by HowTheBibleWasCreated 32 Replies latest jw friends
How is one to define something where there is no practical evidence ?
To do so would be going outside of logic.
Without out evidence one can only construct something out of imagination,
if you take close look back in human history
this is exactly what many diverse civilization had done.
.
There is evidence of human imagination though.
Was trying to say that with formation there is equal destruction. There have been literally entire galaxies that have disintegrated. Stars form and others burn out. Some stars are devoured by black holes and spit out as gamma rays that hit the earth. Therefore the universe isn't becoming more complex, its doing the same thing it has always done since the beginning. You tried to use formation of stars to dismiss this.
Despite the fact that your claim is, thus far, utterly untrue, you are now following the discussion method of the average scientific woo mixologist. Take a little science, mix in a little woo, talk using sciency sounding words and every time your woo is shown to not make sense or be outright wrong, change the subject or change what you meant.
So, on the subject of complexity, right now, and since it's formation, the universe has become more complex according to all observable data. Ultimately, according to all mathematical models, it will untilmately reach entropy of 1. That fits exactly what I wrote and has nothing to do with local phenomenon you use in an attempt to prove there is a lack of complexity.
State your point clearly with your backing information and then let's discuss.
I was trying to use dark matter the same way that theists have used the unknown details of Gravity to imply a God, however on further thought its no different.
I am not sure how to parse that sentence.
Viviane, I am not trying to woo anybody and aside from the scientific laws I posted about conservation, everything else was just speculative questions to spark response. Also I think there might be misunderstanding when using the word "complex." Concerning the universe, I would use the word "complex" to describe the level of information density or essentially the amount of atoms/molecules within the universe. So I took your statement and Coded's statement to imply that the universe is constantly increasing it's contents of matter/energy. Conservation of energy apparently is accepted as fact within our earth but is only theory in the universe which I JUST learned, and is why I kept pointing out scientific law along with physical cosmology observations of stars being formed at a rate equal to their destruction (within the Milky Way), and the disentigration of galaxies, however other factors inculding acceleration of expansion leads some to theorize that the universe does NOT conserve energy. From my last post I admitted to putting my foot in my mouth when trying to insert room for a "God" where scientific unknowns exist. From my research just now it can not be proven that energy is lost and it can not be proven that new matter is coming into existence at a rate greater than old matter is disappearing in the universe. I apologize for making assumptions that earthly laws definitively apply to the universe. I'll stick to debating religious doctrines and philosophies instead of cosmologies from now on :/
Also I think there might be misunderstanding when using the word "complex." Concerning the universe, I would use the word "complex" to describe the level of information density or essentially the amount of atoms/molecules within the universe.
What type of information? How are you measuring the density? Why is that related to the amountof atoms and molecules?
BTW, atoms and molecules didn't exist when the universe first formed. You may not realize it, but you are supporting my comment, although I am not sure what you mean by the bit about information.
So I took your statement and Coded's statement to imply that the universe is constantly increasing it's contents of matter/energy.
But that's not at all what I said. Why would you take what I said about start formation to mean something completely different?
Conservation of energy apparently is accepted as fact within our earth but is only theory in the universe which I JUST learned, and is why I kept pointing out scientific law along with physical cosmology observations of stars being formed at a rate equal to their destruction
That's not at all what the law of conservation of energy says. If that were true, the total amount of stars would be zero at at given time.
and the disentigration of galaxies, however other factors inculding acceleration of expansion leads some to theorize that the universe does NOT conserve energy.
Show one example of a galaxy that disintegrated. Who are some? What is their hypothesis?
From my last post I admitted to putting my foot in my mouth when trying to insert room for a "God" where scientific unknowns exist.
That's good!
From my research just now it can not be proven that energy is lost and it can not be proven that new matter is coming into existence at a rate greater than old matter is disappearing in the universe. I apologize for making assumptions that earthly laws definitively apply to the universe.
Actually, that's one of the basic rules of cosmology, that universal rules they are the same everywhere we look. So far that is true.
Show one example of a galaxy that disintegrated
I was researching black holes the other week and stumbled on something mentioning a massive black hole being observed to dismantel the small galaxy it was in but I can't find it anymore. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "disintegrate." I apologize.
That's not at all what the law of conservation of energy says. If that were true, the total amount of stars would be zero at at given time.
