Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
...
Enjoy your slavery - you have well and truly earned it with your head in the sand attitude.

Some would suggest that some religions have the above-mentioned intent. Not yours of course, the other ones. The ones where they tell people what to think and use their religions to control them.

I don't mean to insult anyone's religion, you are free to do what you want, but I find it ironic that PM33 is claiming the above for 'making things digital'. In a flat-earth. With chemtrails raining down on us. Where the moon is fake and the moon landing was fake. Where 9/11 was an attempt by someone other than terrorists to do something we are not sure of.

Yep, digital stuff is the danger. Maybe it is, but by allowing crazy ideas to get momentum and crazies to link up with each other easily?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views.

Doctor Who 1977.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Here's a link to a video that debunks the maths in detail

Yeah, slighly more entertaining than the first video, and I am sure some people would say the style of presentation is what the first video deserves, but I be more reserved and say that is not actually that much different to the first one, it is just from the opposite angle.

Maybe it is the truth angle, but both videos essentially tell you what to think by dismissing the opposite argument, and incite you to believe how much of an idiot you are if you don't think like they tell you to, rather than present all sides of something and allow you to make an free and informed decision yourself.

I probably understood the second one less than the first, like you say it is quite rapid in everything, but I took the maths part to be what my assessment of the orignal maths was - yes 10^77 is probably about right if you go from zero to final in one step, but that evolution isn't like that. It isn't randomness creating a long string of only one possible combination in one attempt. Evolution doesn't roll two dices to get double six. First it rolls one. Then when it gets a six it rolls the next. Tame foxes don't suddenly get one single DNA mutation purely by chance, there is an iterative process that massively changes the odds,

Reminds me somewhat of many years ago (almost in a different life), playing with coding and statistics (we called it programming back then not coding) on things we called "evolution of trees". It had nothing much to do with trees, but if you start with a random sequence and add to it you get either more of the same sequence (graphic it as a trunk growing straight and upwards), or the sequence branches off, (graphic this a branch coming off the trunk). Each then continue to grow, either continuing or branching. Certain sequences and codes producing random numbers could produce magnificant looking trees. I think it was similar maths prinicpals to the 'Mandlebrot (apologies for spelling there) Set' patterns, but just simplier. Mandlebrot maths stuff was too complex for me to understand. But the trees-maths produced 'trees' that sometimes looked perfect, randomness that looked like it could only be generated by pure maths.

And then we'd juxtapose this to calculating PI using only random numbers. Pure maths that looks like it is just randomness.

In fact maybe I'll leave this there and see if anyone can work out (or knows) how to calculate PI using only random numbers......except it isn't really random, it is pre-disposed to produce a result you want... ooh, that sounds like this has gone full circle back to the original video. OOh 'full circle', there's a clue for all the nerdy maths squares out there......

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

D3 said..
Pretty standard practice by Ben.

Maybe, I will be more alert to it in future. I have generally regarded him as a logical person with reasoned arguments.

I have found that he can frequently make a statement that isn't entirely accurate (but close enough that it's hard to pick up in his rapid fire delivery) and then work up a reasonably logical argument around it.

Which has served him well, but it falls apart when you realise the entire argument is based on a falsehood or inaccuracies. And when you correct for the inaccuracies or with the actual evidenced based information, then it contradicts his argument.

I think his rapid fire patter has lead him to shoot from the hip too much and not check his sources or logic as well as he should, if he really wants to remain credible ( unlike me who has no credibility and can spray willy-nilly).

It's not all the time, but it's often enough to turn me off.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova

Sadly, I think my first license was actually a paper one...

You must be ancient!

Mine was at least laminated

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Their theory of evolution is DEPENDENT on their other two laughable theories.

Their Big Bang theory once put in place they then pushed their second theory - the heliocentric model.

With the first two now in place they were able with decent success to get the masses to accept the nonsense of evolution.

Didn't it go:
1- Heliocentric model proved to work

2- Theory of evolution matches what we can observe and document and study

3- Big Bang was posited back in 20s or 30s?

Happy for a different take

Select to expand quote

D3 said..

FormulaNova

Sadly, I think my first license was actually a paper one...

You must be ancient!

Mine was at least laminated

I am wondering now if I am just mixing up my birth certificate and my license I know the birth certificate was a paper one as it has somehow survived, just.

I am pretty sure my parents had paper based licenses, but I am rethinking whether mine ever was. Maybe not. I would have gotten my license in about 1990 or so.

