Blowing Up Darwin

[scruffy]

Calm down man.

The length of coastline is a fractal curve, but if we repeatedly zoom in what do we find? we find sand particles, then molecules then atoms then quarks.

Show me any law of physics that you think is recursive, but before embarking upon that quest read this:

View attachment 1056406
I await your next tantrum...

AI is worth less than your creationism.

You obviously don't know what recursion means.

It's not a computer algorithm.

It has to do with dimensions and dimensionality.

It's how you get 3d shape from a 1d process.

Learn some math.

When you can explain why a dust has the same number of points as the interval that created it, come back and talk to us

 

[abu afak]

Yes, that's my position (I Am a Creationist). The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws, we must look deeper, elsewhere for the origin of laws, science (which relies in laws) can never explain the existence of laws.

Does light travel at some Divine Speed? One at which tells us it IS Divine. Say Exactly One biblical day/week to get to earth?
Does Oxygen tend to be O2 because GodDidIt/the Divine FALLACY?
One terrible and Brainwashed case of 'God of the Gaps FALLACY.'
One that would have would have made you believe in the Fire, Lightning, and fertility gods (at the time) as well.

Yes we do, we have Written Revealed knowledge for example we can read "By the Power of His Will" this tells us that God has "Will" intent, and by that will he created everything, we too have will and everything man creates also begins with the will to do so. Have you ever made or designed or constructed anything without the will to do it?

"By the power His Will" is NOT Science it's brainwashed faith Written by a couple of superstitiouis primitives.
One of thousands creation myths.
You are now OFFICIALY A JOKE, NOT a 'Scientist.'

This Coming out of the Chuch Closet does expain all your previous and Dishonest Voodoo ambiguation attempts. (if NOT life or the universe)
You need to join the OP in the 7-11 AdvenTiTs or Jehovahs WitLess meetings.

And what about Vishnu, Voodoo, and Allah and Their "by his Will?"


This post now offically unanswered on the last page.. like so Many Mister (otherwise) Motor Mouth can't anser with anything by ambiguating/philosophic BS.
`

 

[alang1216]

Stick to the engineering.

Accomplishments are proof enough.

If they're repeatable and independently verifiable, they meet the standard.

Any 6 year old kid can build a radio. That's proof enough.

Sorry, no idea what your point is.

 

[alang1216]

Having direct experience of something but no external evidence you can show to others is NOT "conjecture." Conjecture is just guessing.

No, that is not conjecture, that is faith.

Who says, you? How can God be purely supernatural if he is present throughout nature?

"Super" as in above nature. What I wrote are our definitions of God and science.

Now you asign me my own religion too? Boy, you sure are on a roll.

You seem to know which religions are true and which are fake. How is that?

 

[abu afak]

Also Unanswered by Sherlock GodDidit the day before:

Evolution "theory" has No Predictive power - that's rather a serious shortcoming in a scientific theory.

Like all of Your Idiotc argumentation this is False.

1. Evolution /Scientists Predict/have correctly PREDICTED and found "Tweeners" as Only Evo could Predict.

2. We also have anatomical vestiges of our ancestors. For Humans, the Coccyx, Wisdom Teeth, etc, etc.

An immaculate 'Creation' event would have either of the above Two.

Tell me, how do we test the proposition (or rather belief in this case) that a bacterium can eventually give rise to a worm say?

We find tweeners. Again
How do we test intergalactic astronomy and its history? Big Bang? REMNANT evidence. No test.
Some sciences are observational.

You are an empily argumentative Jackass.
an Idiotic and Disingenuous ambiguator with No topical knowledge.
Go argue in politics where everyting is subjective.

`

And HOLLY/Scruffy, STFU, you don't have the knowledge to crush these Bugs in the One post it actulaly takes.
You're just showing that.
AND you are PROMOTING "Blowing up Darwin" with your wasted ENDLESS posting.

These 'debates' with the BS idiot Sherlock are endlesss as he bobs and weaves/ambiguates/Philosophises facts away.
If it WAS him and me he would go away... So would PoliticalShlt.
Neither of whom can answer me.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

AI is worth less than your creationism.

