Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
RainmanTime

In Triplicate, Please!

Recommended Posts

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

So this would appear to deny such things as the architecture of stereoscopic vision systems in living organisms....the mechanism of one of our perceptions. We all seem to agree we have two eyes, and they transmit dual sets of information to our brains, where they are integrated into a single image in our brains. Anatomical science has even shown how nerves from a single eyeball feed both sides of the brain. So this physical structure is all just a human construct, even though we all agree to this duality?

 

No, I'm saying that the idea of division between our left and right sides is a human construct. You're right that us having two eyes gives rise to stereoscopic vision, and two ears does the same for sound. You can even make a slight case for the same being true with the nose and smell. What I'm saying is that the left side of something isn't really "seperate" from the right side in any real sense. I mean, sure your left eye is seperate from your right. However, your heart is seperate from your lungs, and they don't need a 3rd factor to join them together, because they are all part of the same whole.

 

 

I may be misinterpreting what you meant, but your talk of needing a "dicriminator" to unite the two halves into a single state strikes me as worng. If anything, it's the opposite - we grow from one homogenous lump and things diverge. There is no need of integration of one half to the other, except in as much as there is integration between the left ear and the left eye. Maybe if you clarify, as I think I can only be misunderstanding you.

 

 

This is just semantics of "exactness" and "closeness".

 

Yes, but I thought it best to be precise.

 

 

What I didn't mention in my last post, though, was things like flatfish which are far from symmetrical. I know we're talking about how nature tends to this, not how nature always does this, but I thought it worth mentioning that although nature does seem to tend towards it, it isn't "standard".

 

 

And do you not think mathematical constructs are intended to describe "how things are", or at very least "how we perceive things to be"? The very reason that fractal geometry and chaos theory have blossomed is that we saw these "mathematical constructs" as describing nature and natural processes in a more coherent way than prior, nominally linear, mathematical constructs of the past.

 

I think they can be, but not always. I have a friend of the family who is a theoretical mathematician, and she doesn't deal with anything that is applicable to the real world. Imaginary numbers, for example, do have real applications, but they are nothing but abstractions in and of themselves. All numbers are really abstractions, and don't actually exist in and of themselves.

 

 

It would appear from this belief that you do not believe or accept concepts of continuous functions and phenomenon, even if it is only in human perception.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I do believe in continuous functions if you mean what I think you mean by that - the depth of running bathwater, for example, increases without a step or a jump. However, just because I accept that they can and do exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that the same must be true for the physical dimensions. As for human perception, it can change continuously, or it can jump all over the shop. Both are possible.

 

 

So this is one of those areas where it appears you are locked into what your senses and perceptions tell you as a result of being locked in a world of 3 dimensional mass/space/time.

 

I'm not sure that I'd put it quite like that, but as the son of a scientist I was brought up to demand empirical evidence for my beliefs. I'm not big on believeing things based on "what if"s or "maybe"s.

 

 

If you do want to take the purely cerebral approach, however, there is the question of if a 2-D object did exist, and I couldn't percieve it in any way, then, as I could be said to be nothing but the sum of my perceptions, would it really exist?

 

 

[Edited to add]You could make a case for a shadow being a 2-D object, but I would contest that it's actually an object - it's the absence of photons (or at least as many as it's surroundings).[/Edit]

 

 

What if your perception of having only 3 dimensions, no less and no more, were simply a limitation of your physical construct, namely, your ability for your senses to only respond to narrow frequency bands?

 

Then how would I know that?

 

 

Perhaps we should remove the issue of physical... do you believe information has dimension?

 

No.

 

 

Well, maybe you can explain your views a little better, as I did not get that at all.

 

I did in the next paragraph. So I'll move on to that.

 

 

It appears you agree with the concept of some thing being more than its physical description, and that relationships of that thing to other things provides a richer definition of that thing.

 

In the context of the human perception of that thing, yes.

 

 

Yet you apparantly do not see this as various dimensions of that thing???

 

You can call them dimensions and you can represent them as dimensions, but that doesn't make them the same as physical dimensions. In semiology, it's often useful to refer to dimensions when discussing paradigms and syntagms. You can even plot them on a graph against each other, with each having their own dimension. But that is, again, nothing but a human construct. There isn't really an actual syntagmatic dimension, any more than there is an actual pair of dimensions corresponding to the axes on a graph showing attendence at a Man U match against number of pies sold.

 

 

If you minimize intelligence that much, then this would imply you think it is trivial to create such intelligence. Are you up to the task?

 

Actually, "trivial" isn't the word I would use. I don't believe that there was any design going on, so the word I would use would be "accidental".

 

 

And, yes, as far as I know I'm fertile and could get somebody pregnant.

 

 

And so assuming you don't subscribe to a world where one person's perception is "right" and another's is not...how do you see resolution occurring?

 

Resolution with regards to what? I see no need for resolution regarding the idea of something being more than the sum of it's parts. It's a phrase. If things could really be more than the sum of their parts, then they would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

 

How about a physical system that produces more information than is already present? And might you accept that information has a relationship to energy, even if it may be subtle?

 

The relationship between energy and information would have to be demonstrated to me before I would conceed that. As it is, the closest I could refer to is Heisenberg's Uncertanty Principal. That, however, still doesn't really indicate any real relationship between information and energy. Plus, I'm with Einstein, in that Heisenberg has demonstrated that our understanding of quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

What I'm saying is that the left side of something isn't really "seperate" from the right side in any real sense.

 

You see, this is where I get confused...because they ARE separate, and yes in a very real sense. The proof comes if you lose one eye. You not only have a reduced field of sensory view, but you also lose a great deal of depth perception. And this is also where information comes in, since by losing one eye the total amount of information that your brain is processing is reduced. That reduction in information results in a different form of perception of the world around you. So again, I don't understand how you justify the separation of right eye from left eye as not being "real"....and the following example does not fly:

 

However, your heart is seperate from your lungs, and they don't need a 3rd factor to join them together, because they are all part of the same whole.

 

This example is a non-sequitor from the dual eye example. The eyes are sensory devices, and the integration of the information from both eyes gives a complete visual picture, with depth perception. But let's examine how the heart IS a single integrator of the dual lungs with respect to a non-sensory function. The heart is a single pressure pump, and each lung is an oxygen/Co2 exchange device. The heart integrates and pumps blood to and from both lungs. So perhaps when I used the word "discriminator" I was referring primarily to the brain. Perhaps the better word for the third element in a triad is "integrator". And this is even mathematically correct, since an integrator melds one parameter over the range of another parameter, to result in a third parameter that describes a combined effect of the two input parameters.

