existence of the very thing that your ramblings are supposed to connect to!

And you wonder why we have a problem with what you have to say?

wollery

14th November 2006, 06:19 PM

What about them? The universe is made of a lot of things. I thought myself if 4 was so important, why don't we have only 4 fingers? The shape of the hand could have been made to work with that. "Then someone said that we have 4 fingers and a thumb." I think they are all fingers. But it is something how the thumb is the only one with a well known name. I always thought "index finger", "middle finger", "ring finger", and "little finger" were quite well known, but apparently I was wrong! :rolleyes:

Not to mention the fact that many animals have different numbers of digits. Once again you're looking at humans and assuming they're special. I thought we'd finished with that little faux pas.

But I got 4 from the four forces and wondered where it led.Down the garden path?

Fine. I know that those things happen in a lot of places. But remember, I did not separate those things into four, I only pointed out that there are four of them. I just assumed that math had a good reason. And I must admit that I have learned something about them here,Really? I merely ask because you have shown no indication that you have.

but look at this. It could be argued that "north and south" and "east and west" are the same. Traveling around the globe, about half way around, one turns into the other. Separating them into 4 though, allows something that was not easy with just 2 of them. Separating them made them 4, and different, even though, in a way, they are the same thing.Sorry, but no. If you start heading due east and keep going you will always be going due east. Same for due West. Start heading due north and after a certain time you will suddenly find yourself heading due south! And there were never "just two of them".

I wasn't. All I was doing was mentioning that one thing. Going down that street can be saved for another time.Probably wise, I think it's one way coming in the other direction. :D

How about basically the same but different?How about, exactly the same, but with a different symbol.

Even then though, what you are talking about can't make any sharp turns. Whatever method, would have to be done throughout.The point is that you started with a conclusion and looked for evidence that fits, on the way ignoring anything that doesn't. That's just about as unscientific as it's possible to get.

bruto

14th November 2006, 07:00 PM

LCL, I just happen to have a copy of the Van Nostrand Mathematics Dictionary in front of me. Granted it is a rather old copy, and some things have undoubtedly changed in the past 40 or so years, but I don't think the basic idea of what mathematics is has changed that much, and this is considered, I believe, a reasonably good reference.

Mathematics is defined as "the logical study of shape, arrangement and quantity."

Arithmetic is defined as the study of the integers 1,2,3,4,5,....under the operations of addition, subtraction,multiplication, division, raising to powers, and extracting roots, and the use of the results of these studies in everyday life."

The four fundamental operations of arithmetic are addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.

Some definitions elsewhere expand the meaning of the term to include numerical computation in general (rather than just integers), but the more scope you give the word, the more fundamental operations you may find in the list, and it's still not anywhere near to being all of mathematics.

Please note the distinction. Arithmetic is a part of mathematics, not the other way around.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 07:17 PM

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.
Of course there is. The two extremes assumes the rest are there about in between. At least that is what I meant when I said the center box represented the soul.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.
What I am saying there is that those things are emergent properities of each other. The universe works in relation to what is in the energy that formed it.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.
Don't do that. People are not expected to act like particles, and particles are not expected to act like people. But because particles makes up life, some of the way life behaves would be related to what and how particles do what they do.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
The effect of attraction is to "draw more," the effect would be multiplying.

How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that
The same type of thing applies to division. Repulsion separates.

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.
I never said light. I said the 2 components of it. And it is light that has the most to do with the life part of the equation.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.
I didn't say light.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.
From one view, I guess, but science separated them. And the stuff that comes out of the wall seems more electrical-like. While the stuff that junkyards use to pick up cars seem more magnet-like. North and south are about the same thing too but...

I said before it is possible that you miss understood me from the beginning, and I said sorry once. You were about the first to respond, but since I started here 30 down and was unable to make my way up-and still can't-it may have appeared something that it wasn't. I was sort of up tight answering before, I am sorry.
Hope springs eternal. Sometimes I need a break.

wollery

14th November 2006, 08:59 PM

The effect of attraction is to "draw more," the effect would be multiplying.

The same type of thing applies to division. Repulsion separates.Why not addition for attraction and subtraction for repulsion?

Apathia

14th November 2006, 09:26 PM

If you thought LCL's graph was fascinating (or something else), you haven't seen anything!
Behold!
http://www.miqel.com/visionary_art/analysis-laffoley-paul-black-white-hole.html

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 10:03 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 10:06 PM

Why not addition for attraction and subtraction for repulsion?
Why not? one is a faster version of the other. It looks like it is a matter of intensity.

wollery

14th November 2006, 10:30 PM

Ain't that splitting hairs? Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics. And I could show you definitions where it says that the two can't be separated. If arithmetic teaches the basics of math, and those 4 are the four fundamental operations of arithmetic, aren't they the basics of math?Nope. Mathematics contains disciplines which do not involve arithmetics.

Why not? one is a faster version of the other. It looks like it is a matter of intensity.:nope: Okay, so now you're willing to rotate the maths axes of your plot? Except that that places division next to positive and multiplication next to negative!

Oops. :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 10:40 PM

I always thought "index finger", "middle finger", "ring finger", and "little finger" were quite well known, but apparently I was wrong! :rolleyes:
You notice how the thumb does not need a last name? Sort of like "Cher," or someone "more" widely known.

Not to mention the fact that many animals have different numbers of digits. Once again you're looking at humans and assuming they're special. I thought we'd finished with that little faux pas.
Finshed? What you changed your mind about humans?

Down the garden path?
You didn't have to come.

Really? I merely ask because you have shown no indication that you have.
What are you using to measure?

Sorry, but no. If you start heading due east and keep going you will always be going due east. Same for due West. Start heading due north and after a certain time you will suddenly find yourself heading due south! And there were never "just two of them".
The sun (appears) to head west, and it comes up in the east.

And I never said that once their were two of them.

How about, exactly the same, but with a different symbol.
It can't be exactly. Wouldn't that include the symbol and the name? And one is used to add groups.

The point is that you started with a conclusion and looked for evidence that fits, on the way ignoring anything that doesn't. That's just about as unscientific as it's possible to get.
I started with an observation and looked at things that seem to fit, without ignoring anything.

Our view here is opposite. One of us is very wrong. God I hope it ain't me.

wollery

14th November 2006, 11:17 PM

You notice how the thumb does not need a last name? Sort of like "Cher," or someone "more" widely known.What, like George W. Bush, who's name is so like his father's that he has to use his middle initial to differentiate? We can argue naming semantics for as long as you want. And Koalas have two thumbs on each hand, so only three fingers per hand, oh but they aren't human so they're less evolved, except, having two thumbs is surely more evolved than just one thumb.........

Finshed? What you changed your mind about humans?So tempting.......

You didn't have to come.But the scenery's great........

What are you using to measure?Your responses. You keep saying that you understand the maths that's been explained, and then in the very next paragraph you demonstrate that you really haven't got it.

The sun (appears) to head west, and it comes up in the east.If you want a discussion on the real and apparent motions of extraterrestrial bodies then feel free, but be warned, you'll find few people who know more about it than me.

And I never said that once their were two of them.

It could be argued that "north and south" and "east and west" are the same. Traveling around the globe, about half way around, one turns into the other. Separating them into 4 though, allows something that was not easy with just 2 of them. Separating them made them 4, and different, even though, in a way, they are the same thing.What was the second part of that quote about then?

It can't be exactly. Wouldn't that include the symbol and the name? And one is used to add groups.They're exactly the same operation - addition. The multiplication symbol just indicates that you're doing several additions.

I started with an observation and looked at things that seem to fit, without ignoring anything.You started with the conclusion "the soul exists", picked things with four (apparent) components and fitted them into a diagram which, surprise surprise, turned out to be multiple squares. (Still haven't figured out how the pyramid thing came about, but I don't think that really matters.) You have ignored many things, largely (I think) because you don't know about them.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th November 2006, 11:29 PM

Nope. Mathematics contains disciplines which do not involve arithmetics.
Like what?

:nope: Okay, so now you're willing to rotate the maths axes of your plot? Except that that places division next to positive and multiplication next to negative!

Oops. :rolleyes:
Oops what? Why would I want to rotate anything? It is fine the way it is? And that is another thing I was talking about, the other things in the box says line it up that way. But before you say anything about how it seems, recently I heard the strangest thing. It had to do with uniteing the strong force with the electroweak and the guys were saying that they expected whatever fit to be "elegant." That if it wasn't it probably wasn't right. Another scientist talked about how when they found the FOE that they would say "of course, how could it be anything else."

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th November 2006, 12:05 AM

What, like George W. Bush, who's name is so like his father's that he has to use his middle initial to differentiate? We can argue naming semantics for as long as you want. And Koalas have two thumbs on each hand, so only three fingers per hand, oh but they aren't human so they're less evolved, except, having two thumbs is surely more evolved than just one thumb.........
Take it easy. I thought we were talking about the name of fingers? Must you be right about everything?

Your responses. You keep saying that you understand the maths that's been explained, and then in the very next paragraph you demonstrate that you really haven't got it.
So you think because I disagree I don't understand? I (Tricky here call them the big four) my teacher, some people here on the web, Dr (Math) Peterson say they are the 4 basics. You and other people disagree. That happens.

If you want a discussion on the real and apparent motions of extraterrestrial bodies then feel free, but be warned, you'll find few people who know more about it than me.
Again. Take it easy. An airplane (with the range)would do the same thing viwed by a person who had enough patience.

What was the second part of that quote about then?
I see what you are talking about, but I did not mean to say that they were once one.

They're exactly the same operation - addition. The multiplication symbol just indicates that you're doing several additions.
Fine. But we call doing "several additions" multiplication. And it has a special something to do with "1 & 0" to get it done. A teacher will say, "No. 1x0=0. We are doing multiplication, not addition."

You started with the conclusion "the soul exists", picked things with four (apparent) components and fitted them into a diagram which, surprise surprise, turned out to be multiple squares.
Not just anything. Things that best represented the soul (if there was one)and they lined up that way, and as analogies. They are also the best known. In fact the graph took the best known and put them in a box in relation to each other, and they cover each other. They are opposites, so they could not be made to fit anywhere I wanted them. One has to have its opposite, opposite it. That sort of determines that I have to use squares.
It could be nothing. But they work that way the same as has been widely thought.

(Still haven't figured out how the pyramid thing came about, but I don't think that really matters.) You have ignored many things, largely (I think) because you don't know about them.
Nothing anyone made would have been able to include everything, whether I knew about them or not. And the things that you have told me here only flipped the order of negative and positive.

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th November 2006, 12:18 AM

You brought up the subject of DNA -
And were promptly corrected -
Of which he came back and siad what I said was right..but.
I am fine with what he said.
I mentioned it in passing.

If Taffer's correction to your post doesn't prove to you that you're cherrypicking simplistic interpretations of science then there really is no hope of you ever learning.
I didn't even use it. And yes. The thing is simplistic, but covered everything. Everything? A lot of major points.

"It seems to me".....

"some bases".....

"if there was one".....

Vague, full of unsupported assumptions, and not only do you offer no proof, but you aren't even certain of the existence of the very thing that your ramblings are supposed to connect to!

And you wonder why we have a problem with what you have to say? I was just being real. Some people can make the statement "there is no designer/God" and they sound absolutely sure-but can they really be?

zizzybaluba

15th November 2006, 04:02 AM

TobiasTheViking

15th November 2006, 04:08 AM

Of course there is. The two extremes assumes the rest are there about in between. At least that is what I meant when I said the center box represented the soul.
Ah, oki, that helps a lot.

But what about all those feelings that aren't between love and hate? What about feelings like joy, sorrow, sympathy for a starving puppy on the street? Those require neither love nor hate. And yes or no aren't applicable.

What I am saying there is that those things are emergent properities of each other. The universe works in relation to what is in the energy that formed it.
If you claim they are emergent properties of each other, and you are going to use it as an argument, you have to support it somehow.

We have two different things here, (positive magnetic pole, negative magnetic pole) vs (addition, subtraction). And they have the same sign to signify what we mean when we write it down. But that doesn't mean there is any connection at all.

Repulsion and attraction aren't inherent parts of magnetism, it is just a product of how magnetism works and what happens when two positive, or two negative, magnet surfaces meet. Turn one of them around and you have attraction. But if humans would have to inherit that from the magnetic positive and negative then opposites would attract. But in humans we see love attracts love, hate attracts hate, and hate repulses love. Which is in total contradiction to the way electromagnetism work.

Don't do that. People are not expected to act like particles, and particles are not expected to act like people. But because particles makes up life, some of the way life behaves would be related to what and how particles do what they do.
Why can't i do that if we have inherited our behavior from the way electromagnetism work?

Where is the distinction between what would be related to electromagnetism, and what isn't?

The effect of attraction is to "draw more," the effect would be multiplying.
Actually, in electromagnetism attraction would rather be "nullify the difference between magnetic + and magnetic -".

The same type of thing applies to division. Repulsion separates.
You still have to prove this is relevant. How has this been drawn from the way electromagnetism works?

I never said light. I said the 2 components of it. And it is light that has the most to do with the life part of the equation.
ehm, what, the name of this thread is, and i quote "Light created Life".
And since this has gone on for so long, what are those two components of it?
Electricity and magnetism? because they are the same thing.

I didn't say light.
the name of this thread is, and i quote "Light created Life". And in your opening post you didn't state any limit to what characteristics we would inherit from life, but said we would inherit characteristics from it.

Where is the line between which characteristics we get from light (or the components of it) and those characteristics we don't?

From one view, I guess, but science separated them.
No it doesn't... it is called "Electromagnetism". Both electricity and magnetism in there.

For a very short period of time they were held as being different. But they were very quickly combined.

And the stuff that comes out of the wall seems more electrical-like. While the stuff that junkyards use to pick up cars seem more magnet-like. North and south are about the same thing too but...
But that is just an illusion, it is the same. It may appear different, but it is the same.

I said before it is possible that you miss understood me from the beginning, and I said sorry once. You were about the first to respond, but since I started here 30 down and was unable to make my way up-and still can't-it may have appeared something that it wasn't. I was sort of up tight answering before, I am sorry.
Hope springs eternal. Sometimes I need a break.
It is ok, and i'm sorry for being a jerk, it is just non uncommon that people will run away from hard questions, so i tried to hold your feet at the fire.

But in all honesty, a timeframe would have been quiet acceptable as well.

Sincerely

Tobias

Belz...

15th November 2006, 04:33 AM

What about them? The universe is made of a lot of things. I thought myself if 4 was so important, why don't we have only 4 fingers? The shape of the hand could have been made to work with that. "Then someone said that we have 4 fingers and a thumb." I think they are all fingers. But it is something how the thumb is the only one with a well known name.

That's the dumbest thing you've said this week, Light.