Find me a credible source that disagree with that AI answer then.

You obviously don't know what recursion means.

Don't be ridiculous, even if that were true I could just look it up. It is you who doesn't know things and this is one of those things:

It's not a computer algorithm.

It has to do with dimensions and dimensionality.

It's how you get 3d shape from a 1d process.

Learn some math.

When you can explain why a dust has the same number of points as the interval that created it, come back and talk to us

The question that you barged into like a bull in a China shop was the question about the origin of the laws of physics. I said (and I stand by what I said) that one cannot use laws of physics to explain how laws of physics arose. So don't start with all your usual hand waving and smoke and mirrors and pulling rabbits out of hats, the question is nothing to do with recursion any more than it is to do with iteration (as you should know, these are equivalent in terms of what they can do).

Recursive functions do not spring out of thin air either, they exist and are written down by human beings with minds (well, some of us)

 

[alang1216]

Remind yourself of that next time you fly.

Ask an engineer how they design planes. Hint, they use math that describes the forces on the plane.

Well if God created the universe then all of those things are indirectly, attributable to God.

Does God decide when and where it will rain? When there will be plague and who will die?

Indeed and that's why you were wrong to say "they are accepted as truths" because no physicist accepts theory as truth for the very reason you cite - there are no proofs but there are disproofs, i.e. Newtonian gravitation and Mercury's orbit.

Newton was accepted as truth until something better came along. Using Newton to plot the trajectory of a cannon ball was accurate. Would Einstein have given a more accurate result?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ask an engineer how they design planes. Hint, they use math that describes the forces on the plane.

Yes and that mathematics expresses physical relationships in terms of laws so those laws do exist in some sense.

Does God decide when and where it will rain? When there will be plague and who will die?

I don't know, it seems so, but it's not clear, to me anyway.

Newton was accepted as truth until something better came along.

Newton was likely accepted as true by many but not all, I imagine any serious scientist of the time would have been aware of the possibility his theory's axioms were potentially untrue. Things that are true are always true though, unless nature itself changed, Newton's theory was wrong but we had no ability to discover that until a few hundred years after he published the Principia.

Using Newton to plot the trajectory of a cannon ball was accurate. Would Einstein have given a more accurate result?

Well Einstein's theory would give a more accurate result but I have no idea of the magnitude of the difference, it would likely be immeasurable. But you can't argue that Newton's theory is right and wrong at the same time, the theory, it's axioms and laws is what it is as he penned it in the 1600s.

Newton's theory is wrong not because his mathematics was flawed, it is wrong because the axioms, the assumptions he made are wrong.

I do not dispute that from a utilitarian point of view Newton's theory is perfectly adequate for terrestrial applications, that isn't what I've been arguing against though. My argument is simply that his theory (its axioms, laws etc.) have been proven wrong, the theory has been falsified if it hadn't been falsified we'd not have any need for a new theory like Einstein's.

If we tried to use Newton's theory to describe cosmology and the behavior of galaxies it would be very evident it was wrong. When a theory predicts and outcome of X but experiment measures 2X that theory has been falsified.

Would you say that Newton's theory is "true" and Einstein's theory is "true" when these two models yield different results for the same phenomena?

 

[scruffy]

Also Unanswered by Sherlock GodDidit the day before:


Like all of Your Idiotc argumentation this is False.

1. Evolution /Scientists Predict/have correctly PREDICTED and found "Tweeners" as Only Evo could Predict.

2. We also have anatomical vestiges of our ancestors. For Humans, the Coccyx, Wisdom Teeth, etc, etc.

An immaculate 'Creation' event would have either of the above Two.


We find tweeners. Again
How do we test intergalactic astronomy and its history? Big Bang? REMNANT evidence. No test.
Some sciences are observational.

You are an empily argumentative Jackass.
an Idiotic and Disingenuous ambiguator with No topical knowledge.
Go argue in politics where everyting is subjective.

`

And HOLLY/Scruffy, STFU, you don't have the knowledge to crush these Bugs in the One post it actulaly takes.
You're just showing that.
AND you are PROMOTING "Blowing up Darwin" with your wasted ENDLESS posting.