 

There is no need of integration of one half to the other, except in as much as there is integration between the left ear and the left eye.

 

But there is a need. The need as expressed between the two eyes is information related to depth perception. The need as expressed between the two lungs is for blood pressure to keep the O2/CO2 exchange going. And let's keep moving down the tree of life on our body...The need as expressed with the genitalia is for the sex organ to act as the integrator of the gonads. Without the uterus and vagina, the ovaries and ovum would not be able to achieve their function. Without the penis and urethra, the testes and semen could not achieve their function.

 

Yes, but I thought it best to be precise.

 

Now this is where I come in and state that "precision" is nothing but a human construct. The need to measure something with better and better precision is a human fetish. Nature is decidedly fuzzy, and I would say fractally so.

 

Imaginary numbers, for example, do have real applications, but they are nothing but abstractions in and of themselves. All numbers are really abstractions, and don't actually exist in and of themselves.

 

I agree with this, but you could say this about any form of language. The letters in this post are nothing but abstractions. Yet they convey meaning (information). Interesting you brought up imaginary numbers, because as a controls engineer who always works in the complex plane, where SQRT(-1) DOES have meaning, I often get a bit peeved when mathematicians will arbitrarily "throw out" roots of a quadratic equation with "i". The excuse is that these roots "have no meaning". Who made them God??? PERHAPS they DO have meaning, and no one has delved deep enough to figure out what that meaning is! They obviously have meaning in controls, as they represent an oscillatory system response. Anyway...I am going tangential a bit here...sorry.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I do believe in continuous functions if you mean what I think you mean by that - the depth of running bathwater, for example, increases without a step or a jump. However, just because I accept that they can and do exists, it doesn't necessarily follow that the same must be true for the physical dimensions. As for human perception, it can change continuously, or it can jump all over the shop. Both are possible.

 

I think you might be getting confused between continuous (vs. discrete) and non-linear (vs. linear). Human perception is continuous, but certainly not always linear. Your bathwater example is another example of linearity, in this case with respect to flow rate...AND it is also continuous, unless you are discretely turning on and off the water valve.

I believe if you look more deeply into fractals (and wavelet transforms), you will see that these mathematical constructs have shown such a good match to natural processes, that the scientific community seems to be in agreement that dimensionality is continuous, and not discrete...and that the discrete level of dimensionality we call "3-D" is really the human construct to simplify the inherent complexity.

 

 

but as the son of a scientist I was brought up to demand empirical evidence for my beliefs. I'm not big on believeing things based on "what if"s or "maybe"s.

 

Understood, and I am sometimes the same way. But this is also a bit of a catch-22, because when it comes to discovery and innovation, being able to conjecture a "what if", and then run with it to develop experimental means to gather empirical evidence, has often shown to be the path of great discoveries. Copernicus was troubled by the complexity of the epicycles required to explain retrograde motion in the earth-centric model that was the accepted belief. He started with "what if the earth was NOT the center of the universe? What if the sun was the center?" So in my view being a "great" scientist means being true to empirical data, but also being able to conjecture about what MAY be true.

 

Then how would I know that?

 

Well, let's try another example to examine how our limited perception does not tell us something that is eminently knowable. Again it deals with math, but another area of math that has been shown to reflect nature. Our senses do not readily tell us that there is any relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration. Yet Newton had that "gut feeling" that there was something there, and that the relationship could be explained. Calculus was the result. Did he "know" it? Depends on how you define "knowing". Newton might say he "knew" it, but he also admitted that he really just pursued his intuition. Intuition is a funny, mysterious, and powerful thing. I often wonder where is comes from, and why it is often so strong.

 

I don't believe that there was any design going on, so the word I would use would be "accidental".

 

That's quite an accident, given what we know (so far) about the rareity of life in the universe. However, I admit that this may be nothing more than incomplete information. But here is another area where I sense a dichotomy in what you say you believe. You've mentioned thermodynamics, and so I would guess you a believer in the 2nd Law. If we accept that the universe is a "closed system far from thermal equilibrium", then the 2nd Law tells us that entropy should always be increasing. Now I could accept that a SINGLE "accident" could occur that would have added heat energy to some process that resulted in initiation of simple life here on earth. But would it not require a series of "accidents" to continually overcome increasing entropy in order for life to establish a firm foothold, and eventually beget the human organism? So how would you reconcile "accidental" life with the 2nd Law?

 

The relationship between energy and information would have to be demonstrated to me before I would conceed that.

 

Claude Shannon, the father of information theory (and a guy my dad worked with at AT&T Bell Labs) was the first one to infer this link. The use of the term "entropy" is now accepted equivalently in both thermodynamics and information theory as a result of Shannon's work, and the work of other information scientists since (Richard Hamming was another major contributor with his error-correcting codes). There are plenty of "googleable" references to the connections between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy. Try the following google string ("information theory", entropy, energy). HERE is one link that, while not technically deep, does contain some interesting discussions on the topic. And for something with quite a bit more mathematical rigor, HERE is a paper that discusses the relationship between information theory and thermodynamics. The last sentence in the paper gives the punchline:

"This means that the available work (exergy) is proportional to the average difference in information required to discriminate between the thermodynamic system and the environment."

 

 

Now if I REALLY want to scare you :) I can also tell you that several theoretical physicists are putting forth a theory (based on equivalence of thermodynamic and information entropy) that our perception of the universe being 3-D is actually an illusion. The results of their work seem to indicate we all might be living in a 2-D hologram, and that our ability to extract information from the randomness of our holographic universe is what leads to our perception of 3-D. I don't recall what month, but there was a Scientific American cover story on precisely this topic...definitely less than a year ago, if you're interested in searching it out. It certainly got my pea-brain thinking deeply!

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

You see, this is where I get confused...because they ARE separate, and yes in a very real sense.

 

Well, of course the left eye is a different thing to the right eye, but that doesn't mean that they are two things that need to be integrated into a whole, as they are simply two small componants of a much larger machine.

 

 

The eyes are sensory devices, and the integration of the information from both eyes gives a complete visual picture, with depth perception.

 

Ah, but here you're talking about the integration of information from them both, not about the integration of the objects in and of themselves. And I certainly can't see what this has to do with symmetry any more.