But I got 4 from the four forces and wondered where it led.

That's the thing: NOWHERE. The fact that there are four [now] doesn't mean anything, unless you believe in numerology, one of the stupidest things ever imagined by man.

But remember, I did not separate those things into four, I only pointed out that there are four of them.

Who gives a hoot whether or not you invented it ? You CLAIMED it, and that's enough here to draw attention and criticism. If you can't back up your claims or if someone can prove them wrong, "I didn't invent it" is NOT a defense.

I just assumed that math had a good reason.

"Math" is not a person.

It could be argued that "north and south" and "east and west" are the same. Traveling around the globe, about half way around, one turns into the other. Separating them into 4 though, allows something that was not easy with just 2 of them. Separating them made them 4, and different, even though, in a way, they are the same thing.

Not only that, but they are wholly a human construct. Again.

I wasn't. All I was doing was mentioning that one thing. Going down that street can be saved for another time.

But by doing so you're trying to make your theory sound a whole lot more credible. You're basically ignoring something that makes the number different than four to make it appear as though 4 is some form of magic number. Don't you see a problem with that ?

How about basically the same but different?

How about not ?

Even then though, what you are talking about can't make any sharp turns. Whatever method, would have to be done throughout.

Maybe so, but "guessing" isn't much of a method, is it ?

"Oh, the volcano-god must be angry!"

If they stick with guessing, they'll never know.

Belz...

15th November 2006, 04:43 AM

I know your pockets are full and things just come bursting out, but that sought of thing happens a lot. I say something and there is a race to show an angle from which it is wrong. I have to keep focused in what I am talking about though.

You're a liar, Light.

Oops what? Why would I want to rotate anything? It is fine the way it is? And that is another thing I was talking about, the other things in the box says line it up that way.

No, they DON'T "line up that way". YOU lined them up that way.

Take it easy. I thought we were talking about the name of fingers? Must you be right about everything?

The point, mister I-don't-understand-much, is that you're speaking nonsense. You're STILL trying to make similarity in names mean similarity in reality. But that's not how it works.

some people here on the web, Dr (Math) Peterson say they are the 4 basics. You and other people disagree. That happens.

No, no AND NO. This isn't a matter of opinion, Light. Haven't you been paying attention ?

Fine. But we call doing "several additions" multiplication. And it has a special something to do with "1 & 0" to get it done. A teacher will say, "No. 1x0=0. We are doing multiplication, not addition."

No, AGAIN. 1 and 0 don't mean anything different because you DON'T understand what multiplication is.

1x0 in addition is : 0. Not 1+0. 0. That's it. 1x0 means taking 0 and adding it 1 time, or taking 1 and adding it 0 times.

They are also the best known. In fact the graph took the best known and put them in a box in relation to each other, and they cover each other.

"The best known", ignoring all the other important, less-known stuff.

they could not be made to fit anywhere I wanted them.

Oh, yes they could.

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

Solus

15th November 2006, 05:16 AM

Solus

15th November 2006, 05:23 AM

I don't know how the rest of you guys do it. I lost patience in about one or two pages. Endless debates with walls must be a hobby here I see :) . Well at least it helps keep the debating skills in shape. I though don't have the patience to debate brick walls. Amusing all the same, like watching a trainwreck but not as grim.

Anacoluthon64

15th November 2006, 06:16 AM

An obstinate poster called "Light"
still thinks it's heroic to fight
the voices of reason
(to him, they're plain treason)
when told how his thinking's pure sh:eye-poppite.

*groan*

It can only get verse from here...

*double groan*

'Luthon64

Belz...

15th November 2006, 07:07 AM

I don't know how the rest of you guys do it. I lost patience in about one or two pages. Endless debates with walls must be a hobby here I see :) .

It's a hobby of mine, anyway.

Not because I want to, but because a lot of people I try to talk some sense into happen to be walls.

Loss Leader

15th November 2006, 07:11 AM

There once was a graph-like equation
By a man with no apparant education.
He claimed it was right
To say life equaled light
But it was all just pure masturbation.

bruto

15th November 2006, 08:07 AM

Ain't that splitting hairs? Arithmetic is a branch of mathematics. And I could show you definitions where it says that the two can't be separated. If arithmetic teaches the basics of math, and those 4 are the four fundamental operations of arithmetic, aren't they the basics of math?

Arithmetic does not teach the basics of math. It teaches the basics of arithmetic. Of course you can't separate arithmetic from math, because it's part of math. You often can't entirely separate math from arithmetic either, because it's an important part of math and very useful. But there's a difference here. You can't drive your car without a transmission, either, but if you think understanding the transmission is understanding the car, you're simply wrong.

And of course if even your understanding of arithmetic is faulty, you will be wrong in more than one way.

bruto

15th November 2006, 05:24 PM

There once was a graph-like equation
By a man with no apparant education.
He claimed it was right
To say life equaled light
But it was all just pure masturbation.

LCL's theories are hazy.
Perhaps he is mentally lazy,
but if logical lapses
mean burned out synapses,
It might also mean he is crazy.

Loss Leader

15th November 2006, 07:46 PM

LCL's theories are hazy.
Perhaps he is mentally lazy,
but if logical lapses
mean burned out synapses,
It might also mean he is crazy.

Can all three of us be nominated together?

Solus

16th November 2006, 12:55 PM

Not as good as the others but I"ll give it a shot.

LCL is not mentally ill.
LCL is full of bull.
Stupidity, ignorance, and egocentricity.
LCL's role here to fill.

Cosmo

16th November 2006, 01:10 PM

There once was a forum of Brights
Who posted and argued all night
When a troll came to their home
They couldn't leave him alone
And now they won't let this thread die

zizzybaluba

16th November 2006, 01:20 PM

a haiku:

With brains of oatmeal
a troll makes claims that life was
created from light

bruto

16th November 2006, 08:31 PM

a haiku:

With brains of oatmeal
a troll makes claims that life was
created from light

The bulb dimly blinks;
Newark's Newton waking cries:
Everything comes in fours!

I less than three logic

16th November 2006, 10:36 PM

Never multiply.
Reciprocal division,
Makes better fung shui.

Taffer

17th November 2006, 07:28 AM

A senryu.

Simple dreams
A revalation
light and life?

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 10:04 AM

I wonder how long this thread will contiune? :faint:

LCL you are worse than my "father". The man has never read book in his life, and he thinks everything worth learning, he learned in elementary school. This is willfill ignorance at it's worst, and unlike my "father" you don't back down even after a whole group of people tells you your ideas are wrong.

What do the REAL people around you think of your ideas? Have you discussed this garbage with the outside world? Seriously go outside and talk to real people about your "brilliant" ideas. Somehow you need a dose of reality. And then ask yourself why is it that only I think this way?

I guess every person is an idiot and you are a secret genius; that's what you believe isn't it. ;)
A secret genius? No. Just a person with an idea. That happens. You don't have to be a genius to see things different. But then, what is wrong with different. And how out of place are these ideas?.
Life has a soul. A base program on which it's happennings whirl.
Something has to be basic to what is happening. Religion says God, but what they most describe is energy-in a round about way. "Something everywhere, in everything, doing everything." "God helps those who help themselves" translates to "using your own energy."
Science says that there are 4 fundamental forces that make our universe what it is, and we know that energy is the order on which matter is created. Why wouldn't the actions of life, be based in the energy that powers and makes it up?
I have been told I am wrong, but for what? That 4 basics of math? That is what is taught, and since no math can be done without them, seems to stand.
Wrong about energy and matter not being two forms of the same thing?
I didn't make that up either. I only stated that Einstein said it.
Wrong about the way science used words? They meant what they said when they said "strong and weak" why not "capture and violates?"
You see what is going on here is that you all say those things are wrong, and that is your right. But please excuse me when I don't run to how you all see things, because I got what I am saying from the way other people see the same thing.
You all might be right. You also might be wrong. That is unless I have found the forum where true genius exists.

supercorgi

17th November 2006, 10:08 AM

Wow! I can't believe this thread is still going. :eye-poppi

It seems that what LCL lacks in education he sure makes up for in obstinacy.

I less than three logic

17th November 2006, 10:10 AM

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 10:12 AM

You all might be right. You also might be wrong. That is unless I have found the forum where true genius exists.

Not genius, LCL; just logical and rational thinking.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 10:15 AM

Arithmetic does not teach the basics of math. It teaches the basics of arithmetic. Of course you can't separate arithmetic from math, because it's part of math. You often can't entirely separate math from arithmetic either, because it's an important part of math and very useful. But there's a difference here. You can't drive your car without a transmission, either, but if you think understanding the transmission is understanding the car, you're simply wrong.

And of course if even your understanding of arithmetic is faulty, you will be wrong in more than one way.
I quoted you something that said that it teaches the basics of math. That is what it said. Others have said the same thing. You want me to discount them in favor of you?

I never said that understanding the 4 basics was understanding math. I guess that is what you are saying with that car thing. I said they were basic-so do others.

I less than three logic

17th November 2006, 10:30 AM

I quoted you something that said that it teaches the basics of math. That is what it said. Others have said the same thing. You want me to discount them in favor of you?

I never said that understanding the 4 basics was understanding math. I guess that is what you are saying with that car thing. I said they were basic-so do others.
The only thing shown to be basic so far in this thread is your comprehension of almost everything you attempt to discuss.

You keep saying, Einstein said this, science says that, math says this, and so-and-so said that, yet you never seem to provide any direct quotes or references to their published works or theories. Have you ever stopped to consider you or the people that host those web pages you take your definitions from, didn’t properly comprehend what was said, had poor, unreliable, or outdated information on what was said, or simply took what was said out of context?

Go learn this stuff for yourself. Fully comprehend what you are saying. Know the meaning of the words you use in the context you’re attempting to used them before you go on spouting your nonsense theories, and, for the love of Ed, don’t rely on “so-and-so says this” as the basis of your theory.

You should be able to fully and coherently explain each and every part of your theory, including those that may have already been covered by another theory, not just say “Einstein said so, so it’s true”.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 11:22 AM

The only thing shown to be basic so far in this thread is your comprehension of almost everything you attempt to discuss.
Which is fine depending on where I go.

You keep saying, Einstein said this, science says that, math says this, and so-and-so said that, yet you never seem to provide any direct quotes or references to their published works or theories.
You are not considering my position. I am one. You don't seem to realize that you are many. I have to take time out to find that stuff, you can talk to me while others do. Then all you have to do is go along with them. I also noticed something else. When I am right, others say because I did not provide a reference it might be wrong. Even though their own knowledge says that it is. I am not mad though. Nor do I have a big problem questioning myself here. As I said, you are many. And smart.

Have you ever stopped to consider you or the people that host those web pages you take your definitions from, didn’t properly comprehend what was said, had poor, unreliable, or outdated information on what was said, or simply took what was said out of context?
[/quote]I have thought of that. Someone has got on me for saying "seem to" and like like. I am not saying absolute because they can be wrong. But have you ever considered that they are right and you all wrong?

Go learn this stuff for yourself. Fully comprehend what you are saying. Know the meaning of the words you use in the context you’re attempting to used them before you go on spouting your nonsense theories, and, for the love of Ed, don’t rely on “so-and-so says this” as the basis of your theory.
I have read books where I barely remember the title. But I am so sure of what was said that when I google, it says what I said. And of course anything having to do with God is nonsense to you. You have to also realize that most of what anyone knows "so-and-so" said it.

You should be able to fully and coherently explain each and every part of your theory, including those that may have already been covered by another theory, not just say “Einstein said so, so it’s true”.
That is what I am attempting to do. But without it being covered by someone else, someone would just ask me for a reference when they don't like it.

Belz...

17th November 2006, 12:14 PM

A secret genius? No. Just a person with an idea. That happens.

That happens to be wrong.

You don't have to be a genius to see things different. But then, what is wrong with different.

Actually, it's about what's wrong with WRONG.

And how out of place are these ideas?.

You don't mind them beign wrong ?

Life has a soul. A base program on which it's happennings whirl.

AH! NOW you've finally defined what you mean by "soul". Fine. Let's use that. Life has a "programming" we call it DNA. If you can show that it means something else, then please do so.

Something has to be basic to what is happening.

Laws of physics. Why is it so complicated ?

Religion says God, but what they most describe is energy-in a round about way. "Something everywhere, in everything, doing everything." "God helps those who help themselves" translates to "using your own energy."

Uh-huh. You can't put science and religion on equal footing, Light. One of them simply invents the answers and sticks to them.

Science says that there are 4 fundamental forces that make our universe what it is, and we know that energy is the order on which matter is created.

Did you format your brain since last week ? We've been through this.

Energy is NOT order
Matter does NOT "owe" how it looks and behaves to energy
The four fundamental forces aren't necessarily four

Is it your life goal to be wrong ?

Oh, and if you're thinking for a second of answering that "Is it YOUR life goal to make it appear that I'm wrong" or something similar, you've got another thing coming, liar.

Why wouldn't the actions of life, be based in the energy that powers and makes it up?

Because everything else you base this conclusion on is wrong.

I have been told I am wrong, but for what? That 4 basics of math? That is what is taught, and since no math can be done without them, seems to stand.

But you are one tough nut to crack. And I do mean NUT. How can someone with your life experience POSSIBLY believe that, just because it's taught in a classroom in ELEMENTARY school, it is necessarily true, or that it holds some special meaning ?

Who cares anyway!? Math and reality are two different things, so even if you were right about the 4 operations it still wouldn't mean anything about your graph.

Wrong about energy and matter not being two forms of the same thing?
I didn't make that up either. I only stated that Einstein said it.

I'm not going to answer that. I'm going to give YOU the opportunity to debunk your own stuff, this time. Tell me, Light. What should you answer someone who says what you've just said ?

You see what is going on here is that you all say those things are wrong, and that is your right. But please excuse me when I don't run to how you all see things, because I got what I am saying from the way other people see the same thing.

Exactly why are you taking the word of "other" people over people here ? What makes ignorant nincompoops more reliable than knowledgeable people ?

You all might be right. You also might be wrong.

No, it's not a matter of opinion. You'd like it to be. Then your ideas might have some merit. They don't.

That is unless I have found the forum where true genius exists.

Beign right isn't about beign a genius. Otherwise you couldn't be right, ever.

Belz...

17th November 2006, 12:17 PM

You are not considering my position. I am one. You don't seem to realize that you are many. I have to take time out to find that stuff, you can talk to me while others do.

Find out how ? Every time someone here tells you something, it is an opportunity for you to FIND OUT. Yet you ignore us completely. How can you be taken seriously ? Time to find out ? You've had plenty of time and you've forgotten a good source of knowledge all throughout: HERE.

Then all you have to do is go along with them. I also noticed something else. When I am right, others say because I did not provide a reference it might be wrong.

Please provide an example.