These 'debates' with the BS idiot Sherlock are endlesss as he bobs and weaves/ambiguates/Philosophises facts away.
If it WAS him and me he would go away... So would PoliticalShlt.
Neither of whom can answer me.

`

Looks like the OP has vacated the thread.

Right after I called her out for her lies about the Bible.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here scruffy

Why not do an experiment with me? Here it is:

Make up a law of nature (or use a real one if you want) but take the simplest physical law you know and then try to craft a theory, a model, that explains how/why that law came to exist.

Do that and try to discern the overall characteristics that such a theory would have, what would it "look" like, what overall form would it take.

If you cannot do this for even the simplest law or even an imaginary law, then how on earth can you claim that the actual real laws of physics can be explained that way?

This is what scientists and engineers do, this is what software designers do, we try to solve the simplest examples of a problem and then extrapolate the solution to more complex examples.

Like doing a depth first search of a binary tree, we solve that by solving the simplest cases first which are

1. An empty tree.
2. A tree with a single node.
3. A tree with a node with a left child node.
4. A tree with a node with a right child.
5. A tree with a node that has two child nodes.

That's it, once we have solved for these five cases the solution is easily tweaked to work with any size binary tree no matter how big it is, millions and millions of nodes, every case will eventually come down to one of these five cases.

If you cannot do this, if you cannot even superficially explain the origin of the simplest imaginary law then you have absolutely no basis for disagreeing with me.

 

[scruffy]

Here scruffy

Why not do an experiment with me? Here it is:

Make up a law of nature (or use a real one if you want) but take the simplest physical law you know and then try to craft a theory, a model, that explains how/why that law came to exist.

Do that and try to discern the overall characteristics that such a theory would have, what would it "look" like, what overall form would it take.

If you cannot do this for even the simplest law or even an imaginary law, then how on earth can you claim that the actual real laws of physics can be explained that way?

This is what scientists and engineers do, this is what software designers do, we try to solve the simplest examples of a problem and then extrapolate the solution to more complex examples.

Like doing a depth first search of a binary tree, we solve that by solving the simplest cases first which are

1. An empty tree.
2. A tree with a single node.
3. A tree with a node with a left child node.
4. A tree with a node with a right child.
5. A tree with a node that has two child nodes.

That's it, once we have solved for these five cases the solution is easily tweaked to work with any size binary tree no matter how big it is, millions and millions of nodes, every case will eventually come down to one of these five cases.

If you cannot do this, if you cannot even superficially explain the origin of the simplest imaginary law then you have absolutely no basis for disagreeing with me.

Emmy Noether did this way back in 1935.

She was Einstein's math tutor.

Like I said, learn some math.

The law of conservation of energy is derived from a symmetry invariance. Symmetry is shape, and dimensionality.

Study the shape of the Calabi-Yau manifold, and then get back to me about recursion.

Recursion in physics? Put two mirrors facing each other. The object in the middle is reflected recursively. Shape, symmetry, and dimensionality.

 

[abu afak]

Looks like the OP has vacated the thread.

Right after I called her out for her lies about the Bible.

I reported her for BOTH repeating posts (7 on a page two days ago) (now DELETED by the Mods) And PLAGIARIZING them from Creationists websites.
Her "quotes"/Quote Mining needed a LINK.
Also using them in a specific order (like 5 in a row in one post, as well as additional copied commentary) is a Unique idea that needs citation/LINK.

She has been guilty of this at least 100-200 times in this thread alone.
And Thousands of times in the section
She AND ChemEngineer used to Copy and put up 10-25 in a Single post.
He's gone, she's using a modified lesser version now.

They have NO science, only these oft Fake or mostly OUT of Context quotes.
Without them she's nothing/Non-conversant.

See my 'Quote Mining' thread/OP below.
.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Emmy Noether did this way back in 1935.

No she did not do what I just asked you to do, if she were here she'd agreed with what I'm telling you.

She was Einstein's math tutor.