 

 

The need as expressed with the genitalia is for the sex organ to act as the integrator of the gonads. Without the uterus and vagina, the ovaries and ovum would not be able to achieve their function. Without the penis and urethra, the testes and semen could not achieve their function.

 

But again, this has nothing to do with symmetry. If the penis was on one hip on one side of our bodies and the testicles on the other, they would still be interdependant. And, you can equally say that the penis is dependant on the mouth or nose, as if you couldn't breathe, the penis couldn't achieve it's function then.

 

 

Yes, our organs are interdependant, but I don't see how it follows that this is a product of nature's tendancy towards symmetry in the design of mammals.

 

 

Now this is where I come in and state that "precision" is nothing but a human construct. The need to measure something with better and better precision is a human fetish. Nature is decidedly fuzzy, and I would say fractally so.

 

On the whole, I'd say you're right.

 

 

I agree with this, but you could say this about any form of language. The letters in this post are nothing but abstractions. Yet they convey meaning (information).

 

That is, in fact, the basis of semiology. Yes, we derive meaning from arbitrary symbols. They can be letters (and Saussure did initially derive the concept to look at language), words, crucifixes, cowboy hats...absolutely anything. And, my point is, that although they may be things from which we can derive meaning, that does not mean that they have meaning in and of themselves. There is nothing about the word/letters "dog" that actually suggest a dog, but that is how we percieve it. someone from Peru, say, could look at the same letters and not derive the same meaning. Maybe a better example would be "pain". You and I may think of hurt, or Chronohistorian. A French man would most likely think of bread. The words and letters themselves do not have meaning, we give them meaning. In the same way, crucifixes have no menaing, cubes (or any other Platonic solid) have no meaning, cowboy hats have no meaning, numbers have no meaning, coincidences have no meaning...nothing does, really, other than what we give it.

 

 

Human perception is continuous, but certainly not always linear.

 

If you've ever suffered a blackout, passed out, or taken a hallucinogenic drug, you probably wouldn't say that perception necessarily was continuous.

 

 

I believe if you look more deeply into fractals (and wavelet transforms), you will see that these mathematical constructs have shown such a good match to natural processes, that the scientific community seems to be in agreement that dimensionality is continuous, and not discrete...and that the discrete level of dimensionality we call "3-D" is really the human construct to simplify the inherent complexity.

 

You kow, I've never heard that from a scientific perspective, and I can't find anything online about it. My dad's a physicist, so I'll ask him about it when I see him next.

 

 

But this is also a bit of a catch-22, because when it comes to discovery and innovation, being able to conjecture a "what if", and then run with it to develop experimental means to gather empirical evidence, has often shown to be the path of great discoveries. Copernicus was troubled by the complexity of the epicycles required to explain retrograde motion in the earth-centric model that was the accepted belief. He started with "what if the earth was NOT the center of the universe? What if the sun was the center?"

 

I don't think that's quite the same thing, though. Copernicus saw what he thought was a flaw, and worked to solve that flaw. That's different from arbitrarily deciding that the universe has fractal dimensions. I need some kind of evidence before I could make such a leap, and that they can be mathematically mapped is not such evidence.

 

 

Our senses do not readily tell us that there is any relationship between position, velocity, and acceleration. Yet Newton had that "gut feeling" that there was something there, and that the relationship could be explained. Calculus was the result. Did he "know" it? Depends on how you define "knowing". Newton might say he "knew" it, but he also admitted that he really just pursued his intuition. Intuition is a funny, mysterious, and powerful thing. I often wonder where is comes from, and why it is often so strong.

 

Actually, I would say that the kowledge that position, velocity and acceleration are related was not only obvious, but more or less innate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to throw a ball accurately. You don't need to know the equasions, or how they relate to each other, or anything fancy like that, but the actual physics itself is widely known.

 

 

And, as for intuition, I believe that intuition is simply the unconsious mind working harder than the consious mind, and solving the problem before the rational one does. I've done it a few times where I've solved a crossword clue, and then gone back and worked out what they little bits of the clue are and how they relate. Or, I've solved the Conundrum on Countdown just by glancing at it, rather than having to think about what letters might form the ending of the word, and whether the two "t"s are together or seperate.

 

 

But it's a bit of a leap to say that is in any way indicative of there being more dimensions than we can percieve.

 

 

That's quite an accident, given what we know (so far) about the rareity of life in the universe.

 

Well, yes. But so is my birth from the specific sperm and ovum from which I grew. Not just with the likelyhood of those two elements coming together, but my parents bumping into each other. Their parents living in the same part of the country. Their parents meeting how they did, and so on back for as long as you like. If you look at it like that, the chances of me being born are practially zero. Yet here I am.

 

 

Now I could accept that a SINGLE "accident" could occur that would have added heat energy to some process that resulted in initiation of simple life here on earth. But would it not require a series of "accidents" to continually overcome increasing entropy in order for life to establish a firm foothold, and eventually beget the human organism? So how would you reconcile "accidental" life with the 2nd Law?

 

That's a Creationist argument, based on a misunderstanding of the Law. The over-all entropy of a closed system increses. The entropy of a sub-system within that system can decrease, as long as another system compensates. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in no way goes against the theory of evolution.

 

 

Claude Shannon, the father of information theory (and a guy my dad worked with at AT&T Bell Labs) was the first one to infer this link.

 

Interestingly enough, I was going to mention Shannon in my last post, but as an example of my POV.

 

 

HERE is one link that, while not technically deep, does contain some interesting discussions on the topic.

 

That's a somewhat partisan site, is it not? To quote:

 

 

[...] it is hard, when paying attention to the intricacies of manifest existence, to imagine that it all came about by chance, that there was no guiding force of any kind orchestrating the beautiful complexity of it all.

 

No, it's not hard at all. It seems to be the most logical explaination.

 

 

The idea that there is no empirical evidence of divine intelligence leads to a rather depressing and uninspiring appraisal of life and of existence.

 

Speak for yourself. I find it neither depressing nor uninspiring. And, here, I think it's very telling. Deriving meaning from that which does not inherantly have meaning, because they want to believe that there is meaning. The bias is right there.

 

 

And for something with quite a bit more mathematical rigor, HERE is a paper that discusses the relationship between information theory and thermodynamics.

 

I'd have to go through that when I've got more time, and when I've had a bit more coffee.