I have read books where I barely remember the title. But I am so sure of what was said that when I google, it says what I said.

If you know how much people can be wrong, why do you insist that your ideas "could be" right, when you really mean "ARE right", even when you're consistently shown wrong by people who know better ?

I less than three logic

17th November 2006, 12:21 PM

You are not considering my position. I am one. You don't seem to realize that you are many.
You position is irrelevant. It is your theory, you back it up. You use that excuse as a simple copout to avoid answering questions you don’t understand or do not want to answer because they’d be adversely productive to your theory.

I have to take time out to find that stuff, you can talk to me while others do.
You should have done all that BEFORE making a theory. If you don’t understand all the concepts that make up your theory, how do you know your theory is correct or even addresses any topics you propose it does? Everything is a lot of topics… quite likely the most.

I also noticed something else. When I am right, others say because I did not provide a reference it might be wrong.
Your powers of observation continue to fail you. It is quite possible to get correct answers with wrong or irrational reasons. The reason why something is so is just as, if not more, important than getting the right answer. So, while you may occasionally stumble into some correct facts, your use of and reasons for believing them correct are normally quite wrong.

I have thought of that. Someone has got on me for saying "seem to" and like like. I am not saying absolute because they can be wrong. But have you ever considered that they are right and you all wrong?
If you are sure you’re correct, then simply proved direct quotes of what Einstein said in the proper context, or “science” or “math”. Explain why what they said means the same as what you keep repeating. I have the impression that you’ve never even read Einstein’s theory, you only know tidbits spoon fed to you in paraphrased quotes and his famous equation, which btw is not how he wrote it nor the entire equation he formed.

I have read books where I barely remember the title. But I am so sure of what was said that when I google, it says what I said.
Google what? The book you don’t know the name of? Do you google the phrase you’re looking for and take whatever page uses those words? Also, if you can’t remember the title, perhaps not word for word, but at least close to resembling the title, what makes you think you can remember what was said in the book?

And of course anything having to do with God is nonsense to you.
Only because God is irrelevant to this discussion, and bring irrelevant concepts into a discussion is nonsense.

You have to also realize that most of what anyone knows "so-and-so" said it.
So-and-so may have already said it. I didn’t say all knowledge has to be original, but your understanding of it must be. Just because someone said something that doesn’t mean it is correct, and you can’t know if it is correct if you don’t understand what they were talking about in the context they used it in.

That is what I am attempting to do. But without it being covered by someone else, someone would just ask me for a reference when they don't like it.
Is that what you’ve been doing? All I’ve seen so far is your repeated assertions Ad nauseam complete with the same misunderstood concepts with each re-assertion. Also, you don’t reference anything; you just say they said it. Like I said, please provide direct quotes from their works or theories to show they said what you say they said.

Tricky

17th November 2006, 12:41 PM

Plus and minus at up and down stations.
Right, division. Left, Multiplication.
And you guys can all diddle,
With stuff in the middle.
I'm enjoying my brain masturbation.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 12:55 PM

Arithmetic is NOT the "basics of math"!
Arithmetic is a very narrow and specialized part of number theory. In anticipation of your next question ("Why is it taught in elementary school then?"), the answer is commerce. How can little Johnny be expected to get along in the world if he can't make change for $10?

What about no math being able to be done without them? That I think makes them basic. And as the definition goes it says that arithmetic teaches the basic operations of math. You want me to throw that out because of what you say?

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 01:02 PM

What about no math being able to be done without them? That I think makes them basic. And as the definition goes it says that arithmetic teaches the basic operations of math. You want me to throw that out because of what you say?
You say that because you have absolutely no understanding of mathematics beyond arithmetic. Nearly all of mathematics has nothing to do with your "four basics".

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 01:27 PM

But what about all those feelings that aren't between love and hate? What about feelings like joy, sorrow, sympathy for a starving puppy on the street? Those require neither love nor hate. And yes or no aren't applicable.
Sympathy seems related to love. As is joy. The emotions can be found between those two extremes, especially when a logical axis is added.

If you claim they are emergent properties of each other, and you are going to use it as an argument, you have to support it somehow.
that is why I reworked the center box. I needed time to find the connection that I know must be there.

We have two different things here, (positive magnetic pole, negative magnetic pole) vs (addition, subtraction). And they have the same sign to signify what we mean when we write it down. But that doesn't mean there is any connection at all.
It doesn't mean that there isn't either.

Repulsion and attraction aren't inherent parts of magnetism, it is just a product of how magnetism works and what happens when two positive, or two negative, magnet surfaces meet.
They are the most recognizeable features of magnetism.

Turn one of them around and you have attraction. But if humans would have to inherit that from the magnetic positive and negative then opposites would attract.
Humans have a layer of biology and reason that allows them more freedom and choice. They can feel one way, and do something else.

But in humans we see love attracts love, hate attracts hate, and hate repulses love. Which is in total contradiction to the way electromagnetism work.
Oh no. People can love people they hate, and hate those they love. Ever hear good girls being attracted to bad boys?

Where is the distinction between what would be related to electromagnetism, and what isn't?
Some of it is there, some is left to be worked out.

Actually, in electromagnetism attraction would rather be "nullify the difference between magnetic + and magnetic -".
Just because actions are based there, does not mean that they have to stay there.

You still have to prove this is relevant. How has this been drawn from the way electromagnetism works?
Some still has to be worked on.

ehm, what, the name of this thread is, and i quote "Light created Life".
I provided a site to show what I was talking about, and always I talked about the parts that made it up.

And since this has gone on for so long, what are those two components of it?
Electricity and magnetism? because they are the same thing.
I didn't separate them, or name them. I just said that they were based on them being that way.

Where is the line between which characteristics we get from light (or the components of it) and those characteristics we don't?
Again you keep talking about light.

For a very short period of time they were held as being different. But they were very quickly combined.

But that is just an illusion, it is the same. It may appear different, but it is the same.
They are still thought to be different, and they are. Which makes it a pretty good illision.

It is ok, and i'm sorry for being a jerk, it is just non uncommon that people will run away from hard questions, so i tried to hold your feet at the fire.
I am not afraid of the fire, that is the place of the greatest test.
I am not mad.

But in all honesty, a timeframe would have been quiet acceptable as well.
I didn't, and don't have one. Not exactly.

I less than three logic

17th November 2006, 01:32 PM

I am not mad.
The course of this thread tends to disagree with your self-diagnosis. You appear quite mad, just not angry. ;)

Solus

17th November 2006, 04:33 PM

A secret genius? No. Just a person with an idea. That happens. You don't have to be a genius to see things different. But then, what is wrong with different. And how out of place are these ideas?.
Life has a soul. A base program on which it's happennings whirl.
Something has to be basic to what is happening. Religion says God, but what they most describe is energy-in a round about way. "Something everywhere, in everything, doing everything." "God helps those who help themselves" translates to "using your own energy."
Science says that there are 4 fundamental forces that make our universe what it is, and we know that energy is the order on which matter is created. Why wouldn't the actions of life, be based in the energy that powers and makes it up?
I have been told I am wrong, but for what? That 4 basics of math? That is what is taught, and since no math can be done without them, seems to stand.
Wrong about energy and matter not being two forms of the same thing?
I didn't make that up either. I only stated that Einstein said it.
Wrong about the way science used words? They meant what they said when they said "strong and weak" why not "capture and violates?"
You see what is going on here is that you all say those things are wrong, and that is your right. But please excuse me when I don't run to how you all see things, because I got what I am saying from the way other people see the same thing.
You all might be right. You also might be wrong. That is unless I have found the forum where true genius exists.

Enough LCL, answer this question in ONE sentance, as BRIEFLY as possible and please answer it.

What does your FAMILY and people NOT ON THE INTERNET think of your ideas? Thank you for a possible response.

I bet he won't give a clear answer 90% chance. And I don't think he's mentally Ill. I'm in a support group for people with bipolar disorder and depression. They had terrible stories to tell, these people suffer greatly but they aren't stupid. It's an insult to blame mental illness on stuff like this.
My own experences ill people are too busy in their own minds to be foucsed on nonsense like this. Lack of focus is a key trait for the severely mentally ill.

This guy is just having his jollies messing with us "bigheads". But rest assured it's not just amusing to him.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:00 PM

Enough LCL, answer this question in ONE sentance, as BRIEFLY as possible and please answer it.

What does your FAMILY and people NOT ON THE INTERNET think of your ideas? Thank you for a possible response.

I bet he won't give a clear answer 90% chance. And I don't think he's mentally Ill. I'm in a support group for people with bipolar disorder and depression. They had terrible stories to tell, these people suffer greatly but they aren't stupid. It's an insult to blame mental illness on stuff like this.
My own experences ill people are too busy in their own minds to be foucsed on nonsense like this. Lack of focus is a key trait for the severely mentally ill.

This guy is just having his jollies messing with us "bigheads". But rest assured it's not just amusing to him.

What is your problem? You don't have to come here. Why do you? Since you have deduced that I am not mentally ill, why do I have to hear about you and your work? I don't care. And since you care enough to come here, have a seat. Like you said you were going to do.
My jollies? I am only mean to those who are mean to me. And mostly not even then. I am not calling names, and said I in fact respect the people here. As I would do anyone, anywhere. That don't mean that I agree with everything they say, just like they don't agree with me. People disagree. That happens. And I would not be able to do that without something to stand behind.
You are right. It is not just amusing to me-I believe it. I understand that you don't, in that case do us both a favor...

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:01 PM

The course of this thread tends to disagree with your self-diagnosis. You appear quite mad, just not angry. ;)Okay.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:03 PM

You say that because you have absolutely no understanding of mathematics beyond arithmetic. Nearly all of mathematics has nothing to do with your "four basics".
They are not mine. I did not make that term up. You must have heard it before.

Loss Leader

17th November 2006, 06:07 PM

Why wouldn't the actions of life, be based in the energy that powers and makes it up?

Light, I have asked you this question over and over again and you have never answered me: What do you mean when you say the actions of life are based in the energy that makes it up?

What does it mean to be based in energy? In what way is life based in energy? What activities or processes of life and what activities or processes of energy lead you to say this? What physical mechanisms cause life to behave similarly to energy? Exactly how physically does energy's behavior cause life to behave similarly?

You mentioned that magnetism's two poles are similar to human love and hate. It was pointed out that magnetic oposites attract whereas love does not attract hate. Then you said that humans have evolved beyond that point and have choice. But love NEVER attracts hate and hate NEVER attracts love. So exactly how are human emotions similar to magnetism in any way? Even if humans are more evolved, wouldn't our basest, simplest emotions still have some resemblence to magnetism? Even at their simplest, they don't seem to.

If the evidence does not show any similarity between human attraction and magnetic attraction, why do you continue to insist they are similar? In what way do they operate similarly or would they operate similarly if humans were less evolved?

Please explain your theories in your own terms.

I am very curious about what you mean when you make these statements.

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 06:35 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:37 PM

You position is irrelevant. It is your theory, you back it up. You use that excuse as a simple copout to avoid answering questions you don’t understand or do not want to answer because they’d be adversely productive to your theory.
My position is important, and I have been backing it up. But as you know somethings are not easy to prove, but I think important to think about. I am not coping out of nothing. You say there are not four basics, other say they is.

You should have done all that BEFORE making a theory.
With anything, anywhere, there is always something not accounted for. And get this too. This is a forum, not a scientific review. Who are you?

If you don’t understand all the concepts that make up your theory, how do you know your theory is correct or even addresses any topics you propose it does? Everything is a lot of topics… quite likely the most.
So I guess you are mad? Remember, even when science does discover the FOE it will not actually explain everything. Are you mad at them?

Your powers of observation continue to fail you. It is quite possible to get correct answers with wrong or irrational reasons. The reason why something is so is just as, if not more, important than getting the right answer. So, while you may occasionally stumble into some correct facts, your use of and reasons for believing them correct are normally quite wrong.
Says you.

If you are sure you’re correct, then simply proved direct quotes of what Einstein said in the proper context, or “science” or “math”. Explain why what they said means the same as what you keep repeating. I have the impression that you’ve never even read Einstein’s theory, you only know tidbits spoon fed to you in paraphrased quotes and his famous equation, which btw is not how he wrote it nor the entire equation he formed.
So you know he said it, but you want me to find the quote? All you have to say is that you know he did not say it. Then I may go on a wild goose chase for you. Like I said. I am one person and to take off in all the directions said here, requires time. And believe it or not, everything does not have to be settled today, on this forum, or even this year. I will take my experience here, and use it as a blueprint of where, and where not to look. That is why I say you better be right in what you are saying, I intend to find out.

Google what? The book you don’t know the name of? Do you google the phrase you’re looking for and take whatever page uses those words? Also, if you can’t remember the title, perhaps not word for word, but at least close to resembling the title, what makes you think you can remember what was said in the book?
The four basics of math.
I have not been wrong about anything I googled yet.

Only because God is irrelevant to this discussion, and bring irrelevant concepts into a discussion is nonsense.
The thing is talking about creating life. Whatever that something is tends to hang around that concept.

So-and-so may have already said it. I didn’t say all knowledge has to be original, but your understanding of it must be.
My understanding is enough to cover what I said.

Just because someone said something that doesn’t mean it is correct,
That applies to you too, right?

and you can’t know if it is correct if you don’t understand what they were talking about in the context they used it in.
Show me where I tsaid something out of context at that site.

Is that what you’ve been doing? All I’ve seen so far is your repeated assertions Ad nauseam complete with the same misunderstood concepts with each re-assertion. Also, you don’t reference anything; you just say they said it. Like I said, please provide direct quotes from their works or theories to show they said what you say they said.
I am working on those.

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 06:37 PM

What does your FAMILY and people NOT ON THE INTERNET think of your ideas? Thank you for a possible response.

LCL, I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Why didn't you answer him?

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:38 PM

I have not, in fact, heard it before; and I have a minor in mathematics.
So you think I made it up?

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 06:41 PM

So you think I made it up?

Either you made it up, or you misunderstood what you read somewhere. I'm not a mind reader, I don't know which.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 06:51 PM

LCL, I'd like to know the answer to this as well. Why didn't you answer him?
I didn't answer him because I knew he wouldn't like it. And the bold face looked like he was yelling at me. Somehow, some people think themselves more than they are. I ain't got to answer.

They agree with me and think you all are nuts. I have said that here serval times, that I ask them the same questions that I ask here. I find myself defending you to them. I say that because you are smart, you find a way to be right from some angle. "Yes. From the moon that does look like that. But I did not say from the moon."

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 07:10 PM

Either you made it up, or you misunderstood what you read somewhere. I'm not a mind reader, I don't know which.What if I provided references?

zizzybaluba

17th November 2006, 07:11 PM

What if I provided references?

