There are definitely some technical snafus happening. Responses are disappearing & reappearing
You know, by the same logic used in this thread I can simply logic away the supernatural and we don’t have to have these discussions any more.
-
Everything within the universe is quantifiable and predictable given enough information
-
This is because the universe and everything in it are always governed by a set of natural laws which make it quantifiable and predictable
-
Therefore if there were anything within the universe which was not governed by the natural laws of the universe then the universe would not be quantifiable and predictable
-
Therefore there is nothing within the universe which is not governed by the natural laws of the universe
And poof, the supernatural disappears completely. Not even God’s hand can reach inside the shiny box which is our universe. Again, this is using the same flawed logic we’ve ween in this thread for 8 pages now. Don’t worry kids. I didn’t really just kill God.
Sherlock Holmes said,
I cannot understand this objection. Every mechanism requires a certain level of functionality in order to perform its function, so what is wrong with recognizing that as that functionality is reduced (e.g. by removing bits of it) a point is reached at which no useful function is now being performed?
That is an error in interpreting evolution and natural selection. Only those mutated and refined patterns that have a useful function survive as part of the greater universal functionality.
Abiogenesis is a consensus evolutionary phenomena . Ultimately all things are constructed from three particles. And when those three particle merge in various patterns, we end up with the table of elements, from which bio-chemicals form, allowing for dynamic behaviors and Darwinian evilution.
It is all very logical. If it were illogical, matter could not form on a regular basis.
Read “Chaos theory”
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, meaning there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions. A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause a hurricane in Texas.[1]
But more importantly, Robert Hazen explains why and how evilutionary processes eventually produce life in its most simple form and from there we know the story. It all very logical, mathematical even.
Correction…“evilution” should read “evolution”…: )
Has anybody ever mentioned that humans are definitely not irreducibly complex systems. Humans are not able to convert resources into energy for survival, such as photosynthesis in plants. The human biome consistes of 10 % human cells and 90% bacterial cells.
It is the bacterial community that converts natural resources (food) into energy for staying alive. Without bacteria humans would not exist in our current form.
Anyone who maintains a belief in ID of humans, is in fact advocating an illogical concept. Humans cannot exist independent from bacteria, thus the introduction of bacteria into the pattern of the human biome falsifies the notion of intelligent creationism of fully formed organisms and especially the notion of a young earth and universe.
Evolution requires time and spatial variety for the eventual formation of biomes, such as earth and every living thing thereon.
While a biome can cover large areas, a microbiome is a mix of organisms that coexist in a defined space on a much smaller scale. For example, the human microbiome is the collection of bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that are present on or in a human body.[3]
Humans cannot exist independent from bacteria, thus the introduction of bacteria into the pattern of the human biome falsifies the notion of intelligent creationism of fully formed organisms and especially the notion of a young earth and universe.That is kind of a deal breaker isn't it?
Guess who?
@Write4U I agree that science is the only reliable means of “discovering” natural truths. Good we’re getting somewhere. Now do you know what that intellectual position is known was? it is known as empiricism. Now did you know that you cannot prove that empiricism is only way to discover truth?It is a belief, a faith – I bet you didn’t know that did you?
I’ll respond to this for general discussion, if any.
“Empiricism” is not a belief system. It is a method and it is the only method which is able to verify or falsify any prior held beliefs.
The third definition of empiricism is a theory of knowledge, or theory of justification. It views beliefs, or at least some vital classes of belief—e.g., the belief that this object is red—as depending ultimately and necessarily on experience for their justification. Empiricism | philosophy | Britannica www.britannica.com/topic/empiricismOTOH, "Rationalism" is a purely mental exercise and is therefore a belief system . I bet you didn't know that!
I’m not clear on who you are quoting there Write4, although the language sounds familiar.
Being precise about this is usually where I see conversations go south. Throwing “faith” and “you can’t prove” are red flags. Even when I’ll agree that “faith” in some ways is accurate, I still get people not wanting to agree. The underlying problem always seem to be that they want me to agree to some sort of supernatural knowing, but they don’t always want to come out and say that.
I don’t know about you, but I have to stop and rethink it when it comes up. It’s not always easy to spot that someone is using reason to claim that using reason is not reasonable. Without throwing in a term like “hard solipsism”, which itself needs definition, I can’t always explain what the problem is with whatever they are saying. I assume it’s some internal convincing they’ve done that something is true, but there’s no way to tell that from them flat out lying. The simple answer would seem to be to agree that we can’t know anything for certain, but some people think you are tricking them if you try to go there.
Widdershins said,
Everything within the universe is quantifiable and predictable given enough information
This is because the universe and everything in it are always governed by a set of natural laws which make it quantifiable and predictable
Therefore if there were anything within the universe which was not governed by the natural laws of the universe then the universe would not be quantifiable and predictable
Therefore there is nothing within the universe which is not governed by the natural laws of the universe
And poof, the supernatural disappears completely. Not even God’s hand can reach inside the shiny box which is our universe.
*Again, this is using the same flawed logic we’ve seen in this thread for 8 pages now.
Hmm, unless I misunderstand, with the exception of the very last sentence, I would say;
Nicely and precisely put…
If I may add that IMO the natural laws of the universe are mathematical in essence. Mathematics are functional expressions of logic.
Even the concept of Chaos contains fundamental mathematical properties. All orderly patterns are mathematical in essence, even if the occurrences are probabilistic. Only mathematics can guarantee that the universe functions in a deterministic manner. There is no alternative to mathematics based on values of matter and functions of spacetime geometry.