I know what the law is and I was only using the rate of formation and destruction of stars as a possible macroscopic view of the universe exhibiting the laws of conservation of energy which means that no energy is ever lost, it is only transferred elsewhere. However I acknowledge that as a bad example considering I am finding sources that say that more stars are forming than dying... "These rates also imply that per year about four solar masses of interstellar gas are converted to stars, the team said. About ten billion years into its life, the Milky Way galaxy has now converted about 90 percent of its initial gas content into stars. Star death is intricately tied to star creation because it provides the raw material --- elements strewn into interstellar space --- as well as the energy in the form of shock waves that prompts cool gas clouds to condense and form stars."-NASA
Based on the above and following quote I could see how the universe could be seen subjectively more complex in the sense that it has convertedit's initial simple elements like hydrogen and helium into heavier elements that form eventually into planets like earth leading to other biological events, yielding planets that didn't previously exist, and life on earth.
"Practically all of these heavy elements were formed in generations of stars: stars that lived, burned their fuel into heavier elements, died and shed their heavy, enriched elements back into the cosmos, and were incorporated into the next generations of stars and — when the heavier elements became abundant enough — rocky planets." http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/
However from a microscopic view of the entire universe, the materials needed to create everything have existed from the beginning and have since been converted into different arrangements over time without loss or gain(theoretically). Everything that makes up the human body can be found in a star. We might be more complex subjectively than a star in the sense that we have consciousness for example, but one could take the view that we are just a rearrangement of materials. This is what I was getting at, subjective views of complexity. I agree that an iphone is more complex than a payphone. When looking only through a microscope though, the perspective changes. I feel I was concerned more about the microview of things and you were taking the macroview.
“Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
I know what the law is and I was only using the rate of formation and destruction of stars as a possible macroscopic view of the universe exhibiting the laws of conservation of energy which means that no energy is ever lost, it is only transferred elsewhere.
But that example was utterly wrong. Every example you've given to demonstrate how well you understand conservation of evergy has show that you absolutely do NOT.
Based on the above and following quote I could see how the universe could be seen subjectively more complex in the sense that it has convertedit's initial simple elements like hydrogen and helium into heavier elements that form eventually into planets like earth leading to other biological events, yielding planets that didn't previously exist, and life on earth.
This that have complex structure (like hydrogen atoms) exists today that did NOT exist in the earlier universe. The universe is more complex. You're admitting it and refusing to admit that you are.
However from a microscopic view of the entire universe, the materials needed to create everything have existed from the beginning and have since been converted into different arrangements over time without loss or gain(theoretically).
What does that have to do with complexity? Are you suggesting life is NOT more complex that particles that exist independantly of each other? That stars are have equal complexity to a hydrogen atom or an electron? I would have to question how you are defining complexity. You already tried to make some vague claims about information and, when questioned on it, never re-visited the topic.
What do you mean by complexity and information?
This is what I was getting at, subjective views of complexity. I agree that an iphone is more complex than a payphone.
So the universe is more complex than in the past.
When looking only through a microscope though, the perspective changes. I feel I was concerned more about the microview of things and you were taking the macroview.
Why? Give a specific example. Are you suggesting thata multi-cellular organism is equally complex to a single cell? That a single cell organism is equally as complex as a dihydrogen monoxid molecule? That a neon atom is equally as complex as an electron? Give an example and be specific.
Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't even come close to addressing your comments. It's not even on topic. Just for fun, here is another OT NDT quote: "Just an FYI: "Thursday the 12th" is just as rare as "Friday the 13th"."
But that example was utterly wrong. Every example you've given to demonstrate how well you understand conservation of evergy has show that you absolutely do NOT.
I already admitted to that example not being an adequate portrayal of that Law, it was my mistake, you skipped that part apparently.
Things that have complex structure (like hydrogen atoms) exists today that did NOT exist in the earlier universe.
hydrogen atoms are the simplest of all elements and have existed since right after the big bang estimated 14billion years ago...
The universe is more complex. You're admitting it and refusing to admit that you are.
Um no, in my last post I admitted to the universe being more complex in that sense. How can I admit it and refuse to admit it after I verbally admitted how I could see the universe being more complex in the sense of converting its elements into planets? It's like you are picking a fight?
