06 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI never lie. But I am often wrong! 😵
I must also point out that if in future, you have not yet found a better argument, yet still claim it is evidence, you will be lying.
Lying is a powerful word. So is pride, and virtue, and honesty. I avoid lying at all costs. I'm as proud as the next guy. I try to build into myself and those I love, and my neighbor, the qualities associated with virtue and truth.
Very idealistic to be sure, but a worthy endeavor.
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by josephwWell obviously, I have agreed with you that we do not currently know that the universe exists without a cause.
Believing is up to the individual, but knowing is another matter. In my question above "are we to believe" is used as a phrase to question the validity of a matter, such as "believing" the universe exists without a cause.
And neither do we know that is does? Then all bets are off!
You may place your bets, but you cannot honestly claim to know.
The entire debate is moot.
Not quite. You lost the debate.
In other words, science is out of its field when it comes to matters beyond its grasp, such as the origin of all that exists.
No. That is not even close to what I said, nor does it follow from what I said.
It is however the case that science has not yet got anywhere much when it comes to the origin of all that exists.
Just proves my point don't you think?
No, it disproves your point. You don't seem to remember what your point was, do you? Go back and read your posts and remind yourself.
But you don't know any of that for certain because you are merely theorizing possibilities without a shread of evidence...
Correct. I am pointing out the possibilities that you claim to have ruled out (which you have not ruled out).
... in spite of the fact that the evidence is the entire universe for the truth of its existence, which is it was created.
You cannot honestly claim that to be a fact when I have already shown that your argument was logically flawed.
OK, I'll attribute this occurrence to sheer stubbornness, but next time you say it, I will call you on it.
True, but then we're no further ahead in our understanding by remaining in the dark about the "possibility" that the universe was created.
Nor are we further ahead by pretending the possibility doesn't exist. Making up fairy tales doesn't cure ignorance.
Not so fast amigo, I'm not done yet! 😉
Well you can't continue from where you left off, as your start was logically flawed. So you either need to start something new, or correct your errors.
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by josephwGood to know. You would be wrong less, if you thought before you posted.
I never lie. But I am often wrong!
I pointed out logical flaws in your claim, then you made the claim again in the very next post. Now that was obviously wrong, but if you do it over and over, the excuse that it was a mistake tends to wear thin.
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt happens all the time.
Order can easily degenerate into chaos, but chaos degenerate to order?
Not likely.
My favorite example is if you put muddy water in jar, shake it up, then leave it to stand for a while.
Try it, and report back to us. I think you will be so amazed that you could be so horribly wrong about something so simple, that you may even question some of your other beliefs.
06 Aug 14
Originally posted by checkbaiterGoogle Galton Board or Galton Machine or go to any decent sized Science Museum and see one in action.
.., but chaos degenerate to order?
Not likely.
Here is quite a good video of one ... loads of others.
I think what you fail to appreciate is the power of large numbers and "randomness" or "chaos". It's a beautiful thing.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
07 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59It works that way if the balls are funneled down through a central point, which they are in the exhibit. So the original condition (point of origin) is not disordered.* If their point of origin is random across the board, the distribution of their landing point will not be so good an example of the Gaussian distribution. And yet the exhibit shows the orderliness of disordering processes!
Google Galton Board or Galton Machine or go to any decent sized Science Museum and see one in action.
Here is quite a good video of one ... loads of others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUBhhM4vbM
I think what you fail to appreciate is the power of large numbers and "randomness" or "chaos". It's a beautiful thing.
*Although it raises interesting thoughts about chaos theory: the exact location and velocity when each ball drops (and other factors such as the degree of perfection of construction) determine its resting point, but it isn't completely controlled, so probability takes over and so it is to some degree an example of chaos theory in action, although there is predictability.
[/wonk]
Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
07 Aug 14
Originally posted by JS357Yes. I was thinking of the case of an individual ball, its finishing position cannot be predicted (it is in some sense "random"😉 and yet when a large
It works that way if the balls are funneled down through a central point, which they are in the exhibit. So the original condition (point of origin) is not disordered.*
Edward Lorenz:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
number are used the ensuing pattern is predictable.
Those machines still fascinate me! 😞
Nice quote btw.
07 Aug 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Are you claiming that quantum effects are involved, or merely that we do not have the capability to do the calculation.
Although it raises interesting thoughts about chaos theory: the exact location and velocity when each ball drops (and other factors such as the degree of perfection of construction) determine its resting point, but it isn't completely controlled, so probability takes over and so it is to some degree an example of chaos theory in action, although there is predictability.
I have been told before that quantum effects are not significant enough to a affect the roll of a typical die. Would this be different? If so, why?
When you say 'isn't completely controlled' do you mean the maker of the machine didn't decide the exact parameters, or do you mean there is something fundamental stopping us from doing the calculation?
07 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy interpretation would be that no matter how accurately the starting
Are you claiming that quantum effects are involved, or merely that we do not have the capability to do the calculation.
I have been told before that quantum effects are not significant enough to a affect the roll of a typical die. Would this be different? If so, why?
When you say 'isn't completely controlled' do you mean the maker of the machine didn't ...[text shortened]... arameters, or do you mean there is something fundamental stopping us from doing the calculation?
conditions are measured, a small change can radically alter the result.
As the lovely quote says:
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.
07 Aug 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59OK, so theoretically, it is predictable if we do measure the machines initial state accurately enough.
My interpretation would be that no matter how accurately the starting
conditions are measured, a small change can radically alter the result.
I think there would be instances where quantum effects do come into play, but possibly not very often.
I would think that a high speed camera measuring the balls trajectories as they are released at the top, together with an measurement of the results, would fairly soon determine just how chaotic the system really is. It might be a lot more predictable than we realize.
07 Aug 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Ya, but what's the cause? How does order result from chaos? There must be a cause or rule of science that causes "things" to become orderly from a disordered state.
Google Galton Board or Galton Machine or go to any decent sized Science Museum and see one in action.
Here is quite a good video of one ... loads of others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xUBhhM4vbM
I think what you fail to appreciate is the power of large numbers and "randomness" or "chaos". It's a beautiful thing.
I think you guys miss the meaning of what it means when one asks if order can come from chaos. The idea is that nothing comes from nothing, not something from nothing unless it is created.
You need to learn to really think outside the box. You're way too literal. Think spiritually. Go all the way back to the infinite past and see if you can see that there's nothing there until everything was created. Order didn't come from chaos. Order came from the Orderer.
07 Aug 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot logically flawed.
Well you can't continue from where you left off, as your start was logically flawed. So you either need to start something new, or correct your errors.
I ended were I started with this simple statement; "all that exists is the evidence for a creator God".
All you're doing in reply is to obfuscate and make contradictory claims. I haven't lost the debate, and no one else has won the debate by proving the statement I made to be wrong.
The appeal is to reason not logic. Since science, or logic, or any other knowledge at man's disposal can determine the reason for the existence of the universe, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what exists is the evidence for a creator God.
The alternative is to walk blindly through the fog stumbling into the proverbial ditch.