Please do.

lightcreatedlife@hom

17th November 2006, 07:48 PM

Light, I have asked you this question over and over again and you have never answered me: What do you mean when you say the actions of life are based in the energy that makes it up?
While energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, the four forces came before matter. The fundamental partcles are bonded to each other, and work because of the forces. All but gravity.
The periodic table shows the atomic make up of matter. Different arrangements give them different electrical and magnetic properties, among others things.
Life is made up of matter.

What does it mean to be based in energy?
Light plays a very big role in the workings of life.

What physical mechanisms cause life to behave similarly to energy?
Life is built around an energy chase to survive, and humans for mental and emotional experience.

Exactly how physically does energy's behavior cause life to behave similarly?
The same way it cause matter to behave similarly.

You mentioned that magnetism's two poles are similar to human love and hate. It was pointed out that magnetic oposites attract whereas love does not attract hate.
Why do people keep expecting people to act exactly like particles? Life has a mental element and biology that particles do not. The one with more, will have greater options and experiences.

Then you said that humans have evolved beyond that point and have choice. But love NEVER attracts hate and hate NEVER attracts love.
Love does sometimes attract hate. People not being able to live with the happiness of others. And hate does attract love. People trying to change an attitude through positive instead of negative action. Animals, and even people can be found to love people who hate them.

So exactly how are human emotions similar to magnetism in any way?
Attraction and repulsion.

Even if humans are more evolved, wouldn't our basest, simplest emotions still have some resemblence to magnetism? Even at their simplest, they don't seem to.
I think they do.

If the evidence does not show any similarity between human attraction and magnetic attraction, why do you continue to insist they are similar?
What evidence? So you think it is just a coincidence that humans actions are related to nature?

In what way do they operate similarly or would they operate similarly if humans were less evolved?
Give me a break.

Please explain your theories in your own terms.
I provided a site.

I am very curious about what you mean when you make these statements.
I have said all this before.

Loss Leader

17th November 2006, 07:59 PM

Folks, I've been flippant in the past. I've made jokes. I've excercised some sarcasm. But in what I am about to say, I am deadly serious.

I will pay five thousand American dollars to the first person who can explain this sentence to me:

Life is built around an energy chase to survive, and humans for mental and emotional experience.

That's $5,000.00 American. All you have to do is tell me what in the SAM ADAMS CRANBERRY LAMBIC LEVEL OF HELL this guy is talking about.

Cosmo

17th November 2006, 10:44 PM

Folks, I've been flippant in the past. I've made jokes. I've excercised some sarcasm. But in what I am about to say, I am deadly serious.

I will pay five thousand American dollars to the first person who can explain this sentence to me:

That's $5,000.00 American. All you have to do is tell me what in the SAM ADAMS CRANBERRY LAMBIC LEVEL OF HELL this guy is talking about.

Think we could raise the stakes and have Randi pay LCL $1,000,000 if LCL can prove his theory? :rolleyes:

slingblade

18th November 2006, 09:25 AM

Sure. But make it just one thousand, and try to send it before Christmas.

Life forms need some form of energy to emerge, survive, and thrive. Life itself is a never-ending chase for that energy in various forms. The most common form of sought energy is heat, both in staying warm and in eating (food energy = calories, or solar energy = plant growth, algae growth, plankton growth, etc.). Much of life doesn't tolerate extremes. Too much food is detrimental to most systems of life, as is too much heat. Lack of energy can be an equivalent problem: not enough sun, no plants; not enough heat, freezing. Lack of energy = little or no life.

Most life forms chase after energy, thus using energy to gather energy, to survive.

Humans (and perhaps other forms of life) also seek mental and emotional stimuli for survival. We know if we isolate people completely from all sensory contact, they quickly go mad, and can die. Even infants require this energy-based stimulation. Babies can die if their need for stimulation (touch, sound, light, etc.) is not met or is severely restricted.

Thoughts and emotions are energy; they produce electrochemical changes in the brain which can be measured and charted. Even animals have emotions; it is uncertain what form animal thoughts take, and while we don't yet know if animals think or have cognizance in the same manner as humans, they obviously do think, and obviously do feel. You know this when your cat climbs into your lap, when your horse nuzzles you while being brushed, when a lioness rubs her face against her mate's. Simpler life forms may also have this need on some level; I'm not a biologist, and don't know how far along the chain this extends, or how complex a brain is needed to generate and receive emotional input/output. However, I would be willing to state that everything needs, and therefore seeks, energy on one or more levels in order to maintain its own life. Every life form seeks to reproduce, as a system or unit, but certain individuals within a given system may not. Some people just don't want kids, but even most of them will do whatever's needed to preserve the offspring of others.

So, life chases energy, and certain of these energy seekers, such as humans in particular, also use energy to produce thoughts and emotions, which are also necessary to that form of life.

You can PM me for my bank routing number. ;)

TobiasTheViking

18th November 2006, 09:33 AM

I am sorry to say that you didn't explain or substantiate anything.. How dissapointing.

Sympathy seems related to love. As is joy. The emotions can be found between those two extremes, especially when a logical axis is added.
Seems?

If you believe it to be the same, show it. You can have sympathy and joy without love, they aren't interrelated.

that is why I reworked the center box. I needed time to find the connection that I know must be there.
You are working the wrong way around. That is not how science works.

It doesn't mean that there isn't either.
If you make the claim there is a connection, prove it. Just saying "there isn't either" doesn't prove anything. It is totally useless and irrelevant for an argument.

Humans have a layer of biology and reason that allows them more freedom and choice. They can feel one way, and do something else.
That didn't answer my question. It wasn't even related or relevant to my question.

Oh no. People can love people they hate, and hate those they love. Ever hear good girls being attracted to bad boys?
What you are saying is that they MUST. That is, if feelings are derived from electromagnetism.

Some of it is there, some is left to be worked out.
You can't use the claims unless you can substantiate them.

Just because actions are based there, does not mean that they have to stay there.
what does that mean?

Some still has to be worked on.
Then don't use it as an argument untill you have finished working on it. Because it is useless and irrelevant till you have worked on it.

I didn't separate them, or name them. I just said that they were based on them being that way.
what do you mean? I don't understand what you are saying here at all.

They are exactly the same, totally.. 100% So they aren't based on them being the same way.

That is like saying "water is based on being the same way as water, and water is also based on being the same way as water. but water and water aren't the same as water". Which is basically what you are doing when you try to argue electricity and magnetism as being something different.

Again you keep talking about light.
The name of the thread is "Light created Life"

Electromagnetism is light.

In which way is your claim not about light?

They are still thought to be different, and they are. Which makes it a pretty good illision.
They are different? Cool, care to provide evidence.. I'm sure there would be an nobel price in there for you. Because you would certainly get one if you could prove there weren't the same.

And i am sure everyone else in here will back me up in making that claim.

Loss Leader

18th November 2006, 12:37 PM

You can PM me for my bank routing number. ;)

Absolutely. All you have to do first is get Light to agree that this is what he meant.

While you're at it, try to get him to agree to let you explain all of his theories because you, at least, use nouns and verbs and stuff instead of making whatever sounds the voices tell you to.

slingblade

18th November 2006, 02:05 PM

Crud. Okay, can I have a hug for trying? :D

Belz...

18th November 2006, 02:25 PM

Sympathy seems related to love. As is joy. The emotions can be found between those two extremes, especially when a logical axis is added.

Despair is an emotion. Please tell me exactly where, between hate and love, it is located.

that is why I reworked the center box. I needed time to find the connection that I know must be there.

"That I know must be there". Reflect on that.

It doesn't mean that there isn't either.

Argument from ignorance.

Humans have a layer of biology and reason that allows them more freedom and choice. They can feel one way, and do something else.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Oh no. People can love people they hate, and hate those they love. Ever hear good girls being attracted to bad boys?

HA! That's the most pathetic oversimplification and misunderstanding I've heard this month.

Some still has to be worked on.

Not by you, for sure.

Belz...

18th November 2006, 02:30 PM

My position is important, and I have been backing it up.

With what ?

But as you know somethings are not easy to prove,

Especially the ones that are wrong.

but I think important to think about. I am not coping out of nothing. You say there are not four basics, other say they is.

And you choose to ignore the ones that say the things you don't agree with.

The four basics of math.
I have not been wrong about anything I googled yet.

That's because when you google something you'll ALWAYS find someone who agrees with you. And when YOU do, you stop looking.

They agree with me and think you all are nuts. I have said that here serval times, that I ask them the same questions that I ask here. I find myself defending you to them.

I can see it from here. Asking leading questions you KNOW they'll answer the way you like. Must be fun living in a world where your own private bubble is protected.

Light plays a very big role in the workings of life.

Prove it.

Life is built around an energy chase to survive, and humans for mental and emotional experience.

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

While energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, the four forces came before matter.

How can you be so consistently wrong ? Is it a life ambition, or something ?

The same way it cause matter to behave similarly.

You are hopeless. You've been told that this is FALSE.

Belz...

18th November 2006, 02:55 PM

Why do people keep expecting people to act exactly like particles? Life has a mental element and biology that particles do not. The one with more, will have greater options and experiences.

Options ? You should realise that, since people are composed of particles, they are, by your own admission, wholly dependent upon said particles' behaviour. What options ?

Love does sometimes attract hate.

What ? You're trying to play with words. I have no time for such trickery.

I think they do.

That's your greatest flaw.

What evidence? So you think it is just a coincidence that humans actions are related to nature?

No. They are part of nature. Nothing surprising there.

Give me a break.

No can do. Prove your theory, or admit that you're wrong.

bruto

18th November 2006, 03:51 PM

Crud. Okay, can I have a hug for trying? :D

I think anyone who joins this thread deserves a group hug for trying anything at all.

Loss Leader

18th November 2006, 03:57 PM

That makes no sense, whatsoever.

It may not make sense in its present form but Slingblade got it closer to comprehensible than any human being in history.

It's just like how Newton invented calculus but he didn't call it calculus and his notations were all cumbersome and confusing and then the next guy (I'm guessing Descartes) turned it into a real science.

Belz...

18th November 2006, 04:34 PM

I will pay five thousand American dollars to the first person who can explain this sentence to me:

That's $5,000.00 American. All you have to do is tell me what in the SAM ADAMS CRANBERRY LAMBIC LEVEL OF HELL this guy is talking about.

I can't answer your question, Loss. I will, however, tell you that there is no such place in Hell. I would know.

Loss Leader

18th November 2006, 05:01 PM

I can't answer your question, Loss. I will, however, tell you that there is no such place in Hell. I would know.

Well, then I don't know what the purpose of Sam Adams Cranberry Lambic is.

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 06:12 PM

I am sorry to say that you didn't explain or substantiate anything.. How dissapointing.
I stayed the path of my search, and what I expect to find.

If you believe it to be the same, show it. You can have sympathy and joy without love, they aren't interrelated.
Who says, you? It is possible for a single person to experience them all at once. They could feel them even when the reason why is a lie or the truth.

You are working the wrong way around. That is not how science works.
But it has been pointed out that I am no scientist. Does that mean that I can't play? I think all I have to do is fit within most of the framework, and only in the places that I can't easily be hit for doing it. I'm sorry. I believe that feelings have a role. Not as much as logic, but a role. I feel a connection, that the 14 billion year drama has a purpose, and was planned. Silly me? Okay.

If you make the claim there is a connection, prove it. Just saying "there isn't either" doesn't prove anything. It is totally useless and irrelevant for an argument.
I am working on it.

That didn't answer my question. It wasn't even related or relevant to my question.
You seem to be saying "why don't particle and people act, or are affected the same." I was pointing out that there is a difference between them.

What you are saying is that they MUST. That is, if feelings are derived from electromagnetism.
I said nothing about they must. People can use reason to modify their feelings and their actions.

You can't use the claims unless you can substantiate them.
Sure I can. This is a forum, not the temple of science.

what does that mean?
I meant it to mean that the basic feelings and actions seen in animals, that I think are based in energy, are modified to a greater extent in the action and feelings of people.

Then don't use it as an argument untill you have finished working on it. Because it is useless and irrelevant till you have worked on it.
I am working on it, and I can say what I like. I just have to suffer if I am wrong, but I will still learn from it.

what do you mean? I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
I was talking about the four basics, I didn't separate or name them. I am just standing by what was said. And since no math can be done without them, I say the term 4 basics fits.

They are exactly the same, totally.. 100% So they aren't based on them being the same way.
Electricity and magnetism are not the same thing. One will readily kill you, while the other hasn't that much spark. Again. Science named them, separated them, and I agree. One does not go anywhere without the other, but I think what they are saying when they use electricity in describing it at one time, and magnetism at others is when it mostly shows its shocking nature it is electricity, something like that.

That is like saying "water is based on being the same way as water, and water is also based on being the same way as water. but water and water aren't the same as water". Which is basically what you are doing when you try to argue electricity and magnetism as being something different.
If you say so. I think the difference is alittle less clear as two glasses of water.

The name of the thread is "Light created Life"
Yes. That is where it starts. But then the two parts split. That is why I as not talking about life having the characteristics of light.

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 06:38 PM

bruto

18th November 2006, 06:46 PM

I am working on it, and I can say what I like. I just have to suffer if I am wrong, but I will still learn from it.

..... something like that.

"something like that" contains about the whole content of your ideas.

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him. (Abraham Lincoln)

Loss Leader

18th November 2006, 06:48 PM

Loss Leader

18th November 2006, 06:54 PM

Absolutely fantastic. I believe that all of you believe this. And I have said something like it all along. Though no where near in such a brief and complete way.
If anything good happened for me because of that thing, I'll remember your number.

Just for the record, Light, what do you think Slingblade's statement says? He states that life utylizes energy and some life utylizes energy to produce thoughts and emotions. I agree. I think everyone would agree.

But what do you think that means?

How does this have anything to do with the relationship between energy and matter or the properties of any type of energy in any way influencing the behavior of humans?

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 08:49 PM

AH! NOW you've finally defined what you mean by "soul". Fine. Let's use that. Life has a "programming" we call it DNA. If you can show that it means something else, then please do so.
The program for life is only part of it. Life is linked to the conditions for life. Stars, planets and stuff.

Uh-huh. You can't put science and religion on equal footing, Light. One of them simply invents the answers and sticks to them.
Not equal footing. But everything is a piece of the puzzle.

Energy is NOT order
One is an attractive force,(large scale) another a binding force, another a force of decay,(small scale) and one attraction and repulsion (large and small scale). Together they set the rules.

Matter does NOT "owe" how it looks and behaves to energy
Would their be matter as we know it without it?

The four fundamental forces aren't necessarily four
Science says four, not me. I am just going along.

Is it your life goal to be wrong ?
I hope not.