A math professor might say that "a car engine is complex," and a mechanic might say "no, it's not, but calculus is complex." It's perspective. My perspective is that everything in the universe is simple in the sense that it all came from a few original elements and once it formed the rest of the heavier elements over time billions of years ago, it has since only rearranged them and will continue to do so according to the three quotes I posted in my last post. And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body. "Approximately 73% of the mass of the visible universe is in the form of hydrogen. Helium makes up about 25% of the mass, and everything else represents only 2%." Also, "All the stars in the universe, including the Sun, are nuclear furnaces fueled by fusion. Through fusion, stars are responsible for forming all the naturally occurring elements heavier than hydrogen and helium."
Nothing in this post here so far is scientifically false, it is only my opinion that the information (sub-atomic matter including the original elements) I have been mentioning, has not become more complex itself, it has only rearranged. Look at apes and humans. Humans are more complex wouldn't you agree? I would say yes, except on a microscopic level I would say NO. We share 98.8% DNA with them and even that 1.2% DNA we don't share is still made up of the same subatomic particles but in a different arrangement. Thus on a sub atomic level we are not more complex than apes, just rearranged. You could even bring it a step closer and say that your thinking abilities are more complex than your twin sister with Downs Syndrome and yet she is the same as you biologically aside from a small gene sequencing disruption. When it comes to the sub atomic level you are not more complex than her. Perspective has been the crux of our convo apparently. Complexity can be applied in more than one way as you acknowledged by asking me, "I would have to question how you are defining complexity."
I already admitted to that example not being an adequate portrayal of that Law, it was my mistake, you skipped that part apparently.
No, I didn't. I just felt it was important to remember because...
hydrogen atoms are the simplest of all elements and have existed since right after the big bang estimated 14billion years ago...
... they HAVE existed since AFTER the Big Bang. Prior to atomic formation there were just particles. Then atoms, then stars, molecules, etc... so on andso forth. By your very own offered evidence the universe started out with less complex form and now we have, according to you, MORE complex forms. I just wanted to retain your admission of you not understanding what you wrote several times over so that, when you once again didn't understand what you wrote, we would your own words showing you're not really grasping what you write.
I would be sorry if that seems harsh, but I'm not. Once you decide to take up the mantle of science, it's a brutal and harsh world.
Um no, in my last post I admitted to the universe being more complex in that sense.
The problem is you refuse to define what you mean by "complex" in anything other than an ever moving, ever changing sense that you re-define once you get backed into a corner. Just what exactly do you mean by complex?
How can I admit it and refuse to admit it after I verbally admitted how I could see the universe being more complex in the sense of converting its elements into planets? It's like you are picking a fight?
This isn't a fight, not even close, first of all. Secondly, you admit it, in a sense, without ever telling us what you are really meaning. It's all weasel words.
A math professor might say that "a car engine is complex," and a mechanic might say "no, it's not, but calculus is complex." It's perspective.
Which, once again, doesn't do anything to tell us what you mean by complex. What, specifically, do you mean? "It's perspective" is a spectacularly grand example of wharrgble, nonsense, a meaningless thoughtless phrase.
My perspective is that everything in the universe is simple in the sense that it all came from a few original elements and once it formed the rest of the heavier elements over time billions of years ago, it has since only rearranged them and will continue to do so according to the three quotes I posted in my last post.
Which still doesn't in the slightest tell us what you mean by "complex" since, by that definition, NOTHING EVER IN THE WHOLE OF EXISTENCE could EVER be complex. You've defined it, inadverdently I think, because you clearly didn't think it through, as something that doesn't and can't exist, as a nonsensical and nonexistant thing. Yet, and here's the interesting bit, you repeatedly admit it exists!
Quoting things you clearly don't understand doesn't bolster your case, it simply shows you've not a clue about the things you talk about.
And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body.
Demonstate exactly WHY that is relevant. Define "complex", connect the dots and show me why that quote demonstates there is no complexity. Be specific. I'll give you a start... you're wrong. Someof the elements in ahuman body come from other places that exploding stars. Be sure to include in your example why that is so, also, since it is easily and clearly proven wrong.
Nothing in this post here so far is scientifically false
Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about".
it is only my opinion that the information (sub-atomic matter including the original elements
What do you mean by "information"? Also, you have it exactly backwards. Elements include sub-atomic matter, not the other way around. That can go on the list of things you were scientifically wrong about.
