sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,235
That's a qualitative claim. QED
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
That's a qualitative claim. QED
No, it was an attempt at humour. QED.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Au contraire : simpler means has more simplicity, which is quantitative.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
That's my take on it as well. A quantity of rum had been consumed so I can't be absolutely definitive.
Quality rum?
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
No….energy does NOT exist. Nor does whatever ‘inertial mass’ is. Something we call / measure-as ‘energy’ (etc.) exists. What it actually is and / or is the result of…nobody knows. What IS certain…is that there is more involved. How can we be certain of this?... because nobody can even begin to explain WHY all this stuff behaves the way it does (YOU keep claiming that something you call ‘natural laws’ are involved…whatever that means), let alone WHAT the actual ‘thingness’ of anything may actually be.
…unless…of course… you have somehow stumbled across an empirical definition for that word that you throw around so casually:
…physical.
No…didn’t think so.
The fact that quantities such as energy and inertial mass have yet to be falsified says absolutely nothing about their actual existence. It says everything about how robust our ability to approximate natural laws is (what do you suppose that implicates???). If anything…what this ‘says’ is that what actually DOES exist may exist as relationships between quantities of meaning…the same way our laws exist as relationships between quantities of meaning (holy alternate paradigms Batman!!!!!).
In order to empirically establish that ‘energy’ does in fact exist, it would be necessary to establish the pedigree of our laws. IOW…it would be necessary to establish the explicit relationship between our laws and the laws of nature. That our laws are not, in fact, just models.
Blinded by the trees I guess! In one breath you somehow manage to insist that natural laws exist concurrently with unguided processes.
Here’s a newsflash: If there is such a thing as ‘natural laws’....then…by definition, NO process is unguided. All processes are guided by (you guessed it)…natural laws!
So lets get back to the essential conundrum all of you never stop dancing around. In a nutshell…it is YOUR argument. Either that…or it’s a massive case of cognitive dissonance.
There either IS a relationship (just for example) between what we call the Fibonacci mathematics and what occurs in this picture…
…
…or there is not.
Options such as ‘maybe’…or…’if I don’t look maybe it will just go away' are not options!’
You ALL (just about) insist there is NO relationship. That it is ALL just a grand coincidence (and the trillions of examples of applied theory [like...just for example...the internet]...that's all just coincidence as well!). IOW…you may as well change ‘Einstein’ to ‘Van Gogh’!
How anyone can look at these two explicitly differentiated phenomena and insist that there is no relationship (apart from poetry) is mindboggling!!!!
…but that is precisely what you all keep saying!
What remains to be seen is simply whether anyone here has the intellectual honesty to admit it…
…cause the next step is also just as obvious:
What it simply comes down to …is that you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated (aka: the ‘laws of nature’) in this very same reality.
…so…the question is not ‘is there evidence that ‘laws-of-nature’ exist? The evidence is everywhere all-the-time. The ONLY piece that is lacking is the explicit relationship between the laws-of-physics and the laws-of-nature.
There indisputably is one!
…why is it ‘indisputable’…?
…because (obviously)…the ‘laws-of-physics’ do not JUST describe and predict reality…they are directly and unconditionally derived from reality (NOT just metaphorically). They are generated by neural activity…not magic. The ‘laws-of-nature’ are directly responsible for neural activity…therefore the ‘laws-of-nature’ are directly responsible for what neural activity is directly responsible for: aka ‘the-laws-of-physics.’
All that does is further establish what is already overwhelmingly obvious: That there is a direct relationship between the ‘laws-of-physics’ and the ‘laws-of-nature’.
…leading us back to the situation-incognito wherein the skeptic masses proclaim that the heavens walk unto the melody of laws…yet walk not unto the melody of a law-maker.
AKA: Denial.
…except that ‘life’ is not defined and even to the degree that it is…science cannot ultimately explain it. So…’something’ else is necessary. If there is some manner of ‘intelligence’ behind or within (or whatever) these ‘laws-of-nature’ that you and the rest never stop vacillating about…then that would be sufficient.
…of course…something on the scale of a cosmic intelligence is just ‘God’ by another name.
Last edited:
The Philosophy section is thataway ->
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
That's lovely logic. One of the wonderful things about logic is that logical arguments about A and B automatically give us logical arguments about C and D.
In like manner, for example, annnnoid does NOT exist. Nor does whatever ‘fatuity’ is. Something we call / interpret-as `annnnoid’ exists, and may have something to do with what we call / recognize-as ‘fatuity’.
Therefore cosmic intelligence.
(I'm not sure how annnnoid derived cosmic intelligence from his premises, because his argument was tl/dr, but let's just assume he did indeed give a philosophically bulletproof derivation of cosmic intelligence from the non-existence of things such as annnnoid and the simultaneous existence of things we call / recognize-as annnnoid.)
Therefore God:
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
...and the ‘denial’ thread is right here. Need I remind you that I am doing no more than repeating YOUR arguments.
It is YOUR argument that laws-of-nature exist. I do no more than point out what that implicates.
So what’s the weather like in that hole-in-the-ground???
…do make at least some effort to contribute something substantive. Your points do absolutely nothing to address the issues I raised…but if you wish to continue with the above irrelevance, as Jean Tate helpfully pointed out…the philosophy section is thataway>>>>
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
Abiogenesis doesn't contradict the laws of nature but based on what I've read just participating in this thread there is no evidence that it currently happens. Evolution is an ongoing process so one would think you'ld be able to see several types of abiogenesis continuously going on.