Oh, and if you're thinking for a second of answering that "Is it YOUR life goal to make it appear that I'm wrong" or something similar, you've got another thing coming, liar.
Hey. You are even answering for me now.

Because everything else you base this conclusion on is wrong.
Of course.

But you are one tough nut to crack. And I do mean NUT. How can someone with your life experience POSSIBLY believe that, just because it's taught in a classroom in ELEMENTARY school, it is necessarily true, or that it holds some special meaning ?
Arithmetic teaches the basics, and since no math can be done without them...

Who cares anyway!? Math and reality are two different things, so even if you were right about the 4 operations it still wouldn't mean anything about your graph.
You seem to care. Isn't the mathematical dimesions of the universe our reality?

Exactly why are you taking the word of "other" people over people here ? What makes ignorant nincompoops more reliable than knowledgeable people ?
Don't call them that. They might get mad. And just because you don't believe the basics to be basic, does not make all who do nincompoops.

No, it's not a matter of opinion. You'd like it to be. Then your ideas might have some merit. They don't.
Of course not.

Beign right isn't about beign a genius. Otherwise you couldn't be right, ever.
You left out neither would you. Or are you saying you are a genius?

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 09:50 PM

Just for the record, Light, what do you think Slingblade's statement says? He states that life utylizes energy and some life utylizes energy to produce thoughts and emotions. I agree. I think everyone would agree.

But what do you think that means?

I agree too. I think I said that. I would add that particles also utylize energy.

How does this have anything to do with the relationship between energy and matter or the properties of any type of energy in any way influencing the behavior of humans?
Four forces with definite characteristeristics are responsible for the universe as we know it.
Matter has different behavior patterns/properties because of their atomic structure. A structure depended on those forces.
Life came from matter. Some elements being more involved than others.
Electromagnetism is the energy most responsible for everything that goes on at the life level.
Electrons and other particles, and life, both operate in mostly electromagnetic enviroments.
Because light is most important in "feeding/powering" life, why wouldn't mental and emotional energy be tied to the energy life literally feeds on?

Like matter, life shares definite forms of behavior, most importantly, mental and emotional forms of behavior. Why wouldn't they be based on energy.
Why wouldn't the actions of life be based in the characteristics of the energy that most makes its world what it is?

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 10:11 PM

"something like that" contains about the whole content of your ideas.

Something like that. I said it is early yet. You can see that the site was an overview.
So you are saying that even Lincoln thinks I am wrong?

slingblade

18th November 2006, 10:15 PM

Oh, for the love of Pete ...

Can I borrow $5,000.00 off anybody?

Heh. No worries. I support hyberbole in a good cause. ;)

lightcreatedlife@hom

18th November 2006, 10:27 PM

Heh. No worries. I support hyberbole in a good cause. ;)
Thank you for your knowledge. Do you think that math and language are related?

slingblade

18th November 2006, 10:51 PM

Thank you for your knowledge. Do you think that math and language are related?

As systems of communication, yes.

But I feel that language is more expressive than math, and commuicates more than math can. Both can relate ideas and facts, but words convey emotion as well.

andyandy

18th November 2006, 11:23 PM

Is 582 (as it currently stands) posts in the one and only thread someome has participated in some kind of record? :)

Loss Leader

19th November 2006, 05:20 AM

As suspected, just about everything you wrote following Slingblade's excellent work was wrong. I'll just pick one.

Electromagnetism is the energy most responsible for everything that goes on at the life level.

This is completely wrong. Humans need energy and are in a constant "chase" for it, but there is almost nothing we can do with electromagnetic energy. Instead, human get their energy from two sources - sugar to burn and oxygen to butn it with. In fact, there seems to be no reason why well-fed humans could not exist perfectly well in the complete absense of light.

(Oh sure, we can make vitamin D with ultraviolet light, but we don't have to.)

All our energy needs are chemical. All that electromagnetic energy would do is kill us.

Like matter, life shares definite forms of behavior, most importantly, mental and emotional forms of behavior. Why wouldn't they be based on energy. Why wouldn't the actions of life be based in the characteristics of the energy that most makes its world what it is?

Again, what does it mean for something to be "based on" energy? Does it mean it acts like energy? In exactly what ways? A car needs gasoline for energy, but the car does not behave in any way like gasoline.

nescafe

19th November 2006, 06:27 AM

This is completely wrong. Humans need energy and are in a constant "chase" for it, but there is almost nothing we can do with electromagnetic energy. Instead, human get their energy from two sources - sugar to burn and oxygen to butn it with. In fact, there seems to be no reason why well-fed humans could not exist perfectly well in the complete absense of light.

(Oh sure, we can make vitamin D with ultraviolet light, but we don't have to.)

All our energy needs are chemical. All that electromagnetic energy would do is kill us.
To be pedantic, chemical energy derives from the electromagnetic force -- all chemical bonds are electrostatic in nature.

Giving LCL the most charitable reading of his arguments, is correct in stating that life (as we know it) exists because of light -- if you read "light" to be "the electromagnetic force" and "life" to be "the complex chemical reactions that are us". However, this one point is nothing revolutionary -- we have known that chemical reactions were best described of in terms of on the electromagnetic force for at least a century or so.

I chalk LCL's getting this correct up to the old stopped clock maxim, as he has failed to offer anything remotely resembling a coherent explanation for his ideas.

bruto

19th November 2006, 07:40 AM

Something like that. I said it is early yet. You can see that the site was an overview. Obviously way too early to publish. An overview implies that there's more detail being viewed over, not that you haven't found it yet, just as argument from suppressed premises implies that you are aware of the premises, not that you just forgot to think.

So you are saying that even Lincoln thinks I am wrong?

If that's what you think the Lincoln quote meant, then your reading comprehension is pretty poor. Perhaps that explains some other things as well.

I'll put it in grade school words: if you're just guessing, it doesn't count.

bruto

19th November 2006, 10:43 AM

REading this weeks Randi commentary, I see that LCL has some good company on the net. Check out the "universal energy" site. I suppose we must be thankful that LCL is either too honest or too lazy or too something-else to progress from harmless goof to charlatan. I was struck by the familiar language, though:

The biggest comment I ever get about my web site is that I over simplified the working of the body. Our motto is to keep it simple for all. You have to go to school to make something complicated. That is the biggest downfall with our higher education. They now have everything so complicated that they have lost all common sense of the body and making it more complicated and treating it as in the stone ages. http://www.edkuniversity.com/

lightcreatedlife@hom

19th November 2006, 11:15 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

19th November 2006, 11:41 AM

Obviously way too early to publish. An overview implies that there's more detail being viewed over, not that you haven't found it yet, just as argument from suppressed premises implies that you are aware of the premises, not that you just forgot to think.
There is more detail. There is also some not found yet, something that happens with just about everything. As for what you think it implies, that has a lot to do with what you want it to. That is unless you can read my mind. I stated exactly what I thought at that site.

If that's what you think the Lincoln quote meant, then your reading comprehension is pretty poor. Perhaps that explains some other things as well.
Maybe you can brush up alittle yourself. The thing at the end of the sentence means that I asked a question.

I'll put it in grade school words: if you're just guessing, it doesn't count.
So if a quess/observation happens to be right, I have to throw it out because it's cheating? Have you ever heard someone say "you guessed right?"

lightcreatedlife@hom

19th November 2006, 11:51 AM

To be pedantic, chemical energy derives from the electromagnetic force -- all chemical bonds are electrostatic in nature.

Giving LCL the most charitable reading of his arguments, is correct in stating that life (as we know it) exists because of light -- if you read "light" to be "the electromagnetic force" and "life" to be "the complex chemical reactions that are us". However, this one point is nothing revolutionary -- we have known that chemical reactions were best described of in terms of on the electromagnetic force for at least a century or so.

I chalk LCL's getting this correct up to the old stopped clock maxim, as he has failed to offer anything remotely resembling a coherent explanation for his ideas.
I love it. "He is right but we already knew that. Besides, he must have just lucked up."
I have been saying that we owe how we behave to energy, and the energy I was talking about includes the chemicals that determines our behavior. Thanks for that.

Loss Leader

19th November 2006, 01:02 PM

I have been saying that we owe how we behave to energy, and the energy I was talking about includes the chemicals that determines our behavior. Thanks for that.

How do we owe how we behave to energy? What behaviors of ours are attributable to energy? Why, just because we use energy, does that mean that we act like energy? Rabbits use carrots, they owe their lives to carrots - but they don't behave like carrots. Cars don't behave like gas. Why do you say that our behavior mirrors the behavior of energy?

nescafe

19th November 2006, 02:31 PM

I love it. "He is right but we already knew that. Besides, he must have just lucked up."

Not quite. If I focus just on the "light created life" statement and give you every benefit of the doubt as to what you are trying to explain, I can see where that statement might make some sense. However, the fact that:
We have been able to explain life in terms of chemistry for around 50 years,
We have been able to explain chemistry in terms of atoms interacting according to the dictates of the electromagnetic force for around 100 years,coupled with the wilfull ignorance you display with virtually every post you have made in this Forum, I see nothing original and useful in your ideas. I (and several others) have pointed out areas where your ideas are rather wrong or flat-out incoherent, and you refuse to even check the possibility that you are wrong.

I have been saying that we owe how we behave to energy, and the energy I was talking about includes the chemicals that determines our behavior. Thanks for that. Not quite. We must act according to the dictates of the four fundamental forces, that is true. Reasoning about our behaviour at the level of the four fundamental forces, however, is inane -- it is like claiming that the behavior of a program running on some sort of Universal Turing Machine is critically dependent on what the UTM was made out of.

bruto

19th November 2006, 02:45 PM

There is more detail. There is also some not found yet, something that happens with just about everything. As for what you think it implies, that has a lot to do with what you want it to. That is unless you can read my mind. I stated exactly what I thought at that site. No change there. An overview implies that you are skipping details as a matter of choice. If there's more, it's overdue. If you haven't fihished figuring things out, then you don't post a web site that says you've figured it all out. It's really very simple.

Maybe you can brush up alittle yourself. The thing at the end of the sentence means that I asked a question. Gviing you too much credit, it seems, I assumed your question was rhetorical. I should have thought it obvious enough that I was not suggesting that Abraham Lincoln himself says you are "wrong," since that is manifestly not what the quotation was about. That you should even have asked the question implies a lack of comprehension. I suppose it should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that among other things, Mr. Lincoln is deceased, and not aware of your particular case. The remark was not made personally to you. Lincoln is not saying you're wrong. I am saying that Lincoln's observation is an apt one, and that observation is that when you pass off a guess as a known truth, when you do not actually know if it is true or false, you are passing off a falsehood, and guilty of uttering a falsehood, even if your guess later turns out to be lucky.

So if a quess/observation happens to be right, I have to throw it out because it's cheating? Have you ever heard someone say "you guessed right?"

A guess is a guess. A right guess is good luck. An honest guess is an honest utterance, and the luck is then acknowledged. You presented your so called theory as something other than a guess, and have defended it at times at least as being something you truly believe to be true. As such, when you later try to dodge criticism of specific points by characterizing it as a guess or an incomplete search, your original presentation is dishonest. It is, as Mr. Lincoln so tersely observed, effectually an error whatever luck you might have in your guesses. Your continual refusal to acknowledge or do honest research into specific errors and logical gaps in your argument, and the rational objections brought up by a number of posters here, demonstrate that you are more interested in preserving your ideas unchanged than in learning whether or not they are true or meaningful.

This is an important issue, even if you do not consider it so. Although sloppy writing and carelessness in presentation will always handicap you if you wish to convince people that any of your ideas are careful and clear, this can be set aside to some extent as a matter of style or education. But sloppy thinking and illogical argument are issues of much more importance than you attribute to them. An unconcern for clear and careful thought is not just a matter of intellectual style, but a lack of respect for the difference between truth and falsehood. It is a matter of integrity.

TobiasTheViking

19th November 2006, 03:23 PM

I stayed the path of my search, and what I expect to find.

Who says, you? It is possible for a single person to experience them all at once. They could feel them even when the reason why is a lie or the truth.

But it has been pointed out that I am no scientist. Does that mean that I can't play? I think all I have to do is fit within most of the framework, and only in the places that I can't easily be hit for doing it. I'm sorry. I believe that feelings have a role. Not as much as logic, but a role. I feel a connection, that the 14 billion year drama has a purpose, and was planned. Silly me? Okay.

I am working on it.

You seem to be saying "why don't particle and people act, or are affected the same." I was pointing out that there is a difference between them.

I said nothing about they must. People can use reason to modify their feelings and their actions.

Sure I can. This is a forum, not the temple of science.

I meant it to mean that the basic feelings and actions seen in animals, that I think are based in energy, are modified to a greater extent in the action and feelings of people.

I am working on it, and I can say what I like. I just have to suffer if I am wrong, but I will still learn from it.

I was talking about the four basics, I didn't separate or name them. I am just standing by what was said. And since no math can be done without them, I say the term 4 basics fits.

Electricity and magnetism are not the same thing. One will readily kill you, while the other hasn't that much spark. Again. Science named them, separated them, and I agree. One does not go anywhere without the other, but I think what they are saying when they use electricity in describing it at one time, and magnetism at others is when it mostly shows its shocking nature it is electricity, something like that.

If you say so. I think the difference is alittle less clear as two glasses of water.

Yes. That is where it starts. But then the two parts split. That is why I as not talking about life having the characteristics of light.
ok i've grown tired of this, you are talking in circles. I show you that you are wrong, and all you do is say "no no no, i'm right, i just am, i know i am" and you don't show it.

Bored now.

Loss Leader

19th November 2006, 04:46 PM

Mr. Lincoln is deceased.

Something's happened to President Lincoln???!

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th November 2006, 06:37 AM

ok i've grown tired of this, you are talking in circles. I show you that you are wrong, and all you do is say "no no no, i'm right, i just am, i know i am" and you don't show it.

Bored now.
I am kind of bored myself. You talked about light, I was talking about the componenets that makes it up. You don't want to seem to get that.
And while you said say that electricity and magnetism are the same exact thing, that doesn't exactly prove it.

Tricky

20th November 2006, 06:46 AM

I am kind of bored myself. You talked about light, I was talking about the componenets that makes it up. You don't want to seem to get that.
What do you think the are the components that make up light?

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th November 2006, 07:14 AM

A guess is a guess. A right guess is good luck. An honest guess is an honest utterance, and the luck is then acknowledged. You presented your so called theory as something other than a guess, and have defended it at times at least as being something you truly believe to be true. As such, when you later try to dodge criticism of specific points by characterizing it as a guess or an incomplete search, your original presentation is dishonest.
The nature of the things talked about there would always require more detail because some of it is located where no one can go and return-yet. I still hold out the hope for more sensitive devices. When they happen, I will be ready. When I said "everything" you did not honestly think it would explain everything did you? So come off the disappointed pitch. And you seem to forget this is a forum and not the temple of science. Take a look at the names that people give their threads and tell me you expect what is in them to be 100%. What I posted I think points to an energy base to the behavior and purpose of life. I think that goes a ways towards everything. And again, the FOE science expects to find will not explain everything either, do you think they are being dishonest or you too literal?