 

 

Now if I REALLY want to scare you I can also tell you that several theoretical physicists are putting forth a theory (based on equivalence of thermodynamic and information entropy) that our perception of the universe being 3-D is actually an illusion. The results of their work seem to indicate we all might be living in a 2-D hologram, and that our ability to extract information from the randomness of our holographic universe is what leads to our perception of 3-D.

 

Hmmm. I'll believe it when it's been tested and proven. I don't have Scientific American, but I do have access to loads of issues of New Scientist, and, of course, there's the websites for these mags (as well as ones like Nature). If you can give me some more info (such as the scientists names), then I can have a dig around looking for it.

 

 

So, where would that leave superstring theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holographic Universe

 

 

Let me start at the end and work in reverse, to get you some of the info you asked for:

 

 

If you can give me some more info (such as the scientists names), then I can have a dig around looking for it.

 

I found the SciAm issue in a colleague's office when I got to work this morning. First, HERE is a link to the preamble of the article by Dr. Jacob D. Bekenstein. Given your reverence for physicists, perhaps the fact that John Wheeler is one of the primary physicists expounding the "universal energy as information" theory might lend a bit more creedance than an aerospace engineer who dabbles in cosmological issues. :)

 

Speak for yourself. I find it neither depressing nor uninspiring. And, here, I think it's very telling. Deriving meaning from that which does not inherantly have meaning, because they want to believe that there is meaning. The bias is right there.

 

Please don't forget that this web page is NOT me speaking. Nor did I ever say I accept everything therein. I simply found it, saw it had some discussion of relevance of information to entropy, and decided that since it was much lighter reading than the other link I gave you, I would offer it up.

 

The over-all entropy of a closed system increses.

 

And how many truly closed systems do you know of?

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in no way goes against the theory of evolution.

 

Never said it did. But just how "absolute" do you think this "Law" is? You seem to attach a great deal of meaning to this, yet you are the guy who is claiming that anything mathematical only has the meaning that we ascribe to it. Again, I see dichotomoy. It seems you will use mathematical and scientific theories to support beliefs you have come to, and throw other ones away that don't go far enough (yet) to convince you. You do understand that the "closed system" boundary condition for the 2nd Law imposes an unverifiable constraint on the solution, right? And the "far from thermal equilibrium" is just as questionable since there is no defacto standard for defining "far" in all cases.

My point here is that the large majority of scientific advances have come from people questioning the validity of the "bootstrap assumptions" by which older theories are formed. You claim to be an atheist, but it seems your unquestioning nature with respect to certain scientific theories borders on some level of "faith". You are no doubt an eloquent and educated debator, but I have not seen much in terms of scientific inquiry where you are willing to explore beyond the boundaries of what someone else has done in science/math. Do you ever conjecture theories beyond your established beliefs, and then go out in search of data to see if they might be validated?

 

 

I need some kind of evidence before I could make such a leap, and that they can be mathematically mapped is not such evidence.

 

That's funny, because you appear to be throwing away the most rigorous means that scientists use to validate something as non-arbitrary. It also appears that you have not really read-up on the history of how fractal mathematics came about. The evidence was there all along in the irregular, yet similar, geometries of nature. The shape of a cloud, the "krinklyness" of a coastline, the seemingly irregular but repeating texture of mountain ranges, the self-similar structure of a fern. The scientists and mathemeticians saw this as the evidence, and set out for a mathematical explanation of it. The result was a major discovery in the field of topology: Iterated Function Systems. Among other things it describes how folding changes the inherent dimensionality of an object. A pretty big find if one is hopeful of defining ways to "fold space" in the manner described in the Dune series of novels. Evidence? How could I point to better evidence than the fact that a hologram is a realizable "thing" that projects a higher level of dimensionality to the human observer?

 

If you've ever suffered a blackout, passed out, or taken a hallucinogenic drug, you probably wouldn't say that perception necessarily was continuous.

 

True enough for a blackout, you got me there. But I was referring to states in which you are still, actually, perceiving. Using your criteria of evidence, there is no evidence to me that I am perceiving during a blackout. I went thru surgery a couple years ago, and there was "lost time" from when I was put under until I awoke in recovery. Yes, that is discontinuous...but as far as I am concerned, it is so because I was not perceiving during that lost time. I don't necessarily agree with you citation of hallucinogenics. I'd say that since we still ARE perceiving under the influence of these, that their effect is really back to the non-linear classification. In fact, a psychologist friend of mine and myself have developed some pet theories that state different hallucinogenics induce different signatures of non-linear perception. Some appear as step functions, some as sawtooth waves, some as typical sinusoids.

 

Yes, our organs are interdependant, but I don't see how it follows that this is a product of nature's tendancy towards symmetry in the design of mammals.

 

Well, in the design of complex, critical systems we always employ symmetry (and broken symmetry) as a means to achieve higher levels of reliability, sustainability, and availability of such systems. Symmetry of such redundant systems allows a high degree of fault tolerance, while maintaining the capability for the system to meet its objective requirements. Likewise, broken symmetry is what allows distinctive observation of internal system states as the primary means to detect failures before they lead to catastrophic system operation.

 

Ah, but here you're talking about the integration of information from them both, not about the integration of the objects in and of themselves. And I certainly can't see what this has to do with symmetry any more.

 

Make the stretch to link this in with my "information as energy" statements in this and other posts. If you believe what you say about semiology, the integration of information is what IT is all about. If no object has meaning unto itself, and thus it only has the meaning that we ascribe to it, then I hope you would agree that we ascribe such meaning via integration of information...and that information comes from our physical elements...like our eyes. Our brains integrate the information delivered from our eyes, and so by this very fact our brains integrate the physical operation of our eyes.

Let me give you an axiom from systems engineering that may help you understand what I am talking about and getting at. The most efficient computing configuration for a system that needs to be sustainable and fault-tolerant is a triplex set of nodes. With only 2 nodes , you cannot isolate a difference in operational solution from one node to the other. In other words if Node 1 gets the answer "A" and Node 2 gets "B", you have no means to identify which one is "right" in terms of achieving the operational objectives. With 1 node you cannot even detect a large number of failure conditions. As you add nodes beyond 3, your reliability & availability degrades because now there are more things to fail. Not to mention that at any even number of nodes you will have the same "one on one" discrimination problem that you have with two. With any odd number of nodes, you can discriminate, but at the literal cost expense of more components, greater complexity, and lower availability.