Select to expand quote

Brent in Qld said..
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views.

Doctor Who 1977.

Was that Douglass Adams? I think he was writing scripts about that time. Sounds like his cynicism.

I'm certain my first license was paper, back in 1962.
Strangely in all that time I've never lost it, the odd fine and demerit point yes.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Brent in Qld said..
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views.

Doctor Who 1977.

Was that Douglass Adams? I think he was writing scripts about that time. Sounds like his cynicism.

Tom Baker said it, would not surprise me if Adams wrote it. Adams had a wonderful ability to cut to the bone while making us realise how self-serving and absurd our systems of belief can be at times.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

cammd said..
Here's a link to a video that debunks the maths in detail

Yeah, slighly more entertaining than the first video, and I am sure some people would say the style of presentation is what the first video deserves, but I be more reserved and say that is not actually that much different to the first one, it is just from the opposite angle.

Maybe it is the truth angle, but both videos essentially tell you what to think by dismissing the opposite argument, and incite you to believe how much of an idiot you are if you don't think like they tell you to, rather than present all sides of something and allow you to make an free and informed decision yourself.

I wasn't impressed with the style of the second video, as I mentioned he spent the first few minutes just bagging the subject. Once it got into the real arguments then it cast enough doubt on the maths for me to stop flogging that dead horse.

Any way I think its right that theories and hypothesis be tested continually and subjects that are contentious are not shutdown due to different ideas threatening the established status quo. Those ideas should stand or fall on their merits, not their ideologies.

Thumbs up for that last paragraph

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Their theory of evolution is DEPENDENT on their other two laughable theories.

Their Big Bang theory once put in place they then pushed their second theory - the heliocentric model.

With the first two now in place they were able with decent success to get the masses to accept the nonsense of evolution.

If anyone else said that I'd assume it was sarcastic mockery. smh

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

What I'm saying it's beyond human intelligence to get a true handle on this.
We tend to believe what the intellect can grasp.
God has handy handles.

Can you get your head around eternity, timelessness and that old Buddhist thing, "one hand clapping". Too hard for our 3D brains, they are designed to survive on this Earth not encompass imponderables.
You have to get the intellect out of the way, if you want to glimpse reality.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

I am not very good at the spiritual side of things, I am jealous of people who are, but I don't believe there was ever nothing. We have a good handle on E=mc^2. The implication being that with if you reduce the matter side, you are left with a massive field of energy. An energy field that is so dense/unstable that somewhere, at a single point it flips to the matter side of the equation. You now have the singularity and some time latter, Penny, Sheldon, Leonard, Raj, etc

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

cammd said..
Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

What I'm saying it's beyond human intelligence to get a true handle on this.
We tend to believe what the intellect can grasp.
God has handy handles.

Can you get your head around eternity, timelessness and that old Buddhist thing, "one hand clapping". Too hard for our 3D brains, they are designed to survive on this Earth not encompass imponderables.
You have to get the intellect out of the way, if you want to glimpse reality.

and if nothing created the universe what happens when we die, nothing? we become nothing, we cease to exist. Wouldn't that imply we return to the creator

Select to expand quote

fangman said..

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

I am not very good at the spiritual side of things, I am jealous of people who are, but I don't believe there was ever nothing. We have a good handle on E=mc^2. The implication being that with if you reduce the matter side, you are left with a massive field of energy. An energy field that is so dense/unstable that somewhere, at a single point it flips to the matter side of the equation. You now have the singularity and some time latter, Penny, Sheldon, Leonard, Raj, etc

Space, time or matter cannot exist without the other two. All three must come into existence simultaneously

Cammd.

You just don't get it at all and I'm afraid I can't explain it to you, your concept of reality is just too ground in.
What you say makes intellectual sense to you but not to me. the basic foundation of your argument, for a start assumes individuality. I don't think that assumption is valid.
Everything is part of the all, I don't believe space time came from nothing, but beyond that, who knows?

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Space, time or matter cannot exist without the other two. All three must come into existence simultaneously

Sort of correct, they aren't separate they are all part of the same continuum. Our 3D senses only perceive them as separate. That's why our everyday common sense is useless at understanding this.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

decrepit said..

Carantoc said..>> Why isn't there two God, or five Gods. Or 1,000 Gods. Is it one or a thousand, but nothing inbetween ?

Way to simplistic, forget about commonsense, reality isn't constrained by commonsense.