This is an important issue, even if you do not consider it so. Although sloppy writing and carelessness in presentation will always handicap you if you wish to convince people that any of your ideas are careful and clear, this can be set aside to some extent as a matter of style or education. But sloppy thinking and illogical argument are issues of much more importance than you attribute to them. An unconcern for clear and careful thought is not just a matter of intellectual style, but a lack of respect for the difference between truth and falsehood. It is a matter of integrity.
There is some truth in what you say. I think my presentation at the site was okay, but improvement it could really use, and I was not prepared for detail, but it is a start. I will get better. I also have great respect for the truth. What Slingblade said, what I found out about the EMF, the reference to the book IN THE COOL, and what someone said recently about chemical bonds, and the stuff about logic gives me a definite direction and faith that I will find what I am looking for.

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th November 2006, 07:16 AM

What do you think the are the components that make up light?
Light is electromagnetic radiation, I think they are clear.

Tricky

20th November 2006, 07:22 AM

Light is electromagnetic radiation, I think they are clear.
What? No photons? No phase? None of the paramaters that define light?

What is clear is that you have little understanding of light. This being the case, it ill behooves you to be making profound statements about how it "created life" or how it fits onto your pictures.

lightcreatedlife@hom

20th November 2006, 08:51 AM

Not quite. If I focus just on the "light created life" statement and give you every benefit of the doubt as to what you are trying to explain, I can see where that statement might make some sense. However, the fact that:

We have been able to explain life in terms of chemistry for around 50 years,
We have been able to explain chemistry in terms of atoms interacting according to the dictates of the electromagnetic force for around 100 years,coupled with the wilfull ignorance you display with virtually every post you have made in this Forum, I see nothing original and useful in your ideas.
I have heard loud and often that everything I said was wrong. Now its "not orginal and useful to you." I never said it was all orignal. Even extending the link to behavior is covered by there being a soul-to some. As for incoherent, I think you can understand what I am talking about, though I am sure that others here have the detail to say it better. I am working on that. I got the rest of my life, and I will get better.

I did not know about the EMF having to do with chemical bonds until you said it. So plenty is getting through. But even though I did not know that, the graph puts the EMF in the right relationship with the life represented by the center box. I brought it here to see whether or not it works against things I knew, and stand against things I didn't.

I (and several others) have pointed out areas where your ideas are rather wrong or flat-out incoherent, and you refuse to even check the possibility that you are wrong.
That is not true. I am taking everything in. Right is right to me. The things that I stand behind I have reason to be there-even if you and others disagree-as long as I have references enough that do agree.
Your tone here is different from most of what I have heard-you only called me ignorant once. Even though it covers virtually every post. If I took everything most of you said here to heart, I don't want to think about where my mind would be. And I truely worry about the what has happenned to others subjected to it.
Luckily I know that no one can be completely wrong. Though I have found myself thinking "how could I have been so wrong?" And I worried that being that wrong is usually not confined to only one area of someone's life. The rest of my life works, and has worked, just fine... Reasonably... As much as can be expected... Mostly-oh boy.

Not quite. We must act according to the dictates of the four fundamental forces, that is true. Reasoning about our behaviour at the level of the four fundamental forces, however, is inane
Says you. Even if I didn't know how, why wouldn't our behavior be based there? Everything else is. It is a proper search. DNA is designed to change. I don't think that the mental/emotional nature of life could be trusted to it. Not and allow all of life to relate to itself. And DNA would not have universal reach.

-- it is like claiming that the behavior of a program running on some sort of Universal Turing Machine is critically dependent on what the UTM was made out of.
I disagree. And your analogy seems off. We are made up of what the universe is made up of. Ever here that "we are made up of stardust?"

zizzybaluba

20th November 2006, 09:20 AM

What if I provided references?
Please do.

So LCL, are you going to provide references for your "four basics of math"? Or are you waiting for christmas?

Tricky

20th November 2006, 09:24 AM

So LCL, are you going to provide references for your "four basics of math"? Or are you waiting for christmas?
I warn you, zizzy, LCL confuses the results of a Google search with evidence.

zizzybaluba

20th November 2006, 09:44 AM

I warn you, zizzy, LCL confuses the results of a Google search with evidence.

Yeah, I know...
But I'm hoping (foolishly) that if he points me to exactly where he got that idea from, I can show how he misinterpreted it.

nescafe

20th November 2006, 11:01 AM

I did not know about the EMF having to do with chemical bonds until you said it. So plenty is getting through. But even though I did not know that, the graph puts the EMF in the right relationship with the life represented by the center box. I brought it here to see whether or not it works against things I knew, and stand against things I didn't.

Yes, which is why I made the stopped-clock analogy. A piece of your theory, given the most charitable interpretation, could be considered correct. This does not mean that your chart as a whole is correct, or even coherent.

That is not true. I am taking everything in. Right is right to me. The things that I stand behind I have reason to be there-even if you and others disagree-as long as I have references enough that do agree.
You appear to equate the results of a Google search with valid references. You do realize that Sturgeon's Law applies in spades to everything on the Internet, right? Heck, I can find references "proving" that the Sun has a solid metallic surface (http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/), that the Earth is just 6000 years old (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), and proof that the Universe is timeless and infinite (http://everythingforever.com/) -- and those are just off the top of my head. The people who wrote the above sites are just as convinced that they are "right" as you are, and they stand behind their beliefs -- and they are all mutually incompatible with eachother and with your theories. As far as claims of accuracy goes, each of the above sites is also much more detailed and specific about their claims than you are.

Your tone here is different from most of what I have heard-you only called me ignorant once. Even though it covers virtually every post.

Yes, you lost most of your entertainment value a while ago -- you think that strident repetition suffices to hold up your end of the dialog.

If I took everything most of you said here to heart, I don't want to think about where my mind would be.
In a more educated state. Instead of pointlessly arguing with us, why not go out and read some of the books recommended to you earlier in the thread? They can only improve your understanding of what it is you are trying to accomplish.

And I truely worry about the what has happenned to others subjected to it.
Why? Is too much knowledge bad for people?

Not quite. We must act according to the dictates of the four fundamental forces, that is true. Reasoning about our behaviour at the level of the four fundamental forces, however, is inaneSays you. Even if I didn't know how, why wouldn't our behavior be based there?
Because there are several different ways of explaining our behaviour, each of which makes different assumptions. Some of them are (in approximate order of abstraction):
Game theory
Classical and operant conditioning
Evolutionary psychology
Biology
Chemistry
Maxwellian electromagnetic theory
Quantum electrodynamics
Now, then, QED and Maxwellian electromagnetic theory are
really good at explaining our behaviour in a black-body radiation sort of way,
not as good at explaining our behaviour in a food processing sort of way,
totally irrelavent at explaining our behaviour from the perspective of game theory, and
spectacularly bad at explaining our behaviour from a biological, evpsych, and classical/operant conditioning perspective.

It is a proper search. DNA is designed to change. I don't think that the mental/emotional nature of life could be trusted to it.
We have already demonstrated that life does not have an emotional/mental nature -- just certian multicellular life forms.

I disagree. And your analogy seems off.
It might be helpful of you could tell me what about my analogy seems off, then i could better tailor it to your understanding.

Anacoluthon64

20th November 2006, 12:08 PM

Is 582 (as it currently stands) posts in the one and only thread someome has participated in some kind of record?Yes, it's a very, very, very sad record. Of how intransigence consistently trumps reason, that is.

'Luthon64

Belz...

20th November 2006, 12:13 PM

The program for life is only part of it. Life is linked to the conditions for life. Stars, planets and stuff.

That seems to be so obvious I wonder why you said it. My question is, do you have any evidence that there is "programming" beyond the DNA ?

Not equal footing. But everything is a piece of the puzzle.

There is no puzzle, Light. There's a universe to be understood, and science and religion are two completely different and unequal methods of finding out.

One is an attractive force,(large scale) another a binding force, another a force of decay,(small scale) and one attraction and repulsion (large and small scale). Together they set the rules.

No, they set no rules. They obey physical "laws", because they can't do otherwise. They are not order, they are part of order.

Would their be matter as we know it without it?

That's irrelevant. It doesn't "owe" anything to energy.

Science says four, not me. I am just going along.

No, you're not. You're "going along" when "saying" the "same thing" as "science". When we show you that science actually disagrees with you, you shout "science isn't everything". You can't have it both ways, Light.

Because everything else you base this conclusion on is wrong.

Of course.

"Of course" ?

Liar. Hypocrit. Coward. Leech. Troll.

Arithmetic teaches the basics, and since no math can be done without them...

Arithmetic teaches the simple, not the "basics".

You seem to care. Isn't the mathematical dimesions of the universe our reality?

No.

Don't call them that. They might get mad. And just because you don't believe the basics to be basic, does not make all who do nincompoops.

Stop changing the subject. What makes ignorant people more reliable than knowledgeable people ?

Of course not.

You have no honour, honesty or dignity. Liar.

You left out neither would you. Or are you saying you are a genius?

You haven't read what I said, did you :

Beign right isn't about beign a genius. Otherwise you couldn't be right, ever.

I've bolded the important part so you won't have to look for it.

TobiasTheViking

20th November 2006, 01:23 PM

I am kind of bored myself. You talked about light, I was talking about the componenets that makes it up. You don't want to seem to get that.
And while you said say that electricity and magnetism are the same exact thing, that doesn't exactly prove it.
it is the same, and it is also light.. if you claim anything else, then prove it, and win the nobel price.

zizzybaluba

20th November 2006, 02:07 PM

What saddens me most about LCL is his willful ignorance.

LCL, your aim is too high. Scientific discovery comes about by studying the work of others who studied before you, building on the theories of others in what amounts, in the grand scheme of things, to largely be baby steps. Sometimes a discovery is great and meaningful on its own, but largely theories are stepping stones. You’re trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill.

Try and come up with something that can makes predictions that can be reproduced in a laboratory. Predictions that can be measured. If you make assumptions, cite where those assumptions come from, for if they are proven wrong your ideas will have to be re-examined. That is how science works. You’ll find it difficult to come up with something that hasn’t been done before, but that’s because of all who have come before you.

Go to the library; pick up a good science book in an area that interests you. Read it; take notes on what you don’t understand. Ask questions about what you don’t understand. Seek out answers rather than making them up and assuming your conclusions to be true. You’ll find it rewarding, even if you don’t ever come up with some earthshaking idea.

Enrich your knowledge for its own sake rather than hope for a reward.

Solus

20th November 2006, 05:13 PM

What is your problem? You don't have to come here. Why do you? Since you have deduced that I am not mentally ill, why do I have to hear about you and your work? I don't care. And since you care enough to come here, have a seat. Like you said you were going to do.
My jollies? I am only mean to those who are mean to me. And mostly not even then. I am not calling names, and said I in fact respect the people here. As I would do anyone, anywhere. That don't mean that I agree with everything they say, just like they don't agree with me. People disagree. That happens. And I would not be able to do that without something to stand behind.
You are right. It is not just amusing to me-I believe it. I understand that you don't, in that case do us both a favor...

My problem is you my trollish friend, :) and of course you wouldn't answer a simple question. Why? Because this is all a game to you. ;) And FYI, I'm about as likely to leave this thread as you are. So you'd better learn to deal with it :D

Solus

20th November 2006, 05:21 PM

I didn't answer him because I knew he wouldn't like it. And the bold face looked like he was yelling at me. Somehow, some people think themselves more than they are. I ain't got to answer.

They agree with me and think you all are nuts. I have said that here serval times, that I ask them the same questions that I ask here. I find myself defending you to them. I say that because you are smart, you find a way to be right from some angle. "Yes. From the moon that does look like that. But I did not say from the moon."

Right I think of myself more than I am :p. I've spent 5 years at a community college for chirst's sake. Believe me I don't think much of myself even though those extra years were to due to illness.

So if your family agrees that doesn't mean much. Ignorant people are not in a position to argue with you. Try going to a professor of physics at a local college see what he thinks of your ideas...

Added: please note I do not mean ignorant as an insult but merely as what the word means. I'm ignorant of baseball and I'll admit it. Your family then may not be the best place to share this theory with.

wollery

20th November 2006, 05:57 PM

I disagree. And your analogy seems off. We are made up of what the universe is made up of. Ever here that "we are made up of stardust?"I don't doubt that most people have heard it. What I do doubt is that you actually understand what it really means.

Oh, and in answer to your question about 3 pages back, you might want to take a look at knot theory for a start.

bruto

20th November 2006, 06:04 PM

I don't doubt that most people have heard it. What I do doubt is that you actually understand what it really means.

Oh, and in answer to your question about 3 pages back, you might want to take a look at knot theory for a start.

How about just plain ol' geometry?

wollery

20th November 2006, 06:32 PM

There is an argument to be made for practical geometry requiring arithmetic. Knot theory, however, has absolutely no requirement for arithmetic, either theoretically or practically.

nescafe

20th November 2006, 08:14 PM

Ever here that "we are made up of stardust?"I don't doubt that most people have heard it. What I do doubt is that you actually understand what it really means.
I know! It means that the strong nuclear force created life, because without the strong nuclear force we would not have nucleosythesis via neutron capture or nuclear fusion...

And that the weak nuclear force create life by mediating the interaction between neutrinos and everything else which (among other things) tears the supernova'ing star apart and throws all those nice freshly synthesized elements into hapless gas clouds that then collapse...

Which means that the gravitational force created life by causing all this collapsing behaviour that causes stars and planets to form in the first place!

Loss Leader

20th November 2006, 08:43 PM

I know! It means that the strong nuclear force created life, because without the strong nuclear force we would not have nucleosythesis via neutron capture or nuclear fusion...

And that the weak nuclear force create life by mediating the interaction between neutrinos and everything else which (among other things) tears the supernova'ing star apart and throws all those nice freshly synthesized elements into hapless gas clouds that then collapse...

Which means that the gravitational force created life by causing all this collapsing behaviour that causes stars and planets to form in the first place!

So, basically, what you're trying to say is, "Save the cheerleader, save the world."

Belz...

21st November 2006, 04:46 AM

I love it. "He is right but we already knew that. Besides, he must have just lucked up."

That's not what he said. I'm pretty sure you know this.

He said that, in a way, you were correct, but that you don't know why.

Like the ancient greek saying that "first, there was chaos". They were, basically, correct, but it doesn't mean they understood quantum physics.

I have been saying that we owe how we behave to energy, and the energy I was talking about includes the chemicals that determines our behavior. Thanks for that.

