tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post114676864428245350..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Robotics & designRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1147352765924705262006-05-11T09:06:00.000-04:002006-05-11T09:06:00.000-04:00Amen, Brother Sokiko!Hallelujah!Amen, Brother Sokiko!<BR/><BR/>Hallelujah!nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146866763826779042006-05-05T18:06:00.000-04:002006-05-05T18:06:00.000-04:00I'm not giving up my faith no matter what the scie...I'm not giving up my faith no matter what the scientists discover!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146855813262064882006-05-05T15:03:00.000-04:002006-05-05T15:03:00.000-04:00A quick note on this rhubarb.:First, the singulari...A quick note on this rhubarb.:<BR/><BR/><I>First, the singularity is an artefact of inadequate mathematics to deal with quantum gravity, and it will "disappear" after we have the models necessary.</I><BR/><BR/>Translation: "we know what we're claiming now is wrong, but don't worry, 20 years from now we'll replace this with something right; trust us! During the interval believe our wrong model and abandon your faith."eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146848567846757302006-05-05T13:02:00.000-04:002006-05-05T13:02:00.000-04:00The present state of the universe, with space-time...<I>The present state of the universe, with space-time, is indeed a particular arrangement of matter and energy. My point was that in our present state, matter is in the form of atoms. My point was also that during and before the BB, matter did not exist in this state, so that, yes indeedy, energy and matter conversion is what gave rise to the present</I> universe.<BR/><BR/>This is simply the eternal universe theory. You’re dodging the issue. Where did it come from? Don’t evade the question, I covered the eternal material problem.<BR/><BR/><I>No. The universe is not temporally "eternal" because time itself is related to the existence of space-time, which is itself dated 13.7 Bya. However, matter and energy were not created at that point, but were converted to into the present state of the universe, space-time.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes Danny, we are aware that time came into existence with the BB, but as you posit the existence of some form of matter(and of course we never specified a form, merely that it existed and must be accounted for)existed when there was no BB, so the use of the term before would apply. The matter at the bottom of a gravity well is still matter, account for it. You’re playing semantic games. Offer some proof.<BR/><BR/><I>And yes, Einstein's equations do indeed posit the beginning of space-time.</I> <BR/><BR/>That’s not the BB. That’s a bait and switch. Einstein in fact rejected the compression of matter into a black hole, ie to a singularity. Nobody debates the start of space/time. The question is how? All you did was assume the BB. Again, I never mentioned E=MC/2 <BR/><BR/>I’ll skip the cyclic drivel, which is no more proven than that monkeys wrote Shakespeare. Don’t assume facts exist where they don’t. Dark matter, and the rest <B>are not proven, they are merely posited</B>. If you can prove them then do it! Show us your peer reviewed paper which show the <B>observation</B> of any of the items I mentioned. I’m aware there is literature which <B>claims</B> that they exist, but no observations!<BR/><BR/><I>Um, like what? I presuppose that I can trust my senses and my mind, and that matter/energy is all there is, because it was never created and cannot be destroyed. Everything else logically follows.</I> <BR/><BR/>I’ve just shown that it doesn’t logically follow, it must be assumed. A system which is built on ignoring evidence and manufacturing things to plug the leaks has little that logically follows. What logically follows is that it’s a bad system.eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146841289567278942006-05-05T11:01:00.000-04:002006-05-05T11:01:00.000-04:00Steve,I have decided not to address most of the po...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I have decided not to address most of the points in your post due to time constraints. Suffice it to say that anyone who discounts naturalism/materialism on the basis of how I argue it (or fail to) is already convinced it cannot explain such concepts as Steve questions. A few works on Physicalism that were reviewed on written by my <A HREF="" REL="nofollow">freethought group advisor</A> include:<BR/>1) <A HREF="http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1442" REL="nofollow">A Physicalist Manifesto</A><BR/>2) <A HREF="http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/phil/physicalismconf/papers/witmer.htm" REL="nofollow">How to Be A (Sort Of) A Priori Physicalist</A> (copy & paste this into Word to fix the text size)<BR/>3) <A HREF="http://consc.net/responses.html" REL="nofollow">Chalmers' work</A><BR/><BR/>To answer your question about numbers:<BR/>Do "numbers" exist other than as a concept? Do concepts exist other than inside minds? Do minds exist which do not supervene on the physical brain?<BR/><BR/>The object quantifications "1" and "pi" supervene on the physical/material entities which they describe (the latter, a ratio of the attributes of a physical object -- a circle)<BR/><BR/>What is your explanation for numbers? God <I>poofed</I> them, and there they were? Or they are eternally existent, since there is this "3-in-1" God?