Skip on over to the simulation thread, that might be one explanation for why no one can currently identify some form of abiogenesis. Another explanation for the lack of it might be that it's a one time occurrence and that the environment that we live in now isn't amenable to that step in evolution.
Laws of Nature versus Laws of Physics, if we are a group mind like I believe we are, then it's awfully difficult to objectively observe one's self.
Skip on over to the simulation thread, that might be one explanation for why no one can currently identify some form of abiogenesis. Another explanation for the lack of it might be that it's a one time occurrence and that the environment that we live in now isn't amenable to that step in evolution.
Laws of Nature versus Laws of Physics, if we are a group mind like I believe we are, then it's awfully difficult to objectively observe one's self.
Last edited:
(my bold)
Oh? I did?
As in, humans have created/discovered/invented/whatever quantitative models (which you call "laws-of-nature"). Many of these models seem to be consistent with the results of experiments and observations, within the models' domains of applicability.
These same humans are very certain that even their most successful/powerful/whatever models do not fully describe every possible event/phenomenon/whatever when those models are applied beyond their domains of applicability. They are also well aware that perhaps the two 'best' models - loosely "QM" and "GR" - are fundamentally, mutually incompatible.
Did you point out what "my" argument "implicates" (I think you meant to write "implies")?
No, you did not.
Why not?
Because you created a strawman. Or, as a prominent poster in this thread might write, Fallacy of STRAW!
Actually, I found W.D. Clinger's post very apposite.
Have a nice day (or whatever a 'day' is called in annnnoid_philosophy).
I'll just add in a collection of previous posts that you might appreciate:
True - I also like these posts
If Daniel were an Indian or an ancient Greek, I have no doubt he'd be arguing for one of the two. Annnnoid...I dunno. I read his stuff, and for some reason, all I can think is "party on, Garth!"
ETA:
Last edited:
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,050
Why would we expect that?
The conditions for all currently proposed abiogenesis theories work in an anoxic reducing atmosphere. Where there is no life scavenging any and all loose organic molecules .
Maybe on Europa or the other ice moons, but it's unlikely to still happen on earth.
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
What it simply comes down to …is that you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated (aka: the ‘laws of nature’) in this very same reality.
...re-read the bolded part.
And we're not talking about some vague..."oh look how freakin pretty it all is" crap! We're talking about Einstein...NOT Van Gogh. Stuff is described and predicted down to infinitesimal degrees of precision and accuracy from one end of the universe to the other, from the beginning of time and space to the end, and right down to the smallest quantities of whatever it is that occurs and exists.
To put it simply.....IT WORKS!
...and ALL of you never stop proclaiming how well it works. But NONE of you can even begin to explain WHY (...like...that's some kind of non-question or something...[.."the philosophy section is thataway"...and the elementary school is thataway>>>>>])!
Basically...you're ALL saying it's just a freakin coincidence...and none of you have the conjones to admit it!
...but of course, that never stops anyone from insisting that the universe actually DOES behave as if it follows laws (cause ALL the evidence never stops proclaiming that very conclusion)...
...until, of course...that little paragraph pops up.
Then it's FULL STOP! ...can't go there. Head-in-the-dirt-time!!!!
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
(my bold)
Oh? I did?
As in, humans have created/discovered/invented/whatever quantitative models (which you call "laws-of-nature"). Many of these models seem to be consistent with the results of experiments and observations, within the models' domains of applicability.
These same humans are very certain that even their most successful/powerful/whatever models do not fully describe every possible event/phenomenon/whatever when those models are applied beyond their domains of applicability. They are also well aware that perhaps the two 'best' models - loosely "QM" and "GR" - are fundamentally, mutually incompatible.
Did you point out what "my" argument "implicates" (I think you meant to write "implies")?
No, you did not.
Why not?
Because you created a strawman. Or, as a prominent poster in this thread might write, Fallacy of STRAW!
Actually, I found W.D. Clinger's post very apposite.
Have a nice day (or whatever a 'day' is called in annnnoid_philosophy).
WRONG!
What was it Chris Hitchens once said: “….I can only read what the words actually say!”
Laws-of-physics (l.o.p.): What human beings create.
Laws-of-nature (l.o.n.): What (ostensibly) causes nature to happen the way it does. Presumably the l.o.p. are ‘models’ of these.
Do l.o.n. actually exist? Nobody bloody knows but it sure as hell looks that way doesn’t it!!!!!! If for no other reason than that the l.o.p. we create to model them work so damn well within the very medium that they are modeling...aka: nature (...and speaking of 'strawmen'...trying to dismiss this whole premise because the l.o.p. are not yet perfect is a perfect example of one!)
The FACT that it looks that way has implications that none of you like...so you do just about everything in your power to pretend that they don't happen.
Last edited:
No it doesn't
I can't conceive of a universe where there are no laws of nature, and you haven't explained how there could be either. Unless you do, there is no reason to suppose the existence of laws of nature is that interesting beyond the rather trivial thought that we exist in a universe.
No.
The laws of nature can be discovered by intelligence. There are countless conceivable ways that they could have been set. Some of these conceivable ways involve one of the myriad of deities that people have come up with. Others don't