Unfortunately you don't understand what that means.

Light is electromagnetic radiation

Perhaps, but it is neither electric nor magnetic.

And again, the FOE science expects to find will not explain everything either, do you think they are being dishonest or you too literal?

No, but at least they understand the subject matter.

There is some truth in what you say. I think my presentation at the site was okay, but improvement it could really use, and I was not prepared for detail, but it is a start. I will get better.

Well, you can't get worse.

I am working on that. I got the rest of my life, and I will get better.

Perhaps you should focus on the "rest of your life".

That is not true. I am taking everything in. Right is right to me.

Unfortunately, wrong is ALSO right to you.

Luckily I know that no one can be completely wrong.

Liar. You agreed with me that it could happen. Are you always that dishonest ?

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 06:16 AM

What? No photons? No phase? None of the paramaters that define light?
Because i did not include a lot of stuff that you already know, that I could have googled even if I didn't know, you assume that Idon't know. I answered the question in relation to the to parts I was talking about. And this has been going on forever, whatever I don't include is jumped on as if that was the point. I have to write an essay every reply? Get off it.

What is clear is that you have little understanding of light. This being the case, it ill behooves you to be making profound statements about how it "created life" or how it fits onto your pictures.
I understand what I said, and nothing that has been said here has shown me any different. In fact, recent replies have given me more reason to believe what I have been saying. I need to get better though, and I will.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 06:42 AM

He said that, in a way, you were correct, but that you don't know why.

I knew enough to get that far. Knew enough to see what I said. But right, I don't know as much as others. A good point in the right direction (which I got) would have fixed that. Remember? "We are here to help." I think you said that. In light of that it seems a bit dishonest to tell me for some 40 pages that I was completely wrong about everything. And I am only referring to those who actullay made that statement.

Like the ancient greek saying that "first, there was chaos". They were, basically, correct, but it doesn't mean they understood quantum physics.
Basically right is not totally wrong is it? It is a good thing for me that I know that even smart people can say dumb things.

Unfortunately you don't understand what that means.
Not to the degree you do, but I will fix it.

Perhaps, but it is neither electric nor magnetic.
Yet it still has those components.

No, but at least they understand the subject matter.
So do I, just not deeply. And I came to a place where those things were understood and it really appears now that there was an honest attempt to led me in another direction.

Well, you can't get worse.
You see? Your major interest was in helping me think I was completely worng.

Perhaps you should focus on the "rest of your life".
You see? Give up, right?

Unfortunately, wrong is ALSO right to you.
It appears that you think basically correct, is completely wrong. Who are you to talk?

Liar. You agreed with me that it could happen. Are you always that dishonest ?
I said that I thought I was completely wrong? Perhaps you were hoping that the major thing you were trying to teach me had worked. I am glad to say that it did not. Good effort though.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 06:47 AM

As systems of communication, yes.

But I feel that language is more expressive than math, and commuicates more than math can. Both can relate ideas and facts, but words convey emotion as well.
Thank you.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 06:51 AM

I know! It means that the strong nuclear force created life, because without the strong nuclear force we would not have nucleosythesis via neutron capture or nuclear fusion...

And that the weak nuclear force create life by mediating the interaction between neutrinos and everything else which (among other things) tears the supernova'ing star apart and throws all those nice freshly synthesized elements into hapless gas clouds that then collapse...

Which means that the gravitational force created life by causing all this collapsing behaviour that causes stars and planets to form in the first place!
Of course they are all part of the equation, but the EMF force has the most to do with the life part than the others. I think anyway.

Cosmo

21st November 2006, 06:57 AM

Loss Leader

21st November 2006, 07:10 AM

Anyone else notice how LCL failed to answer this? :rolleyes:[/SIZE]

He did answer it, although the answer was a confused jumble and easily missed. He said his family and friends all agree with him. When he tells them about our objections, they say that we are wrong. He then defends us to them, saying that we are intelligent, but they don't believe him.

Belz...

21st November 2006, 07:12 AM

I knew enough to get that far. Knew enough to see what I said.

No, you didn't. You thought "light" as in some form of metaphysical energy-god that made everything possible, but that's not how things work. You don't understand what people mean when they speak of the eletromagnetic force binding atoms.

But right, I don't know as much as others. A good point in the right direction (which I got) would have fixed that.

Unfortunately, you don't learn what people tell you. If you did, you'd already have abandoned that ridiculous graph of yours and moved to real science.

Remember? "We are here to help." I think you said that. In light of that it seems a bit dishonest to tell me for some 40 pages that I was completely wrong about everything. And I am only referring to those who actullay made that statement.

You were not right about the answer, Light. When you do a math problem in class and you get the answer right, but your whole reasoning is wrong, the teacher isn't going to give you a good grade, because you were really wrong, not right.

Basically right is not totally wrong is it? It is a good thing for me that I know that even smart people can say dumb things.

Then you should be able to spot it when YOU say dumb things. But you're not.

Not to the degree you do, but I will fix it.

Somehow I doubt that.

Yet it still has those components.

No, it doesn't. That's what I said. Light is neither electric nor magnetic. It IS neither.

So do I, just not deeply.

I think it's safe to say that you're actually above the surface.

You see? Your major interest was in helping me think I was completely worng.

Yes, and the sooner you realise that the better for you.

You see? Give up, right?

Yes. You might have noticed that we've been at this for quite some time, now. Initially, I thought you might be wise enough to trust other people's expertise and knowledge in matters where YOUR knowledge lacks. I thought, by explaining things to you, rationally and patiently, you might eventually understand.

But you are willfully ignoring everyone and everything here, as opposed to what you claim. Therefore, your knowledge can never improve and your "theory" is doomed to remain nonsensical to all but you. It follows that it's useless to get you to improve on your ideas, because you're simply not going to listen. Therefore the best thing I can tell you to do is simply abandon this project of yours and devote yourself to things you're actually good at.

It appears that you think basically correct, is completely wrong. Who are you to talk?

No, I'm quite right about this. When people point out that you're wrong, you interpret this as a sign that you're right. You've built yourself a world-view in which you can't lose.

I said that I thought I was completely wrong?

No, you said it was possible for someone to be completely wrong, which is a retraction of your earlier claim that this was impossible. Please pay attention.

Perhaps you were hoping that the major thing you were trying to teach me had worked. I am glad to say that it did not. Good effort though.

You're glad that you haven't learned ? That's alarming.

nescafe

21st November 2006, 07:49 AM

Of course they are all part of the equation, but the EMF force has the most to do with the life part than the others. I think anyway.
Individually, each of the four forces is necessary but not sufficient to explain life. All of them together appear to be sufficient, but we do not (and do not expect to ever) have 100% certainty about that statement. Given that it appears to take all four forces working over huge streches of time to set up the conditions in which Life can arise, singling out one as "more important" than the others is rather silly.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 07:51 AM

As suspected, just about everything you wrote following Slingblade's excellent work was wrong. I'll just pick one.
It was excellent wasn't it? To me. It was like finding beauty in a mushroom cloud that did not explode over my own city, and knowing that those under it, deserved it.

I don't think I hurt it all that bad.

This is completely wrong. Humans need energy and are in a constant "chase" for it, but there is almost nothing we can do with electromagnetic energy. Instead, human get their energy from two sources - sugar to burn and oxygen to butn it with. In fact, there seems to be no reason why well-fed humans could not exist perfectly well in the complete absense of light.
Wouldn't the complete absense of light make it hard for humans to be well fed?
Wouldn't it also make it hard for them to see?
And I think that mental and emotional energy are forms of electromagnetic energy. (though I am working on exactly how.)
I have also read that in the winter months the reduced light has been tied to depression. Especially in the countries where they get 6 months of it.
And when you say the "complete absense of light" you are talking about all kinds you have no idea what that would do. I know that without infrared energy it would be cold.

Again, what does it mean for something to be "based on" energy?
I think I answered this. Life whirls around the energy chase.
Uses it to power its being, and uses it physically, mentally, emotionally and other wise. Energy is literally responsible for most of their actions, and the set ways they go about getting it.
.
Does it mean it acts like energy?
I have said that from one angle life seems to act like charged particles in its interactions. If somehow we were able to see the charge in stead of the physical form, the energy flowing between the different types, it would look exactly like that. We would see the human types line up in orderly arrangements at night, when they are home, and stream towards work in the morning.
See the charges change in set ways because of energy, like eating, sex and so forth.

In exactly what ways? A car needs gasoline for energy, but the car does not behave in any way like gasoline.
I think there is a difference in the chemical interactions between the body and its food/energy and a car. The different types of energy/energies in food are used throughout the body. Gas has nothing to do with the skin/body of a car.

Loss Leader

21st November 2006, 08:05 AM

I have said that from one angle life seems to act like charged particles in its interactions. If somehow we were able to see the charge in stead of the physical form, the energy flowing between the different types, it would look exactly like that. We would see the human types line up in orderly arrangements at night, when they are home, and stream towards work in the morning.
See the charges change in set ways because of energy, like eating, sex and so forth.

Alright, so this is nonsense. It is, literally, gibberish. I can't even formulate a reply to it because it doesn't even qualify as a statement.

There is nothing about people traveling in cars to and from work that has anything to do with electrical flow across a circuit. Absolutely nothing.

Belz...

21st November 2006, 09:05 AM

Cosmo

21st November 2006, 10:05 AM

He did answer it, although the answer was a confused jumble and easily missed. He said his family and friends all agree with him. When he tells them about our objections, they say that we are wrong. He then defends us to them, saying that we are intelligent, but they don't believe him.

Whoops! You're right LL, I did miss it. Thanks for clarifying. :)

nescafe

21st November 2006, 10:11 AM

Light: About the four forces and life, you DO know that all of them are required, as Nescafe said ?

Without the nuclear forces, atoms wouldn't exist, and without the electromagnetic force, molecules wouldn't exist. Without gravity: no stars! All four of them are required.

To be fair, I do think LCL understands this.

All of the particles in my body interact according to the constraints of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force.

So would the very same particles that would comprise the ash and gases that would result from sealing me in a large hyperbaric oxygen tank and then convincing me to strike a match.

The set of interactions we call "life", "thought", "emotion", etc. lie somewhere within the set of all interactions allowed by the constraints of the fundamental forces. Where LCL goes wrong is with his idea that the fundamental laws intentionally created life.

Belz...

21st November 2006, 12:10 PM

He also gets wrong that light is, somehow, more important in this. He also gets wrong that it's important at all.

Electromagnetic force <> light ! Though they are related.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 12:47 PM

Alright, so this is nonsense. It is, literally, gibberish. I can't even formulate a reply to it because it doesn't even qualify as a statement.

There is nothing about people traveling in cars to and from work that has anything to do with electrical flow across a circuit. Absolutely nothing. No one said that thiere was. I said "from another view," If you could see the charge on people. You can't you know. But when they are sad, grieving, they seem to lack energy. Other people seem to hold them to give them support. Almost as if they were trying to give them an energy boost. Which of course, in a way, they are.

At a football game, the winning side seems to be bursting with energy, while just across the field the losing side seems drained. And they both exerted about the same amount of energy during the game. When someone makes a great play, others want to touch them, seeming to want to get some of the energy coming off them. Those who make a bad play pass by others who even try to avoid looking at them. Seeming not to want anything to do with the energy coming from them. And you know the whole stadium experience has to do with tapping into the collective energy generated there.

From high in the air, if the heads lights represented the charge on the people in the cars below, they pulse through the city as the stop signs regulate their flow, red lights going one way, bright white lights the other way. Even though "from this view" the people would have a full range of different charges on them. A cell phone rings with good news, and the charge on one would brighten, while another call can make another darken. Seeming to drain the energy right out of them.
People who are physically fighting would flash colors of charges different from those having sex, and those in intense play. Now I know we can't see any of this (clearly) but they are there. If they could be clearly seen, without the physical form, people would seem like charged particles, and their lives bent around energy, seeking it, using it, experiencing it.

Gibberish? You understand, and have seen what I am saying.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 12:54 PM

He also gets wrong that light is, somehow, more important in this. He also gets wrong that it's important at all.
Of course I am wrong. Look where I am? The land where I am wrong about everything.

Electromagnetic force <> light ! Though they are related.
They are related is what I am saying.

lightcreatedlife@hom

21st November 2006, 01:10 PM

My problem is you my trollish friend, :) and of course you wouldn't answer a simple question. Why? Because this is all a game to you. ;) And FYI, I'm about as likely to leave this thread as you are. So you'd better learn to deal with it :D
I got no problem with you, you have a problem with me. You wanted to derail it, shout it down, move it and I don't know what is next. I am not giving you any problem, you are eating away at yourself. You don't like me, but you come (without being forced) to the one place where I am. I don't even have to reply to you, my existence is enough. Deal with you? You are the one having problems dealing with me-and I ain't even bothering you.

zizzybaluba

21st November 2006, 01:11 PM

No one said that thiere was. I said "from another view," If you could see the charge on people. You can't you know. But when they are sad, grieving, they seem to lack energy. Other people seem to hold them to give them support. Almost as if they were trying to give them an energy boost. Which of course, in a way, they are.

At a football game, the winning side seems to be bursting with energy, while just across the field the losing side seems drained. And they both exerted about the same amount of energy during the game. When someone makes a great play, others want to touch them, seeming to want to get some of the energy coming off them. Those who make a bad play pass by others who even try to avoid looking at them. Seeming not to want anything to do with the energy coming from them. And you know the whole stadium experience has to do with tapping into the collective energy generated there.

From high in the air, if the heads lights represented the charge on the people in the cars below, they pulse through the city as the stop signs regulate their flow, red lights going one way, bright white lights the other way. Even though "from this view" the people would have a full range of different charges on them. A cell phone rings with good news, and the charge on one would brighten, while another call can make another darken. Seeming to drain the energy right out of them.
People who are physically fighting would flash colors of charges different from those having sex, and those in intense play. Now I know we can't see any of this (clearly) but they are there. If they could be clearly seen, without the physical form, people would seem like charged particles, and their lives bent around energy, seeking it, using it, experiencing it.

Gibberish? You understand, and have seen what I am saying.
Read up on neurochemistry. The phenomena you mention are the result of biochemical reactions within the body; they have nothing to do with light, magnetism, arithmetic or your pictograms.

jond

21st November 2006, 01:17 PM

LCL: Please explain how life exists, and indeed thrives, at the bottom of the deepest parts of the oceans, in complete absence of light.

Loss Leader

21st November 2006, 01:20 PM

I siad, "There is nothing about people traveling in cars to and from work that has anything to do with electrical flow across a circuit. Absolutely nothing." You responded, LCL, by saying, "No one said that there was." Then you went on for three paragraphs that, in fact, there is - talking about commuting to work and football games and funerals.