I know who she was, several mathematician's assisted Einstein during the course of his work.

Like I said, learn some math.

Like I said, show me a simple example of an explanation for the existence of a law without referring to other already existing laws.

The law of conservation of energy is derived from a symmetry invariance. Symmetry is shape, and dimensionality.

So you now claim to "explain" the existence law of conservation of energy but need to refer to another already existing law? a law of symmetry invariance? doesn't this prove that what I said is true? You've not explained anything at all, all this does is represent a law in terms of some other law.

Study the shape of the Calabi-Yau manifold, and then get back to me about recursion.

What would you like to know about recursion? I told you already recursion in mathematics is best understood by lambada calculus, have you ever heard of it?

Recursion in physics? Put two mirrors facing each other. The object in the middle is reflected recursively. Shape, symmetry, and dimensionality.

I never said nature does not exhibit self similarity or recursive structure, I said the laws that underpin nature do not themselves involve recursion, self similarity, no law of physics is defined in terms of itself.

Now because I'm feeling generous at Christmas, here are the definitions of 0, 1 and 2 as expressed recursively in Lambda calculus, see if you can work out how 3 is defined...

Understand that in Lambda calculus functions can accept other functions as arguments (I do not mean functions accepts other function's values, but they accept functions themselves as arguments).

Like I said, go and learn some math.

 

[scruffy]

Like I said, show me a simple example of an explanation for the existence of a law without referring to other already existing laws.

What do you think recursion is, you bloody idiot?

Damn you're dumb.

So you now claim to "explain" the existence law of conservation of energy but need to refer to another already existing law? a law of symmetry invariance? doesn't this prove that what I said is true? You've not explained anything at all, all this does is represent a law in terms of some other law.

Symmetry invariance is not a law, you stupid shit.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I never said nature does not exhibit self similarity or recursive structure, I said the laws that underpin nature do not themselves involve recursion, self similarity.

Yeah. We've already determined you're full of shit.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What do you think recursion is, you bloody idiot?

See: Lambda Calculus.

Damn you're dumb.

I am not the Trump supporter you are

Symmetry invariance is not a law, you stupid shit.

Claiming some thing is invariant is saying there's a law, something is always true. Can you explain how symmetry invariance came to exist in nature?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah. We've already determined you're full of shit.

You are a quick tempered person, I pity your students...

Have a nice Christmas, good bye.

 

[scruffy]

Claiming some thing is invariant is saying there's a law, something is always true. Can you explain how symmetry invariance came to exist in nature?

See? You're unqualified to speak on this topic.

I'm not going to explain symmetry groups to you.

Go learn some math.

You are a quick tempered person, I pity your students...

You're the worst student I've ever had.

Go stand in the corner.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

scruffy

I am quite willing to admit here in public that you have considerable mathematics expertise, more than I do (based on six months of interacting with you), I am not and have never claimed to be a mathematician but - consider this carefully - nor was Einstein, mathematics alone did not give rise to GR.

The problem you are struggling with here (and getting angry and rude too) is that you do not grasp (or you refuse to grasp) that we are NOT DISCUSSING MATHEMATICS OR PHYSICS.

We are discussing metaphysics and philosophy, if you are so blinkered that you must strive to reduce everything to mathematics or physics, then clearly you will not understand what I am saying to you, and in your case you'll get rude and disparaging.

Physics is about predicting the future state of a physical system, that's it, that's what it boils down to and (inexplicably) we are able to use mathematics to do this.

We have been discussing not what is the future state of some system, using laws and mathematics, that is NOT what we've been talking about. We have been talking about the origin of the laws that we see and use to make the predictions we do.

These laws exist, we can discern them and describe the material world in terms of them but why? how? Physics does not and never has pondered questions about the reason these laws are there, such questions are outside of the discipline of mathematics and physics.

You are a devotee of scientism, go and look it up and tell me if you are or are not, but that is your problem, that is why you cannot understand what I am saying to you and that is why you revert to being rude and disparaging.

This is why you get angry, you are refusing to accept reality and reality is that science cannot explain science, science cannot explain where or how scientific explanations come from, why the universe lends itself to being explained scientifically.