A "creation" implies that there was time before creation, but it appears spacetime started with the bigbang. so there was no time before creation.
If you can get your head around numbers before there was time, go for it.

Some people say God created the Universe
Some people say nothing created the universe

Maybe God doesn't exist
Nothing definitely doesn't exist.

and the people that say nothing created the universe make fun of the people who say God created the universe... it would have to be a pretty magical nothing that created everything

Speaking for myself it seems no one knows what created the universe or even if has always existed in one form or another BUT the "God created it" is a pat answer that has been trotted out for every natural mystery and it's always been proven wrong eventually. It's a worn out old answer that's overdue for binning.

There's no "before spacetime existed"

I like the big bang - big crunch idea, energy turns to mass in an expanding universe, mass returns to energy in a shrinking universe.
Not a popular theory at the moment but it sort of makes sense to me.
Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch indefinitely

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
There's no "before spacetime existed"

I like the big bang - big crunch idea, energy turns to mass in an expanding universe, mass returns to energy in a shrinking universe.
Not a popular theory at the moment but it sort of makes sense to me.
Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch indefinitely

But that just looks at how matter and energy are distributed across space-time. It seems to actually ignore space and time, not explain it.

If the universe shrinks then what are you measuring that shinkage against ? We can only measure space and time against themselves. We can see the effects of changes of them both, but that isn't quite the same thing.

I'd be more inclined to envisage space and time starting at the big bang. What was 'there before'# was something unexplainable by things that exist in this universe. It wasn't space and it wasn't time, but it also wasn't not space and not time. It can't be explained as the only explaination we have requires space and time, matter and energy to exist.

Hence God is as good terminology as anything. The notion of something unexplainable, not because it is not understood but because, by its very nature, it cannot be understood.

#'before' didn't exist because time did not exist. It can't be explained. But it can be understood it can't be understood.

henrymakow.com/2024/09/you-are-gods-representative-on.html

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
There's no "before spacetime existed"

I like the big bang - big crunch idea, energy turns to mass in an expanding universe, mass returns to energy in a shrinking universe.
Not a popular theory at the moment but it sort of makes sense to me.
Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch indefinitely

I like idea presented in Genesis 1:1, cant be proved of course but makes more sense to me than nothing.

Select to expand quote

GasHazard said..

It's a worn out old answer that's overdue for binning.

I don't think its a worn out of answer, The creation of the time space continuum necessary for the origin of the Universe is explained in the very first sentence of the very first book of the bible. Did the author just fluke that or is it revelation? I don't see how it could ever be worn out until it is proven incorrect.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

Hence God is as good terminology as anything. The notion of something unexplainable, not because it is not understood but because, by its very nature, it cannot be understood.

Is the human intellect limited or just ignorant.

Could we know everything there is to know if we were shown or is some stuff just beyond us like algebra is to an animal.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
Is the human intellect limited or just ignorant.

Could we know everything there is to know if we were shown or is some stuff just beyond us like algebra is to an animal.

I think we're ignorant of just how limited out intellect is

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Any way I think its right that theories and hypothesis be tested continually and subjects that are contentious are not shutdown due to different ideas threatening the established status quo. Those ideas should stand or fall on their merits, not their ideologies.

You might enjoy watching/reading the link I posted to start the Critical Thinking / Skepticism thread. It outlines how science is self correcting, corrected by... you guessed it... scientists.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

decrepit said..
There's no "before spacetime existed"

I like the big bang - big crunch idea, energy turns to mass in an expanding universe, mass returns to energy in a shrinking universe.
Not a popular theory at the moment but it sort of makes sense to me.
Bang-Crunch-Bang-Crunch indefinitely

I like idea presented in Genesis 1:1, cant be proved of course but makes more sense to me than nothing.

GasHazard said..

It's a worn out old answer that's overdue for binning.

I don't think its a worn out of answer, The creation of the time space continuum necessary for the origin of the Universe is explained in the very first sentence of the very first book of the bible. Did the author just fluke that or is it revelation? I don't see how it could ever be worn out until it is proven incorrect.

I don't see any similarity with reality in Genesis apart from the "let there be light" part and the Big Bang. It doesn't say anything about time and space. And everything else it says about the beginning is fanciful. So it reads very much like a poetic coincidence to me.
In any case ID is yet another attempt to rationalise an unsubstantiated belief and it only has legs among those who are predisposed to believe in a god of some sort. ID comes across as apologetics to me, not science.

Intelligent Design is going to be an article of faith for the first sentient computer