I have been mentioning, has not become more complex itself, it has only rearranged. Look at apes and humans. Humans are more complex wouldn't you agree? I would say yes, except on a microscopic level I would say NO.
So things are not more complex, but they are? This is why you need to 1) get a good science education and 2) define what you mean by complex and information. You contradict yourself in one sentence.
Perspective has been the crux of our convo apparently. Complexity can be applied in more than one way as you acknowledged by asking me, "I would have to question how you are defining complexity."
The issue is that you have been wrong wrong wrong multiple times over and yet, despite that, insist that you are somehow right while refusing to explain what you mean. I didn't acknowledge anything, I asked what you meant and you have thus far refused to say. Of course the word "complexity" can have many meanings, only a fool would deny that.
Which makes me wonder why you will not say in what sense you mean it.
I think I see where we got off on the wrong foot on page one. You were talking about the very beginning before matter and molecules existed and I was talking about matter and molecules after they initially came into existence after the big bang and after helium and hydrogen were around before stars up until now...
They HAVE existed since AFTER the Big Bang. Prior to atomic formation there were just particles. Then atoms, then stars, molecules, etc... so on andso forth. By your very own offered evidence the universe started out with less complex form and now we have, according to you, MORE complex forms. I just wanted to retain your admission of you not understanding what you wrote several times over so that, when you once again didn't understand what you wrote, we would your own words showing you're not really grasping what you write. I would be sorry if that seems harsh, but I'm not. Once you decide to take up the mantle of science, it's a brutal and harsh world."
Ummm what did I say about hydrogen that was scientifically wrong?. We obviously were not on the same page in time of the universe. I never said that the first particles to come into existence right at the big bang didn't add complexity. I have been speaking from a post-bang perspective the whole time, nice try though.
“Also, you have it exactly backwards. Elements include sub-atomic matter, not the other way around. That can go on the list of things you were scientifically wrong about.”
A misread into my statement. I was not implying that elements make up sub atomic matter, i was mentioning elements specifically as well knowing they are composed of particular arrangements of particles because a mention of heavier elements coming into existence was previously brought up so i tagged it along for emphasis that I wasn't only concerned with particles yet more concerned with elements coming from stars. You took an unintended perspective on that one ;)
“Clearly you must mean "nothing is false other than the several things I have recently admitted to being wrong about".
I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true.
“Someof the elements in ahuman body come from other places that exploding stars.”
Which elements in our body aren't released from stars? I'm eager to learn so please enlighten me. See what I did there, with light in enlighten, in a science/philosophy thread about stars hehe.
I have been using the word information to mean the smallest building blocks of matter. In the analogy of humans to apes that would involve the components that make the building blocks of DNA, more specifically the atoms that make up each of the ACTG nucleotides. I felt I made it clear that two objects could be considered where one can be viewed as more complex MEANING "intricate" in capabilities or appearance than the other and yet they are identical on an atomic scale and atomically are not more complex or INTRICATE than the other in composition. There, I more clearly defined it and gave two "senses" in which "complexity" can be applied. I hope that answers your statement "Which makes me wonder why you will not say in what sense you mean it." Even though I feel I already established the senses in which I mean because I have already stated analogies of things being more complex in appearance or abilities but not more complex in atomic structure.
“So things are not more complex, but they are?”
Consider two snowflakes of the same mass where one has a simple shape and the other has an intricate shape, you could consider the more intricate shape to be more complex in appearance. However is that more intricate appearing snowflake more complex in atomic composition yes or no? If you say "no," as you should, then there is a simple example where something is more complex in one sense, but isn't more complex in another sense.
Another way to look at it is this: Lets say we take Viviane, we disassemble her by breaking off each atom one by one and discarded them. We then took the exact same amount and types of elements from the cosmos and brought it back and then reassembled her back to exactly who she was. She is more intricate/complex in visible appearance and abilities than individual atoms floating in space but she is not structurally on an atomic level any more complex because she consists of the same atoms whether assembled into a viviane or just floating in star dust. The atoms complexity is not affected. It's like comparing puzzle pieces before and after the puzzle is built. The complexity of the whole puzzle remains the same before and after you put it together in a fundamental sense so long as the puzzle is in a container. I like to view the universe since the formation of hydrogen as one giant dynamic puzzle in a container that's stretching out.