 

 

The fact that triplex architectures show up in so many successful organisms (even ones whose exterior configurations do not show perfect symmetry) COULD BE an indication that someone/something had a hand the design of life. I am not saying it is a defacto truth, but I am saying that it is at least intriguing enough to expand our thought process and consider "what if?"....like I describe above and in other posts. You are certainly free to remain static in your beliefs, and not venture out into the unknown until someone shows you proof of what I am saying. But in my opinion, that is a bit of a boring life. I like to live on the edge! Wanna go rock climbing with me this weekend? :)

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

In reply to:

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

[...] it is hard, when paying attention to the intricacies of manifest existence, to imagine that it all came about by chance, that there was no guiding force of any kind orchestrating the beautiful complexity of it all.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

No, it's not hard at all. It seems to be the most logical explaination.

 

Trollface,

 

 

I think we share the same views on this subject. People often want to think there's a guiding force, because of things they simply cannot explain. Now I'm not saying that I have an answer to everything, but claiming the existence of a divine intelligence seems like an easy way out. If there even was such a thing as a guiding force or divine intelligence, we would still be left with the question where it came from. Also, the fact that everything that surrounds us is so complex, does not in anyway mean that it has been orchestrated.

 

 

In reply to:

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The idea that there is no empirical evidence of divine intelligence leads to a rather depressing and uninspiring appraisal of life and of existence.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Speak for yourself. I find it neither depressing nor uninspiring. And, here, I think it's very telling. Deriving meaning from that which does not inherantly have meaning, because they want to believe that there is meaning. The bias is right there.

 

Exactly! There is no reason to suspect that there's a higher meaning to our existence on this planet. We give meaning to our own lives. So I don't think that the lack of empirical evidence of divine intelligence is depressing or uninspiring either. I enjoy living. :)

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

Hi Roel:

 

 

Also, the fact that everything that surrounds us is so complex, does not in anyway mean that it has been orchestrated.

 

Scenario: As our abilities to develop more complex robotics, ones which possess some levels of intelligence and ability to consider and conjecture, we will no doubt send them out to the far reaches of space. Perhaps we will even give them the ability to reproduce themselves, if even in a strictly mechanical "build-to" set of prints.

I wonder if this "species" will ever conjecture on where they came from and say "the fact that we are complex does not in any way mean that we have been orchestrated"? :)

 

 

The fact that we do not KNOW, for certain, where we came from does not prove, nor discount either the "accidental" theory or the theory of "intelligent design". Now, I don't want this to sound like I am taking a page from Chrono's kiddie book, but: If some day a bunch of advanced aliens came to us and said "we created your environment, and we engineered YOU" and then proceeded to show us evidence of how it was all done... would that have an impact on your beliefs? ;)

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

True enough for a blackout, you got me there. But I was referring to states in which you are still, actually, perceiving.

 

Ray,

 

 

This reminds me of our discussion about conciousness. We conciously perceive time in a linear fashion. When we're dreaming, hallucinating or having a blackout we are only tricked into perceiving things. So in my opinion time is still linear the way we perceive it.

 

 

Also, I still don't see why - according to the theory you mentioned - we're living in a "2d hologram" where the other dimensions are "illusions". We can sense these dimensions. When I first see a 3 dimensional shape I'm unable to confirm whether it actually exists in 3 dimensions or if it's just a 2d representation of a 3d shape. But when I walk up to the shape I can use my senses to check if the object actually occupies 3 dimensions.

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

Greetings!

 

 

We can sense these dimensions. When I first see a 3 dimensional shape I'm unable to confirm whether it actually exists in 3 dimensions or if it's just a 2d representation of a 3d shape. But when I walk up to the shape I can use my senses to check if the object actually occupies 3 dimensions.

 

OK, first do you agree that your sense of sight is erroneously telling you that there is 3-dimensional depth to a holographic image? If this particular sense has the ability to trick your mind in this manner, then it would be reasonable to believe that your sense of touch MAY also have the ability to trick you into feeling 3 dimensions when you touch an object?

Another way to think about this "problem" is that an observer that is that is entrenched within the context of some event has difficulty understanding that context. An example is Edwin Abbott's Flatland story. If we examine a being trapped in a 2-dimensional planar existence, and then intersect a 3-D sphere with his plane of existence, does his senses provide him the means to realize that it is a 3-D sphere? Given that he and his senses are limited to the 2-D plane, he has no ability to look above/below that plane. And even if he moves up to and touches the sphere, he is only able to touch it within his plane of existence. He will come to the conclusion that this is a 2-D entity, just like himself.

 

 

Where it REALLY gets interesting is if we start moving the sphere up and down through the plane. Our friend would see this in his 2-D realm as the thing he has determined as also being 2-D growing and shrinking!

 

 

Believing only what our senses tell us can be a comforting means to assure ourselves that we "know what is real". But it is really nothing more than a panacea that, if adopted as if it were a "religion" could result in some mental aberrations if at some point these observations are shown to be a limited set of "real reality". I'm trying to keep my mind open so, in case we do have such massive realizations, my whole world view does not come crumbling down. :)

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

I wonder if this "species" will ever conjecture on where they came from and say "the fact that we are complex does not in any way mean that we have been orchestrated"?

 

True, but I also wonder if this "species" will regard us as divine intelligence. Do you consider yourself to be a divine intelligence? :)

 

 

The fact that - hypothetically speaking - WE can "build" a new species, does not mean we were engineered as well. It only shows that we're able to look at our own "engineering" and use that information to create a new species.

 

 

"we created your environment, and we engineered YOU"

 

I remember reading a book by Erich von Däniken when I was young. Somehow it made quite an impression on me. I'm not dismissing the possibility that "aliens" had something to do with our civilization, but I think it's highly unlikely. Even if this were the case, it would only confirm that it wasn't DIVINE intelligence that created us :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

Hi again Ray,

 

 

First of all, I'm still wondering if there were any indications that led to this theory.

 

 

OK, first do you agree that your sense of sight is erroneously telling you that there is 3-dimensional depth to a holographic image? If this particular sense has the ability to trick your mind in this manner, then it would be reasonable to believe that your sense of touch MAY also have the ability to trick you into feeling 3 dimensions when you touch an object?