You are the one struggling here, not me.

 

[scruffy]

scruffy

I am quite willing to admit here in public that you have considerable mathematics expertise, more than I do (based on six months of interacting with you), I am not and have never claimed to be a mathematician but - consider this carefully - nor was Einstein, mathematics alone did not give rise to GR.

The problem you are struggling with here (and getting angry and rude too) is that you do not grasp (or you refuse to grasp) that we are NOT DISCUSSING MATHEMATICS OR PHYSICS.

We are discussing metaphysics and philosophy, if you are so blinkered that you must strive to reduce everything to mathematics or physics, then clearly you will not understand what I am saying to you, and in your case you'll get rude and disparaging.

This is the science forum, you idiot.

Physics is about predicting the future state of a physical system, that's it, that's what it boils down to and (inexplicably) we are able to use mathematics to do this.

We have been discussing not what is the future state of some system, using laws and mathematics, that is NOT what we've been talking about. We have been talking about the origin of the laws that we see and use to make the predictions we do.

The topic is biological evolution. WTF is the matter with you?

These laws exist, we can discern them and describe the material world in terms of them but why? how? Physics does not and never has pondered questions about the reason these laws are there, such questions are outside of the discipline of mathematics and physics.

You're a nutball. There is structure in numbers alone. Any time you count, you get the same structure. Doesn't matter if you do it here on earth or in the Andromeda galaxy. Doesn't matter if you call it one or einz or uno.

You are a devotee of scientism, go and look it up and tell me if you are or are not, but that is your problem, that is why you cannot understand what I am saying to you and that is why you revert to being rude and disparaging.

You're blathering again. You're full of bullshit.

This is why you get angry, you are refusing to accept reality and reality is that science cannot explain science, science cannot explain where or how scientific explanations come from, why the universe lends itself to being explained scientifically.

Philosophy can not explain truth. Science explains what is observable and repeatable, which is as close as YOU will get.

You are the one struggling here, not me.

Scruffy doesn't struggle. Scruffy comes right up to you and jumps in your lap if he likes you and barks at you if he doesn't. Don't piss him off, he'll go after your Achilles tendon if you do, and I hear the tendon is tender and the wound is painful and you'll be hobbling around for weeks before it heals. Scruffy is fearless and he knows how to handle human beings. He can smell a scoundrel from miles away.

Now let's get back on topic. Here is today's evolution news.

Swimming mouse among 27 new species discovered in Peru

The expedition also found a new species of dwarf squirrel and 10 types of butterfly.

www.bbc.com

Note especially this salamander with eyes at a 45;degree angle.

 

[toobfreak]

No, that is not conjecture, that is faith.

Faith is believe in something you do not directly know.
Direct personal experience is neither faith nor conjecture. If you witness a fireball in the sky no one else saw, is that mere conjecture?

What I wrote are our definitions of God and science.

Yes, your definitions, but not necessarily accurate.

 

[scruffy]

Speaking of conjecture, didn't you ever wonder how scientists can just take a picture of something they haven't seen before and call it a "new species"?

Like the link in post # 1,578. "Hey, here's 47 new species!"

Here's an even better one - speciation by footprints.

A Fossil First: Scientists Find 1.5-Million-Year-Old Footprints of Two Different Species of Human Ancestors at Same Spot - Rutgers University :: Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences

The School of Arts and Sciences, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

eps.rutgers.edu

I think the truth is:

1. No one can define what a species is
2. Scientists like to publish, and
3. Life is a continuum

Evolution works much faster than we do, and it will fill every available nook and cranny.

One of the most important capabilities that increased biological diversity is geographic mobility. Humans followed the food supply, just like fish do. That's also why size matters, bigger organisms can move farther faster than little ones can.

One of the key words to watch out for in the evolutionary literature is "emergent".

For example - "emergent" pathogens. "Emergent" viruses. The "emergence" of new species.

That word "emergent" is cover for an unwillingness to acknowledge continuous evolution

The "emergence" of new organisms and new features is continual. It happens the same way today as it did 4 billion years ago.