Posts by Coded Logic

10

Self assembly chairs & evolution

by suavojr in

jw
friends

i'm no expert and do not claim to be in regards to how evolution works but this small test did make think how all things are related and have evolved from one common ancestor.

the horrible example that i grew up hearing about a watch not being able to assemble itself or plane after a tornado, etc... dawkins would say, "well of course not" but mit seems to be on the path to make us think twice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnj1spfo4ek.

Coded Logic

Cool concept. But this is a very - very - poor analog for evolution. Evolution doesn't have an "endgame."

88

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries in

first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?

does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

Coded Logic

they have come up with an experiment that will test whether we live in a holographic simulation
- MisterP

Umm, not quite. The Holometer can only falsify the holographic hypothesis. It can't verify it.

A good analogy for this would be if you were wondering if a coffee can had quarters in it. If you shook the coffee can and you didn't hear anything rattling around - you would know there were no quarters in the coffee can. However, if you did you hear something rattling around, you would only know that there was something in the coffee can. You wouldn't know it was quarters. The rattling could be pennies, dimes, nickels, nuts, bolts, keys, etc.

The same is true of the Holometer. If they don't detect fluctuations at the planck scale - then we will know the holographic universe is not real. But if we do detect fluctuations at the planck scale - then all their work is ahead of them. Because these fluctuations are also consistent with other competing hypothesis - like the Matrix degrees of freedom in M theory.

"Even if it turns out that the mysterious noise is the same at high frequencies as at the lower ones, this will not constitute proof for Hogan’s hypothesis (holographic universe). It would, however, provide a strong motivation for further study."

- Press Office: Max Planck Institute for Gravitation Physics

28

"Scientist Discover Atheists Might Not Exist..." "This is not a Joke!"

by JWCart in

crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.

i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!

will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?

Coded Logic

Wow, well this is going to be a bit embarrassing for you Abaither but it's actually you who are the one who's not "really" meditating. I know the bliss of you speak of. But that's a very superficial and surface level form of meditation. Real meditation goes much - much - deeper. You're like a novice chess player who just learned the Queens Gambit running around claiming to be a chess master. You've barely scratched the surface.

You claim that you've reached delta waves. How do you know this? Were you hooked up to an EEG at the time? If so, what were the circumstances?

88

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries in

first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?

does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

Coded Logic

.

Hey Fisherman,

1) define "nothing" in this matter.

"Nothing" is a lack of something.

Is it a concept or a value?

Both.

2) define "something" also as it applies to this substance.

"Something" are things which are measurable/demonstrable/verifiable/etc or that are in principle able to be measured/demonstrated/verified/etc.

Question: does 0 Eels = 0 Eggs

Yes, they are equal. If you put zero eels into a box and you put zero eggs into a box the two box's will be identical.

its change is always a "universe" or form having the same components (space time,energy, matter and different laws)

We don't know if "nothing" will always create a universe with space/time, energy, etc. There could be an infinite amount of combinations of different systems - some existing as other universes and others being things that would go well beyond our conception of what we would ever think to label as a "universe". This idea, once again, is the Multiverse. There could be infinite universes.

Or, the opposite could be true. Systems always seek to get to the lowest energy state possible. It's quite plausible that our universe is the only possible outcome of "nothing" because our universe is the process of any given system as it tries to reach zero entropy. Who knows.

And the truth is we don't yet know the origins of our universe. But, for the first time in human history, we are able to start asking the right questions.

This is one of my all time favorite videos. I think it does a great job of putting our knowledge about our universe into perspective. I think you'll really enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaMM2lAo2C8

28

"Scientist Discover Atheists Might Not Exist..." "This is not a Joke!"

by JWCart in

crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.

i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!

will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?

Coded Logic

@ abiather,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Firstly, I think you know perfectly well that when atheist say they "don't see God" they're not talking about literal sight. They're referring to a lack of evidence and/or justification for a God. And, frankly, I feel it's more than a bit juvenile that you're attempt to poison the well of discussion with such a literalistic and pedantic response.

In regards to meditation and delta waves, I know how to meditate (I've been doing so since I was thirteen on a daily bases) and I have never experienced God. Furthermore, I know a lot of people who also meditate and they've never experienced God either. More importantly, delta waves are detectable by Electroencephalograms. And they've never detected God either.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think it's outright silly that you're claiming to be a God detector. What you're doing is taking the amazing experience of deep meditation and you're just trying to slap the label of "God" on it. Even more telling, is that you use language like, "This is the experience of all those who know how to meditate." It's transparently obvious that you're attempting to claim you have access to information which most other people don't. Not only is that sentiment not true, you're statement also isn't true. As I've already pointed out, there are lots of people who are capable of switching off the inner voice and experiencing deep meditation - but they don't claim to experience God.