 

Yes, I do think the mind has this ability. I don't know if you've ever dreamed about a dog biting in your calf. Well, I have and I can assure you that it was almost the real thing. I believe that this is the result of having cramps in your leg and dreaming at the same time. So yes, I do think the mind is able to trick you into sensing things that aren't there. However I don't think this is the case. When I can see and feel a 3d object, the most logical conclusion would be that the object actually exists in 3 dimensions. I can put one hand on one side, my other hand on the other and I will not be able to bring my hands together. I don't see why this has to be an illusion? I don't see the added value of this theory.

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry

 

 

True, but I also wonder if this "species" will regard us as divine intelligence.

 

One thing that would play into this would be what level of "free will" we would give such a "species". If they were given total free will, then I don't see why they would not arrive at similar conclusions as we would. So just like you and I, some would perhaps consider us "divine" intelligence, and some might consider us tinkerers.

Which brings up an interesting point: The word "divine" has different connotations to everyone. If by this we mean "all-seeing, all-knowing", then would we already be considered "divine" to the simple, bug-like intelligent entities we have already created?

 

 

Do you consider yourself to be a divine intelligence?

 

With respect to you as the person asking the question, certainly not. But if the MD-11 autopilot ever has moments of internal contemplation, it might wonder about the "divinity" of the entity that made it capable of landing the airplane. :)

 

The fact that - hypothetically speaking - WE can "build" a new species, does not mean we were engineered as well.

 

That's true, but it would appear to chip-away at the "impossibility" of the proposition. In other words, the fact that WE could so something like this would reduce the improbability that others did it and created us. And let's not just think of robotics, especially as we are on the forefront of MAJOR advancements in genetics, now that we have completely mapped the human genome.

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

First of all, I'm still wondering if there were any indications that led to this theory.

 

I assume you mean the holographic theory. Actually, the primary indications, as I understand them, were the fact that several prominent theoretical physicists began to examine the relationships between classical thermodynamic entropy, and the information entropy that was defined by Claude Shannon. The fact that both energy processes, and information communication processes could both be described with the same statistical mathematics caused physicists to seriously look at what Shannon was talking about. One of the most respected theoretical physicists of the last 50 years (John Archibald Wheeler) was the first to link information to physical energy. As Wheeler descibes the process, he says that "IT" (meaning all physical processes, including the human being) emanates from "BIT" (meaning an undifferentiable field of information). IT comes from BIT. Or, in more common words, PHYSICAL STUFF comes from structured organization of INFORMATION. This would mean that the 4% of the universal energy that is physical matter is coherently structured information, while the remaining 96% of the universal energy is unstructured, random "zero point" energy which is not distinguishable as information.

 

When I can see and feel a 3d object, the most logical conclusion would be that the object actually exists in 3 dimensions. I can put one hand on one side, my other hand on the other and I will not be able to bring my hands together. I don't see why this has to be an illusion?

 

I am going to be very blunt here, because it is apparant you are not seeing how this "logical conclusion" of yours can be just as arbitrary as a belief that a woman cannot get pregnant the first time she has intercourse. To put it bluntly, Roel: The "faith in God" that you think is so silly for other people to hold, is the EXACT same type of blind faith that you have in your limited physical senses. You say you don't believe in a God, and yet you are willing to put complete faith in your physical senses which, as I think even you are willing to admit, do not ALWAYS tell you the truth. The rules of logic will tell you that, if your senses can lie to you in one circumstance, then the possibility that they can lie to you in other circumstances is a definitive 1.0.

Here is another way to think about it: We live in a technological era where we can create pressure-sensitive gloves that are hooked up to computers. If I were to put a blindfold on you, and put these gloves on your hands, I can create a virtual object in the memory of the computer that controls the gloves. The result of this simulation would be that when you places your hands in a certain physical space, the gloves would supply resistive pressure sensations on your hands. Since your eyes would not be functioning, you would be "feeling" a three dimensional object that was not REALLY there! Instead, you are feeling pressure resistance against your hands in the gloves. The fact is, if I can fool your sense of touch to think that a REAL object is there, then there is no conclusive evidence that the structure of matter in our universe is not doing the same thing.

 

 

Right?

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

Given your reverence for physicists, perhaps the fact that John Wheeler is one of the primary physicists expounding the "universal energy as information" theory might lend a bit more creedance than an aerospace engineer who dabbles in cosmological issues.

 

I have absolutely no reverence for anyone, let alone physicists. My dad's a physicist. Do you think that this or more likely to make me revere them, or to understand better than most how falliable they are? I'll look into this more, but count me far from convinced.

 

 

Please don't forget that this web page is NOT me speaking.

 

Yeah, I realise that, and sorry if it came accross that way. That's just my posting style - I have a tendancy to speak in the first person, even if speaking to quoted or liked articles. Think of it like shouting at the telly during a football match or soap opera.

 

 

And how many truly closed systems do you know of?

 

That rather helps to illustrate my point, I think.

 

 

Never said it did.

 

Well, you asked how I reconcile the two. If you don't believe that the two are in conflict at all, then why would I have to reconcile them?

 

 

You seem to attach a great deal of meaning to this [...]

 

Where do you get the impression that I attatch a great deal of meaning to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from? I didn't even mention it until you did. When you mentioned it, you asked how I could find it credible and also find evolution credible. I showed how that was possible. I see nothing there that indicates that I attatch a "great deal of meaning" to anything.

 

 

[...]you are the guy who is claiming that anything mathematical only has the meaning that we ascribe to it.

 

I have not claimed that, except in as much as I've claimed that nothing really has meaning other than what we give it.

 

 

It seems you will use mathematical and scientific theories to support beliefs you have come to, and throw other ones away that don't go far enough (yet) to convince you.

 

Is that not what all reasonable people do? You look at all the evidence available to you, and you take on board that which seems convincing, and you either partially or wholly disregard that which does not convince you. Are you saying that I should believe in things that don't convince me? Should I say that things that I think are only partially true, or partially relevent, or only tell part of the story are 100% true and accurate? Should I discard things that I do find convincing?

 

 

All evidence is only as good as how convincing it is. And, yes, I am prepared to discard things that I believe in light of better evidence.

 

 

You claim to be an atheist, but it seems your unquestioning nature with respect to certain scientific theories borders on some level of "faith".

 

If that's the impression you've got, either from you reading too much into my posts, or my poor wording, or whatever, then that impression is wrong. In no way do I accpet anything unquestioningly. Anything. Including theories about the universe which have, as far as I can see, little or no scientific basis as of yet.

