In Reply to: Re: Creation vs. Evolution posted by Farmer on August 21, 2004 at 19:14:08:
Hi, all! Hi, Carol!
Carol--I really missed readng your posts!
My, you really are one of the most prolific posters on all of the exer boards--I've been away for awhile, and was just checking up!
Let's see--the "theory of everything"--if there ever was a weak hypothesis representative of bad science, that is it, to me; at least--just another attempt at constructing another set of clothes for the Emperor to pretend to wear, IMO.
Funny--the root word for "science" is the Latin "scientia", meaning "I KNOW"; not "I'm guessing...", or "I'm pretending to have philosophical certainty about X, because I'm intellectually superior, and I can pull it off with most people, by way of my credentials, and the bluff of "an ad bacculum argument" (that's an "appeal to [mere] authority [as opposed to real logic]" for you non-PhD's--Carol 'R' one).
(Wink! Wink ;)!)
That's not your current position, is it?
Be nice...let's avoid the ad hominems; OK? ;)
Farmer: Godel went nuts for awhile, similar to John Marsh (movie: A Beautiful Mind)--his purely mathematical attempt at a "proof for God" was quite fascinating--Renee Des Cartes' verbal construct of "...je pense, donc je suis..." ("I think therefore I am") was, I surmise, Des Cartes' bid to become a professor at the Catholic-run Sorbonne, by presenting his "inescapable logical proof for God" in his 6 Meditations.
Both ran against the point of view of Immanuel Kant (and Solomon, IMO: Q:"Can a man by searching [mine: i.e. without revelation knowledge]find out God?" A: NO!).
Kant said that if one posited an infinite God, one must also posit an infinite universe created by that same infinite God. He also posited that God must reach out to man, and that man could not, by any means, attain to the knowledge of God by himself.
My point(s):
-No need for a Big Bang
-(that weak hypothesis has to posit a "singularity" with attributes equal to a fully theistic deity, whose existence its own fabrication is fully set to define out of the possibility of existence throught the acceptance of false premises about the nature of science as a philosophical discipline).
-an infinite univere would have no center, a finite, expanding one would, and
----------AT THIS POINT---------------------!!!
Modern man, or more philosophically accurate, "post-modern" humanity must assume something never previously accepted logically; the idea that chaos, plus time, plus chance, has not only creative power, which it cannot, but that this creative power is indiscernible by any common experiment of mere chemistry or physics, and even vitiates against what every physicist calls "entropic doom": that is, that every reaction tends eventually to randomness and disoder.
In other words, within rationalist/materialist atheism (or pseudo-deistic rationalism, for that matter), we must believe, without any evidence whatsoever, even experiential (or common sense), that an upwardly-organizing force exists, although neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, and all structure must eventually be lost, and all energy dissipated.
SO, all you ACTUAL mathematicians and physicists out there, not the ones just BLUFFING with non-applicable degrees--B.S. (Bull S__t), M.S. (More of the Same), or even PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper):
Our dear Des Cartes once watched a fly fly. Around a room; that is. It landed several places. He looked up in the corner of the room, and it dawned on him that, with equal hash marks, he could mathematically describe the fly's various locations three-dimensionally with equal hash marks.
Zoom ahead to a French mathematician named Fourier--he figured out, similarly, that any random line, drawn on a two-dimensional X-Y graph (Cartesian--Renee Des Cartes--remember High School Math?)could be expressed by a finite number of a combination of sine plus cosine curves.
OK--now project that (math constructs called "Fourier transforms" transformable to 3-D topography/tomography, etc.) out to three dimensions, and try to imagine describing the positions of smaller and smaller objects within that theoretical grid--past a certain smallness, you run into the positional problem, when you're trying to record the actual position of actually measured subatomic particles, that they start to "occupy" fields of probability of position, so-to-speak, rather than the "position" describeed by the non-quantized, and therefore limited 3-D Cartesian model.
That's where what are called Bose-Einstein equations come in.
If you have not ACTUALLY DONE THOSE, you are not in a position to disagree with this:
In the equation of E=MC"squared", "C" is "Velocity". Light (Yes, I know, as well as other radially-propogated electromagnetically generated waves of energy/subatomic particles), measured at ~186K LY/Sec, existing in photon packets, with both wave and mass properties, strikes electrons in their shell levels/orbits and has a measurable and predictable effect.
"C" is how fast over how much distance.
Distance over time. Over time.
A false premise over time remains a false premise. Over time.
Vanishing probability (mathematicians define this as "one in one times ten to the negative fiftyith power") over time remains vanishing probability. Over time.
Reductio absurdam argument...you get the point.
"Chance" is a function of probability. Nothing more. Over time, that cannot change. Adding the proposition "by" to say "by chance" does not change the nature of chance.
Ergo, the following statement becomes meaningless:
"Some of the most advanced theories in mathematics & physics suggest that even chance has a regularity & order like everything else we observe in nature. So chance is not really the random event it appears to be, and we see through the glass darkly."
Question:
I'll bite--what makes the "theories (I'd even challenge that--how about a "weak hypotheses"?)
supposedly advanced; their tendency to obfuscation and wordiness? And what the heck kind of a logical construct is "...chance is not really the random event it appears to be...".
Carol--I thought you were trying to ESCAPE silly dogmatic, unreasonable, religious-sounding silliness? Hmmm. I guess you get to construct your own?
"Chaos theory" is such complete crap--it made Jurassic Park a so-so sci-fi movie---bo-ring! Jeff Goldblum--what a putz!
I thought that the big guy that played Seifeld's nemesis did a better acting job, getting done in by the goo-spitting dinosaur!
Well, gotta go! Got to go see the Pain Managment doctor--got some spinal damage that needs some attention--the last fluoroscopy/steroid injections didn't take. Todat I may find out if I get regular fusion surgery for some disc rupture I did last February--I've had a lot of really weird neuro symptoms, along with serious pain. I hate opiods; they dull the brain so.
Say a prayer for me? Thanks!
Love you all--especially you, Carol; believe it or not! :)