So, I'll say it again. There is no such energy, no such charge. Your statements about football games and everything else are completely wrong in each and every respect.

You continue to reason by analogy. Because one thing seems like another, you believe they are the same. They are not.

I would explain why but I know you'll ignore me. If I'm lucky, you'll tell me that the fact that I think you're wrong means you're really right. If I'm very, very lucky, you'll say that you want to research the topic more and then in a day you'll tell me you changed your mind, you won't do more research and you were right all along.

In case you actually want to learn anything, here's a good article (http://www.samford.edu/schools/netlaw/dh2/logic/analogy.htm) about the importance and limitations of reasoning by analogy. It's written from a legal perspective but has general aplicability.

nescafe

21st November 2006, 01:21 PM

First off, flowery metaphors do not a scientific theory make.

No one said that thiere was. I said "from another view," If you could see the charge on people. You can't you know. But when they are sad, grieving, they seem to lack energy. Other people seem to hold them to give them support. Almost as if they were trying to give them an energy boost. Which of course, in a way, they are.

At a football game, the winning side seems to be bursting with energy, while just across the field the losing side seems drained. And they both exerted about the same amount of energy during the game. When someone makes a great play, others want to touch them, seeming to want to get some of the energy coming off them. Those who make a bad play pass by others who even try to avoid looking at them. Seeming not to want anything to do with the energy coming from them. And you know the whole stadium experience has to do with tapping into the collective energy generated there.

These are two entirely different senses of "energy". When a physics teacher is talking about "energy", they do not mean the same thing a psychologist or a counsellor might mean. Human emotions are not measured in electron volts, and emotions do not have a wavelength.

From high in the air, if the heads lights represented the charge on the people in the cars below, they pulse through the city as the stop signs regulate their flow, red lights going one way, bright white lights the other way. Even though "from this view" the people would have a full range of different charges on them. A cell phone rings with good news, and the charge on one would brighten, while another call can make another darken. Seeming to drain the energy right out of them.
People who are physically fighting would flash colors of charges different from those having sex, and those in intense play. Now I know we can't see any of this (clearly) but they are there. If they could be clearly seen, without the physical form, people would seem like charged particles, and their lives bent around energy, seeking it, using it, experiencing it.

That thing I said about flowery metaphors? It also applies to creative visualization. Mapping emotion to color might make for an interesting artistic exercise or self-exploratory technique, that does not mean it has anything to do with physics.

Gibberish? You understand, and have seen what I am saying.

Yes. You have found a set of correspondences that are interesting (to you) and personally meaningful. You have constructed non-scientific theory of everything, much like this guy (http://everythingforever.com/) and these folks (http://www.osogd.org/), and this guy (http://www.timecube.com/). You have not found anything approximating a scientific Theory of Everything.

zizzybaluba

21st November 2006, 02:09 PM

And another thing, LCL:
If you consider addition and multiplication to be different, even though multiplication is repeated addition, then what do you do with exponentiation, which is repeated multiplication?

A similar argument can be made for root taking. So by your logic there are in fact six "basics" to arithmetic.

Belz...

22nd November 2006, 09:40 AM

No one said that thiere was. I said "from another view," If you could see the charge on people. You can't you know. But when they are sad, grieving, they seem to lack energy.

You do know that those are wordplay, right ? "lacking energy" "full of life", etc. ? You're still showing your complete incomprehension of how language works. At 40+ years old, that's alarming.

Of course I am wrong. Look where I am? The land where I am wrong about everything.

Stop trying to act like a victim and try to understand why you're wrong, instead of throwing a tantrum.

Did you read what I said, or did you stop at the word "wrong" and threw your arms up in the air ?

You are wrong that the electromagnetic force is more important for life. I explained this a few posts ago.

They are related is what I am saying.

But light IS NOT magnetic. Otherwise light would bend visibly near magnets. It also isn't electrical. Electrical circuits are due to electron movement, not photons.

Also, most electromagnetic radiation is invisible, and is therefore not light, per se.

And please learn that when something looks or sounds like something else, it doesn't mean it's the same thing, especially when you check other languages.

pchams

22nd November 2006, 10:44 AM

I have reworked LCL@H's excellent "graph" to flesh it out a bit.
The subtle interchanges are mapped out....
Here is the new "graph":

Loss Leader

22nd November 2006, 11:38 AM

I have reworked LCL@H's excellent "graph" to flesh it out a bit.
The subtle interchanges are mapped out....
Here is the new "graph":

Your graph confuses "push" and "pull." They should be switched if it is ever to make any sense at all.

Anacoluthon64

22nd November 2006, 12:48 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 01:32 PM

Yo, yo, yo, lightcreatedlife@hom! If Hugh Everett III's many worlds interpretation of QM is valid, then no doubt there exist a great many parallel universes in which your loose agglomeration of tacked-together thoughts would constitute a marvellously profound insight.

Unfortunately for you, this particular universe is being quite ornery about playing along with your convictions, pretty much regardless of your continued efforts to redefine tenacity.

Because neither has this universe four corners, nor has it two axes; it is not part of, or subject to, any foursome, frisky or otherwise; it multiplieth and divideth not, nor addeth or subtracteth it in any obvious way; it loves you not evilly, and hates me not goodly; it will not hearken to false analogy, and triviality will neither tame nor subjugate nor make it any tastier.

What the hell? Believe it or not I am not trying to redefine tenacity. I am really looking for what I say I am. Disorganized by the stands of the people here, but none the less. DNA has proven that there is such a thing as a code that can be seen under the right conditions, and science knows there is a mathematical one, I am looking for a simple/symbolic one that includes all those things. Will I? That is yet to be seen.

Anacoluthon64

22nd November 2006, 01:45 PM

What the hell?That is the question you keep pretending to have an answer to, is it not?

I am really looking for ... a code that can be seen under the right conditions, ... I am looking for a simple/symbolic one that includes all those things. Will I? That is yet to be seen.No. Everyone but you has already seen that you squint. Badly so.

Repeatedly and incessantly. And you won't accept any offers for spectacles.

'Luthon64

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 02:11 PM

No, you didn't. You thought "light" as in some form of metaphysical energy-god that made everything possible, but that's not how things work. You don't understand what people mean when they speak of the eletromagnetic force binding atoms.

I said light created life, and it fits the description of what some have called God.
I never said the it made everything possible. I have always said 4 forces, with light having the most to do with the life part of the equation.

I know it is the EMF holding electrons in orbit.

Unfortunately, you don't learn what people tell you. If you did, you'd already have abandoned that ridiculous graph of yours and moved to real science.
I am not going to abandoned it because I think it is right. I am going to learn to explain it better.

You were not right about the answer, Light. When you do a math problem in class and you get the answer right, but your whole reasoning is wrong, the teacher isn't going to give you a good grade, because you were really wrong, not right.
But the teacher would not say I was comepletely wrong about everything. That implies that I even got my name wrong. That it why teachers want to see the process by which you arrived at your answer. That way they can see where you wrong.

Then you should be able to spot it when YOU say dumb things. But you're not.
As I have said, I am mostly relying on what science says. The 4 basics of math were taught that way, google agreed. Upon a further look for references to prove the 4 basics, I have found that there are only 2 like which has been said here. Me fighting your logic had more to do with some saying that I was completely wrong, then the information presented. I first I really thought you all was pulling my leg, but I won't stand where I can't.

Somehow I doubt that.
See? This is why I doubt. No matter what I say you have your own view. A negative one of me. Why would I trust what people like that say? But I looked elsewhere for the math thing, and they have nothing against me. Real, or imagined.

No, it doesn't. That's what I said. Light is neither electric nor magnetic. It IS neither.
True. Like the salt thing, but those two are parts of light. If not why the name electromagnetic radiation?

I think it's safe to say that you're actually above the surface.
Slimming it I would say.

Yes. You might have noticed that we've been at this for quite some time, now. Initially, I thought you might be wise enough to trust other people's expertise and knowledge in matters where YOUR knowledge lacks. I thought, by explaining things to you, rationally and patiently, you might eventually understand.
I have. And thank you.

But you are willfully ignoring everyone and everything here, as opposed to what you claim. Therefore, your knowledge can never improve and your "theory" is doomed to remain nonsensical to all but you. It follows that it's useless to get you to improve on your ideas, because you're simply not going to listen. Therefore the best thing I can tell you to do is simply abandon this project of yours and devote yourself to things you're actually good at.
I have told you I have plotted a study course based on what was said here. I admit, to prove you wrong mostly, but I cannot, and will not ignore what I find.

No, I'm quite right about this. When people point out that you're wrong, you interpret this as a sign that you're right. You've built yourself a world-view in which you can't lose.
No I have not. I can lose. And I have said I was wrong on plenty here.

No, you said it was possible for someone to be completely wrong, which is a retraction of your earlier claim that this was impossible. Please pay attention.
You pay attention. Saying it is possible for someone to be completely wrong, is not the same as me saying I am completely wrong with that graph. If I am wrong, I doubt I am completely wrong.

You're glad that you haven't learned ? That's alarming.
I am glad that I don't believe that I am completely wrong, and I have learned.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 02:22 PM

Individually, each of the four forces is necessary but not sufficient to explain life. All of them together appear to be sufficient, but we do not (and do not expect to ever) have 100% certainty about that statement. Given that it appears to take all four forces working over huge streches of time to set up the conditions in which Life can arise, singling out one as "more important" than the others is rather silly.
That happens with everything. Are the wheels more important than the engine, the battery, etc? Is land more important then water? But you know under different types of circumstances, people make choices for a particular area of study, to show a certain something, and for a lot of other reasons. This is not the first time you have run into that, is it? Talking about what is more important goes on all the time, right or not, but it is certainly not silly. At least not always.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 03:05 PM

That is the question you keep pretending to have an answer to, is it not?
It is just a theory/idea. I believe it. But that does not make it true does it? And again. I am not here screaming truth from the roof tops. I still have to prove it.

zizzybaluba

22nd November 2006, 03:10 PM

It is just a theory/idea. I believe it. But that does not make it true does it? And again. I am not here screaming truth from the roof tops. I still have to prove it.

Have you done a single thing to try to prove your "theory"? Any falsifiable experiments?

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 03:27 PM

You do know that those are wordplay, right ? "lacking energy" "full of life", etc. ? You're still showing your complete incomprehension of how language works. At 40+ years old, that's alarming.
Oh boy. I feel 9 pages of energy coming on. I'll start. While it is plenty of things, I am using as the "the ability to cause change."

Stop trying to act like a victim and try to understand why you're wrong, instead of throwing a tantrum.
Why? You will just find another way. Like the energy thing. Am I saying something that is not said everywhere, or do you want to nitpick the word to its exact dimesions (the one you hold for this purpose here) or will we go on?

You are wrong that the electromagnetic force is more important for life. I explained this a few posts ago.
Others think differently, being it deals with chemistry and everything physical.

But light IS NOT magnetic. Otherwise light would bend visibly near magnets. It also isn't electrical. Electrical circuits are due to electron movement, not photons.
The name is electromagnetic radiation, why?

Also, most electromagnetic radiation is invisible, and is therefore not light, per se.
"Per se?" Of course you know it can be called the light spectrum as much as it can be called the electromagnetic spectrum, but for the purpose here, you are choosing not to.

And please learn that when something looks or sounds like something else, it doesn't mean it's the same thing, especially when you check other languages.
And it does not always mean that it isn't either.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 03:36 PM

Have you done a single thing to try to prove your "theory"? Any falsifiable experiments?
Nothing but look into OBEs. Tests will have to be found, or devised. I am not willing to try that out of body stuff. I may get the answer but be unable to get back. But more sensitive devices, new knowledge, or an alien visit could break the question open at any time.
And do I have to prove it right now?

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 04:37 PM

You do know that those are wordplay, right ? "lacking energy" "full of life", etc. ? You're still showing your complete incomprehension of how language works. At 40+ years old, that's alarming.
Oh boy. I feel 9 pages of energy coming on. I'll start. While it is plenty of things, I am using as the "the ability to cause change."

Stop trying to act like a victim and try to understand why you're wrong, instead of throwing a tantrum.
Why? You will just find another way. Like the energy thing. Am I saying something that is not said everywhere, or do you want to nitpick the word to its exact dimesions (the one you hold for this purpose here) or will we go on?

You are wrong that the electromagnetic force is more important for life. I explained this a few posts ago.
Others think differently, being it deals with chemistry and everything physical.

But light IS NOT magnetic. Otherwise light would bend visibly near magnets. It also isn't electrical. Electrical circuits are due to electron movement, not photons.
The name is electromagnetic, why?

Also, most electromagnetic radiation is invisible, and is therefore not light, per se.
"Per se?" Of course you know it can be called the light spectrum as much as it can be called the electromagnetic spectrum, but for the purpose here, you are choosing not to.

And please learn that when something looks or sounds like something else, it doesn't mean it's the same thing, especially when you check other languages.
And it does not always mean that it isn't either.

lightcreatedlife@hom

22nd November 2006, 05:16 PM

To be fair, I do think LCL understands this.

All of the particles in my body interact according to the constraints of gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force.

So would the very same particles that would comprise the ash and gases that would result from sealing me in a large hyperbaric oxygen tank and then convincing me to strike a match.

The set of interactions we call "life", "thought", "emotion", etc. lie somewhere within the set of all interactions allowed by the constraints of the fundamental forces. Where LCL goes wrong is with his idea that the fundamental laws intentionally created life.
Thanks for that. Sometimes when I say something I end up dancing around the relative little I already know and the point(and my time) is lost. When I fight it, it looks like I am avoiding stuff.
What I am trying to get at is "if" it was intentional (and my feelings lean that way) all that is required for their to be a design, is for those things to be encoded in the interaction of those four.
At one level there would be this, but because of the conditions at another level, we have that. The entire process would look like the conditions giving rise to the product, and the product connected to the process. Which it would be. With the design in the forces, there would be no need for an everyday, always present, always guiding God. Yet...in a sense, there would be an invisible hand at work. Just not the one/ones that religion thinks there is.

zizzybaluba

22nd November 2006, 06:07 PM

Nothing but look into OBEs. Tests will have to be found, or devised. I am not willing to try that out of body stuff. I may get the answer but be unable to get back. But more sensitive devices, new knowledge, or an alien visit could break the question open at any time.
And do I have to prove it right now?

For the love of pete, YES, you have to prove SOMETHING right now! If you can't prove even one smidgon of your "theory", if you can't provide proof for even one stepping stone of an idea you've used to come to your conclusion, then what makes you think any of it is worthwhile?
Your ideas are WORTHLESS. You are wasting time contemplating nonsense! Can't you think of some better use of your time? Why not read a science book, a math book, hell-- some body of knowlege that actually might improve your understanding of the universe?