However human mathematics are not always correct or sufficient to explain all natural phenomena occurring in the universe. That’s why we have rigorous standards of verification when describing natural phenomena, instead of relying on an offshoot from mythology, which is entirely unknown and unknowable the way it is described.
Faith does not equal Knowledge.
But, according to Tegmark, all universal phenomena can be explained with just 2 numbers (relative values) and a handful of equations (universal constants)
And that would be in perfect accordance to Occam’s Razor.
The occurrence of constants is proof of the mathematical nature of spacetime geology and geometry.
Physical Constants
A physical constant, sometimes fundamental physical constant or universal constant, is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time.It is contrasted with a mathematical constant, which has a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement.
Mathematical Constants
A mathematical constant is a number whose value is fixed by an unambiguous definition, often referred to by a symbol or by mathematicians' names to facilitate using it across multiple mathematical problems.[1] Constants arise in many areas of mathematics, with constants such as e and π occurring in such diverse contexts as geometry, number theory, and calculus.Mathematical constant - Wikipedia
*Again, this is using the same flawed logic we’ve seen in this thread for 8 pages now.
?
IMO, it is the only logical explanation for a universe which does not require a magical “sky daddy”.
Error correction;
"But, according to Tegmark, all universal phenomena can be explained with just “2 numbers”, should read “32 numbers”.
Everything within the universe is quantifiable and predictable given enough informationThat's one of the most important premises for the scientific method, but it's just that, a premise. We can't gather enough information to test this at large scales. We also might have found the limits of quantifying and can only get a probability for some things. The proof may be sound, but not complete. Not sure I have my definitions right, but something like that.
I agree…and IMO, that does not in any way suggest that the as yet unknown properties of spacetime must contain a mysterious aspect.
As Tegmark posits, given what we do know about spacetime, any missing information will be of a mathematical nature. There is no known compelling reason why it should be otherwise.
Lausten said,I’m not clear on who you are quoting there Write4, although the language sounds familiar.
I was quoting Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, that was confusing and unneccessary.
Sorry, that was confusing and unneccessary.No apologies necessary. It's pretty easy to lose track of a conversations when someone is posting 4 or 5 times an hour in multiple threads. I just wanted to clarify that I needed clarification.
That’s one of the most important premises for the scientific method, but it’s just that, a premise. We can’t gather enough information to test this at large scales. We also might have found the limits of quantifying and can only get a probability for some things. The proof may be sound, but not complete. Not sure I have my definitions right, but something like that.This is right on as far as I can tell. I wish I could express ideas so completely in so few words as you did here. It always amazes me when someone can make my point in a few sentences better than I did in paragraphs. I am truly jealous of your gift of precise brevity.
Thanks W, that really made my day. This forum has been a great place for me to work out some ideas I’ve been working on since losing religion. I don’t think I have anything especially new to offer, but I think I could repackage some things and make them digestible. Blogging and my milepost100.com has only reached a small audience, so I’m trying to put this in novel form. I have no experience with that, but I’m finding some help. Even if I only self-publish 100 copies, it’s something I need to do.
Most of my posts are me working out ideas. You should see the 50,000 words I usually delete before posting my final response, at least for the longer ones (that may be a tad bit of an exaggeration. Given the length of my posts I thought that actually needed mentioning). I’ll type and restart entire paragraphs, sometimes entire posts, sometimes repeatedly. Actually typing out what I’m thinking is how I work through big ideas.
Given the OP question,
IMO, there can certainly a logical scientific explanation, not by seeking possible differences, but by finding “common denominators”. If it is found that certain values and universal functions produce constant result over large spacetime coordinates and present themselves as “universal constants”, it would be logical to assume that all of this universe uses the same constant in its entirety.
It is impossible to mix two different inherently mathematical “accounting systems” without complete catastrophic failure.
This is what I consider impressive in Tegmark’s concept of a universe which is a collection of mathematical patterns becoming reality.
Think of how many fundamental questions are resolved by some 32 constant values and a handful of mathematical functions. A stoic impersonal universal mathematical essence based on the regularly occurrence of self-organizing mathematical patterns and in case of “irregular patterns”, the mathematics of fractal iteration can explain the rest.
Tegmark postulates 32 numbers (constant values) and a handful of mathematical functions can ultimately account for everything . That is the nature of mathematics. They are the most efficient natural accounting system and are responsible for the functional laws of Chaos theory, Natural Evolution and Natural Selection in this spacetime continuum from a planck singularity to the BB.
IMO, the mathematics of this universe are the result of the influence of universal spacetime forces, such as;
List of 4 fundamental forces given below:Gravitation
Electromagnetic
Strong nuclear interaction
Weak nuclear interactionMan has always desired to comprehend the complexity of nature in terms of a few elementary concepts as possible. Among its quest, in Feynman’s words,has been the one for “wheel within wheels”, the task of Natural Philosophy being to discover the innermost wheels if any such exits. A second quest has concentrated itself with the fundamental forces, which make the wheels go round and enmesh with one another.
https://physicsabout.com/four-fundamental-forces/
Man has always desired to comprehend the complexity of nature in terms of a few elementary concepts as possible. Among its quest, in Feynman’s words,has been the one for “wheel within wheels”, the task of Natural Philosophy being to discover the innermost wheels if any such exits. A second quest has concentrated itself with the fundamental forces, which make the wheels go round and enmesh with one another.Folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity flowing down the cascade of time.
Yeah that makes sense to me.
That’s one of the most important premises for the scientific method, but it’s just that, a premise.So simple, so succinct, I don't recall this concept ever being tried out on Holmes. What a shame, might have been interesting.