 

 

Just because I'm not laying down my beliefs in favour of yours does not mean that I am closed-minded, just that I do not find your arguments convincing as of yet.

 

 

Do you ever conjecture theories beyond your established beliefs, and then go out in search of data to see if they might be validated?

 

If I have reason to, yes.

 

 

How could I point to better evidence than the fact that a hologram is a realizable "thing" that projects a higher level of dimensionality to the human observer?

 

What are you saying? Yes, a hologram is the illusion of a three-dimensional object projected from a more-or-less 2-dimensional surface. Because this is true, I am supposed to believe that the same is true of the universe? I'm sorry, but that is hardly compelling empirical evidence.

 

 

True enough for a blackout, you got me there. But I was referring to states in which you are still, actually, perceiving.

 

Well, that's somewhat of a redundant statement, then. I'm sorry, but what you've just said is that consiousness is continuous, as long as you discount those instances where it's not continuous. That's true of anything. You can say that a blinking LED is continuously on, as long as you discount those instances where it's not.

 

 

Well, in the design of complex, critical systems we always employ symmetry (and broken symmetry) as a means to achieve higher levels of reliability, sustainability, and availability of such systems. Symmetry of such redundant systems allows a high degree of fault tolerance, while maintaining the capability for the system to meet its objective requirements. Likewise, broken symmetry is what allows distinctive observation of internal system states as the primary means to detect failures before they lead to catastrophic system operation.

 

But you're talking about man-made systems. That does not necessarily translate to non-man-made systems, does it?

 

 

Let me give you an axiom from systems engineering that may help you understand what I am talking about and getting at. The most efficient computing configuration for a system that needs to be sustainable and fault-tolerant is a triplex set of nodes. With only 2 nodes , you cannot isolate a difference in operational solution from one node to the other. In other words if Node 1 gets the answer "A" and Node 2 gets "B", you have no means to identify which one is "right" in terms of achieving the operational objectives. With 1 node you cannot even detect a large number of failure conditions. As you add nodes beyond 3, your reliability & availability degrades because now there are more things to fail. Not to mention that at any even number of nodes you will have the same "one on one" discrimination problem that you have with two. With any odd number of nodes, you can discriminate, but at the literal cost expense of more components, greater complexity, and lower availability.

 

Well, okay, but in which case, your example with the eyes lets you down. Beacuse we have two eyes, and not 3. And, by this model, the brain does not count as a third "node", because it does not perform the same function as the other two.

 

 

So, again, I am failing to make the same parallells as you.

 

 

The fact that triplex architectures show up in so many successful organisms (even ones whose exterior configurations do not show perfect symmetry) COULD BE an indication that someone/something had a hand the design of life. I am not saying it is a defacto truth, but I am saying that it is at least intriguing enough to expand our thought process and consider "what if?"

 

Also:

 

 

The fact that we do not KNOW, for certain, where we came from does not prove, nor discount either the "accidental" theory or the theory of "intelligent design".

 

My point is that it could be an indication of pretty much anything, so why second-guess the universe? Why not go on the evidence that there is?

 

 

It could be true that I am nothing but a brain in a jar. Everything that I've ever experienced is the result of deliberate electro-chemical stimulation that I've had forced upon me by a man in a black and white universe with a hunchback assistant and one of those things that consists of two wires and has an electrical current arc between them. And the fact that this is a Sci-Fi cliche from 50's movies is the mad scientist's little in-joke. And the fact that I love and seek out those movies is the punchline.

 

 

I don't know for sure that it isn't. But I'm prepared to guess that it isn't, and it'll take a bit more evidence to convince me that what my senses tell me is true generally isn't true. But, the facts of what we know about our existence neither prove nor disprove this theory. I'm sure you can see why I don't give it equal weight to the "I'm really here and this is really happening" theory, though.

 

 

That's true, but it would appear to chip-away at the "impossibility" of the proposition. In other words, the fact that WE could so something like this would reduce the improbability that others did it and created us.

 

We can also control insects and mice by wiring electrodes into their brains. We can also detect what people are thinking to a certain degree with the same metond. Does this make my 1950s mad scientist theory any more credible, and less impossible?

 

 

You are certainly free to remain static in your beliefs, and not venture out into the unknown until someone shows you proof of what I am saying.

 

Well, if you're going to take that tone, then you are perfectly free to remain grasping at straws to fill that emptyness that you feel that you have, and you don't have to be logical about it or demand any reasonable standard of proof...

 

 

It's not too nice when someone makes unpleasent assumptions about you, is it? Please don't do it to me. My beliefs are nothing to do with comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

The "faith in God" that you think is so silly for other people to hold, is the EXACT same type of blind faith that you have in your limited physical senses. You say you don't believe in a God, and yet you are willing to put complete faith in your physical senses which, as I think even you are willing to admit, do not ALWAYS tell you the truth.

 

Mmmh, I think I have to disagree with you here. Just to make things clear :) Although I personally believe that faith in god is silly, I would never look down on anyone or think less of a person. My opinion is just as good as any other. But that's not the point.

 

 

You're comparing two totally different things. I have blind faith in my senses because I feel them. Of course, people who have "faith in god" will say the same thing. But the major difference lies in the fact that I can prove to almost any individual in the world that my senses are real. When you put two fingers in the air, I can use my eyesight to SEE that you have two fingers in the air. If I were blind, I could walk up to you and TOUCH your hand to confirm that you have two fingers in the air. Another example: If I put a piece of smelly cheese on the table, you and I would both be able to SMELL it and we could confirm by using our other senses that there actually is a cheese on the table.

 

 

BUT... I have yet to meet the first person that can proof the existence of a god or a divine force. I think that there's not even one single piece of physical evidence in the entire world that would remotely suggest the existence of a god.

 

 

as I think even you are willing to admit, do not ALWAYS tell you the truth

 

Yes, I will admit that... but "not always" is something different than "never". I do understand the roots of this holographic theory now, but I'm still not convinced. Perhaps it's just the way it's being formulated.

 

 

Some time ago we discussed your sea of energy. Everything consists of energy. Am I right in thinking that the only differentiation in this sea of energy is brought about by information? Is information what makes us perceive energy as the world around us?

 

 

The fact is, if I can fool your sense of touch to think that a REAL object is there, then there is no conclusive evidence that the structure of matter in our universe is not doing the same thing.