We can address your position in terms of formal logic:

Premise 1.) I meditate.

Premise 2.) While meditating, I move into delta frequency.

Conclusion: I experience God.

Expressed as a syllogism, it's very easy to see that your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Delta waves are a part of the natural world. They are experienced by both believers and non-believers. Experiencing delta waves only proves that you're experiencing delta waves. It not proof of - or even suggestive of - experiencing a God.

15

Stop Writing People Off

by Coded Logic in

if you choose to enter into a discussion on this site and you don't have the time, or patience, or are just too damn lazy to defend your position on any given topic that is perfectly fine.

i'm not going to bash you over the head about it.

however, please don't tell me that i'm "wasting my time" or that the person i'm trying to convince, "will never learn.

Coded Logic

If you choose to enter into a discussion on this site and you don't have the time, or patience, or are just too damn lazy to defend your position on any given topic that is PERFECTLY FINE. I'm not going to bash you over the head about it. However, please don't TELL ME that I'm "wasting my time" or that the person I'm trying to convince, "will never learn." or that some creationist/believer/whatever "Is just too stupid to get it."

We don't change peoples minds by dismissing bad ideas. We change minds by defeating bad ideas.

Yes, I know, it takes work. It takes research. Sometimes you have to spend a whole hour breaking down one assertion that the other party just made up off the top of their head. But the great thing about this site is that it saves your work. Once you've addressed that bad idea you now have instant access to it. If it ever comes up again in another forum or in everyday speech you now have a resource you can go directly to for a rebuttal.

Also, when two parties have conflicting ideas both people think their right. And they're both going to continue to think they're right until they have a reason to change their mind. Just dismissing the other person's argument out of hand is not going to get them anywhere closer to the truth - and it's not going to get you any closer to the truth. Go out, find reliable sources that support your position. Go out and get the evidence you "know" exists and bring it into the discussion so everyone can see. And if you can't find reliable sources for your position and/or you can't find the evidence you "know" exists - then consider you may not be on as firm footing as you thought. Everyone is wrong from time to time. But it's only by reason and evidence that we ever realize it.

Most importantly, people change their minds in private. It is extremely rare that you are going to find an individual that is going to admit they were wrong on a public forum. Sometimes it's because of pride. Sometimes it's because it just takes a while to process the information. And, even if you don't change the mind of the person who disagrees with you, there's a good chance someone else reading in the thread may change their mind. But that can ONLY happen if you're willing to do the necessary work and give them reasons to do so.

Once again, if you don't have the time to do that - fine. No problem. But PLEASE, stop writing people off. And stop telling those of us who ARE willing to make and effort - and ARE willing to do the leg work - that we're "wasting our time." If the people on this site were incapable of changing their minds they wouldn't be here in the first place. They'd be sitting in a KH sucking down the WTBTS cool aid.

88

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries in

first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?

does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

Coded Logic

Hey Fisherman, thanks for the follow up questions. I'll try to answer them to the best of my abilities.

I think that what you are saying is that laws do not govern the conduct of the universe but that laws explain or describe its behavior mathematically.

I think that sums up what I was saying very nicely.

Second, regarding the dynamics of how the universe was formed. It seems to me that the universe was not formed randomly, that it contained information.

I don't think "information" is the right word. The formation of our universe had structure and order. It's important to remember though, that such labels are entirely circular - as we define "structure" and "order" by things we observe in our universe. Another way of putting it would be, "the formation of the early universe had properties of the universe." I don't think this will come as a surprise to anyone.

Perhaps a more informative answer to your question would be that "random" (at least in the context that you're using the word) does not exist within our universe. Everything about our universe can be expressed in relation to probabilities. I think this short video might help you out a bit (so long as you understand "quantum randomness" means uncertainty and does NOT mean "anything goes" or "without order"):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIWobQh9WI

Given the big bang, again and again, and again. Would the universe we know today always form with the same relationships.

I don't know. But there are many scientist looking to either verify or falsify this exact question. It's called the Multiverse.