This thread is titled "science and philosophy" so its expected to contain abstract ideas and applications. I never claimed to be right as you say I insist that i do, i didn't, I also apologized where i am corrected to be wrong, because i'm here to learn and I'm not omniscient unfortunately and I hated science as a kid but enjoy learning it now. I also, now due to your close criticism of my statements (which i respect and appreciate), have been trying to make sure not to state anything scientifically false and I don't believe I have in the last two posts I made previously unless you can teach me what elements that compose the human body are not emitted by stars when I said, "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body." If i'm not wrong on that then everything else I said over the previous two posts falls under philosophy-perspective, and opinion :)
You were talking about the very beginning before matter and molecules existed and I was talking about matter and molecules after they initially came into existence after the big bang and after helium and hydrogen were around before stars up until now...
Wrong again on two counts. I wasn't talking about pre-Big Bang (since no one knows what was before) and helium didn't appear until after the first starts. Helium is formed in nuclear fusion inside of stars.
Ummm what did I say about hydrogen that was scientifically wrong?. We obviously were not on the same page in time of the universe. I never said that the first particles to come into existence right at the big bang didn't add complexity. I have been speaking from a post-bang perspective the whole time, nice try though.
That's exactly what you've been saying. Pretending anyone ever said anything about pre-Big Bang until you literally just decided to throw it in is either a monmumental lack of understanding of anything you've talked about or outright dishonesty. As you said, nice try, though. (And you said plenty wrong about hydrogen. If you want to know what, just re-read my posts).
A misread into my statement.
I literally quoted you. A misread was literally impossible. You were wrong, end of story.
I was refering to the scientific claims within that one post up until that point and that still holds true.
It is very true you havemade several false statement and admitted them yet, perversely, somehow claim you still know what you are talking about, all evidence to the contrary.
Which elements in our body aren't released from stars? I'm eager to learn so please enlighten me. See what I did there, with light in enlighten, in a science/philosophy thread about stars hehe.
Google and wikipedia would be an excellent first step. Coursera has some fantastic classes.
I have been using the word information to mean the smallest building blocks of matter.
OK. Explain how that is information. What does that mean and why, what are the implications?
I felt I made it clear that two objects could be considered where one can be viewed as more complex MEANING "intricate" in capabilities or appearance than the other and yet they are identical on an atomic scale and atomically are not more complex or INTRICATE than the other in composition.
But they aren't identical on atomic scale. Your analogy contains a self-nullifying contradcition. Either they are identical or they aren't. Which is it? Either way you just admitted that complexity exist, you just don't want to admit it.
There, I more clearly defined it and gave two "senses" in which "complexity" can be applied.
Not at all. One was a contradiction to itself and the other said "it exists but not really, sort of, but no.". You've still not said what it is.
However is that more intricate appearing snowflake more complex in atomic composition yes or no? If you say "no," as you should, then there is a simple example where something is more complex in one sense, but isn't more complex in another sense.
Why should I say no? Why does atomic composition enter into it? How do you know one is not more complex on an atomic scale (BTW, that questions admits there is complexity on an atomic scale, did you realise that?), how you know one is not either more or less complex on both scales?
You've still not given a definition by which one can measure intricacy (nice attempt to bait and switch, BTW) OR complexity, you've not defined why atomic structures enter into it once we are past the atomic scale, not said how you could ever show things are equal on an atomic scale and you've introduced a contradiction into your attempt at a definition (things are not the same in complexity but they are the same).
As it stands, you are all over the place and no closer to an answer. You've asserted a position and are telling people what they should say, but giving arguments full of holes and contradictions. You've all your work ahead of you.
The atoms complexity is not affected.
Things exist at larger scale than the atomic. In any event, some atoms are more complex than others.
This thread is titled "science and philosophy" so its expected to contain abstract ideas and applications.
Then you should expect your ideas to be scrutinized to the highest degree.
I also, now due to your close criticism of my statements (which i respect and appreciate), have been trying to make sure not to state anything scientifically false and I don't believe I have in the last two posts I made previously unless you can teach me what elements that compose the human body are not emitted by stars when I said, "And yes NDT's quote is relevant in that an exploding star creates ALL of the elements in a human body."
Literally 10 seconds with google will show you.
If i'm not wrong on that then everything else I said over the previous two posts falls under philosophy-perspective, and opinion :)
All opinion is not equal. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. And you were wrong on that.