 

I acknowledge that! But is there really reason to believe that? It's a very interesting theory(hell, they even made three movies about it), but I need an eyeopener... :)

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

BUT... I have yet to meet the first person that can proof the existence of a god or a divine force. I think that there's not even one single piece of physical evidence in the entire world that would remotely suggest the existence of a god.

 

Roel, Deny the highway and you lose the path. Deny the builder of the road and you will never come to His, and thus your, destination.

 

 

It's a pre conceived Divine plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Holographic Universe

 

 

Roel, Deny the highway and you lose the path. Deny the builder of the road and you will never come to His, and thus your, destination.

 

Funny how people always think they know my destination. I'm not denying anything, I'm just saying there is no phyisical evidence of a divine force. I'm very openminded, but no one is willing or capable of providing me with evidence.

 

 

:)

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

Funny how people always think they know my destination. I'm not denying anything, I'm just saying there is no phyisical evidence of a divine force. I'm very openminded, but no one is willing or capable of providing me with evidence.

 

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine! Though no one can realistically theorize it? No one can see Atomic Particles with their physical eyes, yet they are there!

 

 

One aspect of matter that remains unexplained, is what exactly causes life? Reality made up of a series of microscopic cells, each of which is a combination of molecules which are the combinations of atoms. Atoms are made up of neutrons and protons that form the atomic nucleus.

 

 

Also to ascertaine that even smaller particles form the neutrons and protons within the atomic nucleus called quarks made up of three apiece. Additionally there are a number of other sub atomic particles that form the menagerie of atomic structure. Yet with all these particles there is a cohesive force that binds them together.

 

 

But no one seems to know what that force is? The force behind "electrons" that directs them in their function? those negatively charged particles which define the parameters and the energy fields which give rise to that which we recognize as physical form. Yet, the electrons themselves are not form as we know it. They are energy, an energy which gives rise to form but itself is not form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine!

 

No there isn't. If you believe that there is, then I'm sure you can provide evidence.

 

 

Nothing else you've said in your post is relevent to the divine, let alone evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine! Though no one can realistically theorize it? No one can see Atomic Particles with their physical eyes, yet they are there!

 

Of course there are things we can't explain yet. But instead of calling it "the divine" lets just make an effort to see what it really is.

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

evidence of "the divine" stares you right in the face...existance

 

 

unless you want to believe everything was just one massive perfect mistake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

Roel, There is EVIDENCE of the divine!

 

I agree. And more and more evidence is being discovered every day. Roel, I'd like you to serisously consider the new scientific findings on Dark Energy. Consider that we are now finding, and proving with scientific measurements, that there is a VAST, unseen source of energy in our universe. The energy of the gravitating matter we see is only about 6%. The stuff you cannot perceive at all, this Dark Energy, is showing to be the largest percentage of total energy... around 60-70%. And the rest, they say, is Dark Matter, which one could read as "black holes"...around another 24-34%.

 

 

Now consider how this plays-into what I have been saying about our senses, and how what they tell us is really only a small (very small, as it would seem) part of "reality". The things we are discovering, and are yet to discover, about Dark Energy are going to change our world views. I'd hazard to guess they may even change some of yours. If your senses are only giving you 6% of the total picture of energy and reality, statistics clearly show that you have probably come to some erroneous conclusions if you base all your beliefs solely on what you sense from your perceptions.

 

 

This is really simple mathematical and engineering fact. I'll use an analogy: If I only sampled and observed 6% of the total flight regieme of a given aerospace vehicle before I designed a control system and control scheme to fly that vehicle, I can guarantee you that there will be an error in my system design that will cause the vehicle to crash at some point. That is because I have only designed-to (made up my mind about) 6% of the total reality that this vehicle could experience throughout its flight regieme. The reality of the other 94% is never taken into consideration. The chances that my 6% design could survive 94% unknown circumstances is ridiculously low. Can you see the parallel between this and our human condition?

 

 

So what if we were to playfully refer to "Dark Energy" as "The Force"? "Use the Force, Luke!" And you know what? This is really not at all very far from the reality of our situation. And each of us physical beings can tap into that Force of Dark Energy. Some may call it the Prime Temporal Point. There are lots of names for it....but the evidence has been there, and it is now being validated scientifically...

 

 

RainmanTime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

evidence of "the divine" stares you right in the face...existance

 

Rho: Our existence is in no way evidence of "the divine". You assume that the divine exists, while there is no evidence for it. I can think of a million other reasons why we exist:

 

 

We originate from a Giant Banana and I have evidence: existence!

 

 

I agree.

 

Ray: I don't understand how you, with your scientific background, can agree. Where is the evidence? This is, at best, a theory. An unproven theory, since there is no evidence.

 

 

Consider that we are now finding, and proving with scientific measurements, that there is a VAST, unseen source of energy in our universe.

 

Well, I guess you could call dark matter "divine" but we could also call it "roel" or "giant banana". Why do people insist on calling the unknown "divine" or "god".

 

 

There are lots of names for it....but the evidence has been there, and it is now being validated scientifically...

 

I rest my case :) There is something which you call "divine" for no apparent reason and then you say it's being scientifically validated now. That's the worst example of science I've seen since kindergarten.

 

 

I bet that we discover timetravel BEFORE we find evidence of "the divine".

 

 

Roel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

logic is all the evidence you need...

 

 

your scientific method thinking is blinding what obviously is, science will never disprove god (as hard as its trying), the deeper we go in every field of science leads us to believe more and more in the evidence of the divine.

 

 

every field of science eventually leads to everything is connected one way or another to one source. god.

 

 

Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

 

 

1.Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.

 

 

2.Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

logic is all the evidence you need...

 

Funny you should say that... because:

 

 

science will never disprove god (as hard as its trying)

 

My logic tells me that god does not exist. Logic is the only evidence I need, so my conclusion would be: god does not exist! Of course this is plain bullshit, since I can't prove god doesn't exist as much as you can't prove he does.

 

 

Et voilá!

 

 

Let me give you an example.

 

No. Let me give you an example.

 

 

Let's assume that god does exist. How do you think he came into being?

 

 

1. He appeared out of the blue. Hey he's god you know!

 

 

2. Uhm, you shouldn't want to know everything.

 

 

Roel :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: EVIDENCE of the divine...

 

 

again your scientific method try's to quantify god hahah

 

 

we will get no where..

 

 

agree to disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...