I am sure that you believe that space is something physical because it exist and it can be measured. Even if space could exist empty and void of anything at all. It still would not be considered nothing. Given the big bang theory, space did not always exist in the form it takes as part of the universe today but it was formed as a product of the big bang.

All empty space has both positive and negative energy in it. Or, as Lawrence Krauss always likes to say, "Empty space weighs something." Without that energy, you can't have space/time. Thus you can't have empty space without having quantum fluctuations or stable energy. And if it didn't have that in it - it wouldn't exist.

I cannot understand how the universe could come out of nothing. Something had to change.

"Something" didn't change. But nothing did. It became more complicated.

Also, in regards to the link you provided from Vixra Log - I thought I should let you know that article operates on a premise that is fundamentally flawed. The author makes the statment:

I am going to . . . dispute the claim that the energy of the universe is zero only when it is flat. It is a very strange statement from a cosmologists because it is more commonly said that the total energy of the universe is zero for a closed universe, i.e. for positive curvature, not flat space.

His entire position is based on a Straw Man Argument. We don't know the universe is flat because it has zero energy. Rather, we know the universe is flat because we've directly measured the structure of the CMB using the WMAP probe. And it's by seeing that the universe is flat that we've determined that it has zero energy. (This finding was also later corroborated by the Planck spacecraft)

To put this in perspective, his argument is like saying, "You're trying to say (some object) is a trout because you confirmed it's a fish. Just because it's a fish doesn't mean it's a trout." When, in fact, the opposite was true and you had confirmed that the object was a trout - and by knowing that it was a trout you were able to determine that it was a fish. His argument just doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Furthermore, we've also independently confirmed the total sum energy of the universe is zero using the gravitational lensing around galactic clusters to "weigh" the universe.

28

"Scientist Discover Atheists Might Not Exist..." "This is not a Joke!"

by JWCart in

crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.

i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!

will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?

Coded Logic

How can atheist say somebody who cannot be subjected to physical senses does not exist while trusting only their PHYSICAL senses?
- abiather

I don't know of any prominent atheist who holds this view. How do YOU know a God wouldn't be subject to the physical senses?

28

"Scientist Discover Atheists Might Not Exist..." "This is not a Joke!"

by JWCart in

crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.

i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!

will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?

Coded Logic

Alright abiather, as you seem so extraordinarily confident in your position I'll offer you a simple challenge. If you were the man you describe - a man who senses do not work - how would you tell the difference between standing next to an atheist and standing next to no one?

If you senses didn't work, how could you possibly make ANY claims about the world around you?

88

First law of thermodynamics vs God vs Big Bang

by EndofMysteries in

first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.

how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?

does it make one make more sense then the other to you?

Coded Logic

Please correct my thinking but what is being taught (so that dummies like myself can understand) is that the universe is a/ the product of a reaction, one of the elements of the reaction is energy and the energy was neutralized in the resulting universe.
- Fisherman

I have absolutely no idea where you're getting that idea from. The big bang is the furthest back we can see. We don't know if there was a "before the big bang" because all the evidence seems to indicate that time started WITH the big bang. And, as causality is necessarily temporal - it makes no sense to have prior "causes".

If this is hard to follow let me give you some basic cognitive tools. Things which "exist" are embedded in spacetime and are, in principle, measurable. Things that don't exist, are not. Something that "exists" for zero seconds - or that is fundamentally undetectable - are identical to things that don't exist.

We can't claim that God exists and then turn around and say, "He's undetectable and exists outside of space/time." That is, by its very definition, non-existence. And, when you talk about "invisible qualities", that's EXACTLY what you're doing. You are putting him in the same category as leprechauns and fairies. If you have no way of detecting something there is no way to know it is real.

One other point, the "dynamics of the formation of the universe" (i.e. physics) are descriptive. Not proscriptive. They are mathematical tools that describe how energy and space/time interact. They are abstractions we use to quantify our universe. But they don't exist as an intrinsic part of the universe.

A lot of people have a hard time understanding this so I'll give a simple analogy. The laws of the universe are like the top speed of your car. It is a property of the physical limitations of your engine and gearing system. We could describe this speed as a law - the Law of Fisherman's Top Car Speed.

Whereas the speed limit - how fast you should go - is a prescriptive law. It is determined by a body of individuals about how fast you should go. Not how fast you can go.

The laws individuals prescribe can be broken. Even so called "God's Laws" can be broken - because they too are prescriptive. However, physical laws CANNOT be broken. Because they are not prescribed.