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, thanks for the petty barb about my admission that I am not a philosopher (and don't claim or try to be). What are you, in <I>real life</I>? I'm betting you're no philosopher either, from your posts. More of an armchair apologist and defender of Calvin, I'll bet. <BR/><BR/>Back to the object at hand -- I'll write on cosmology soon, and materialism, if time allows.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146826387835215102006-05-05T06:53:00.000-04:002006-05-05T06:53:00.000-04:00You might remember that my post was in response to...<B>You might remember that my post was in response to your assertion that energy formed the universe and not matter. But while energy can be converted to matter the reverse is true also. So you still have to account for the energy, and this offers no solution.</B><BR/>Um, I didn't claim that "energy formed the universe". The universe <I>is</I> matter and energy, and there is no reason to suppose that they <I>ever were created</I>, and the 1st Law neatly dispenses with your presupposition that they were.<BR/><BR/>The <I>present state</I> of the universe, with space-time, is indeed a particular arrangement of matter and energy. My point was that in our present state, matter is in the form of atoms. My point was also that during and before the BB, matter <I>did not exist in <B>this state</B></I>, so that, yes indeedy, energy and matter conversion is what gave rise to the present universe.<BR/><BR/>Nothing I said is above a bright 8th-grader's grasp. But, you quite clearly miss it:<BR/><B>If neither matter nor energy existed then it would have to be created from nothing if the materialist vision were true. </B><BR/><BR/>No. The universe is not temporally "eternal" because time itself is related to the existence of space-time, which is itself dated 13.7 Bya. However, matter and energy <I>were not created at that point</I>, but were <I>converted</I> to into the present state of the universe, space-time.<BR/><BR/>Are you getting it yet?<BR/><BR/>And yes, Einstein's equations <I>do indeed posit the beginning of space-time</I>. His self-professed greatest blunder (in which he really meant that he was not true to the science, and manipulated it) was the "cosmological constant" that he injected to attempt to correct for the beginning of space-time. Maybe you ought to go read Einstein before accusing me of being ignorant of good ol' E=mc2.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you ought to read <A HREF="http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf" REL="nofollow">a paper on the cyclic model</A>, which is indeed becoming mathematically modeled, and does not violate the 2nd LoT, because the 2nd LoT is a state function and all one must do is set the net entropy = 0 relative to an observer:<BR/><B>Steinhardt: In the new cyclic model, the entropy created during one cycle is diluted during the period of accelerated expansion, but is not draw together (i.e., remains dilute) during the contraction period. The total entropy of the universe as a whole increases steadily from bounce to bounce, as demanded by the second law of thermodynamics. However, the entropy from the previous cycle is spread to regions beyond the horizon during the period of dark energy domination. So, as far as a local observer is concerned, the entropy density and the total entropy within the horizon is driven to zero each cycle and the universe appears to begin afresh..</B> (<A HREF="http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/index.html#Tolman" REL="nofollow">source</A><BR/><BR/><B>In order to escape this observation and make their cosmology work materialist have theorized a host of unobserved material such as the oort cloud, dark matter, and positron regions.</B><BR/>I won't defend astronomers with the oort cloud, nor cosmologists with dark matter. I know that they have some indirect evidence of the Oort Cloud, just like in particle physics, where all evidence is indirect and arises from atom smashing. You've been reading too much AiG/ICR pseudoscience. With respect to cosmologists, I seriously expect some major changes to the Standard Model, especially the incorporation of M-theory and its subsequent mathematics, applied to resolve the long-standing problems of flatness, magnetic monopoles and horizon inflation. Read <A HREF="http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/osdark.pdf" REL="nofollow">Here for more on Dark Matter</A>.<BR/><BR/>Your statement here was rife with irony:<BR/><B>If you claim it’s eternal you would have to provide some reason to believe that; </B><BR/>I already did, doof -- the Law of Conservatioin. And what reason do you provide to believe your God is eternal? Right, it's presupposed and axiomatic.<BR/><BR/><B>The oscillating universe, which is the most common eternal existence theory, is nothing more than a unproven assertion.</B><BR/>I'd love to first hear your definition of "proof". I'd also love to see you talk to a <I>real</I> cosmologist about it. I'm going to start a thread on cosmology at DC, and address and review most of the strengths and weaknesses of the Standard Model and cyclic theories there.<BR/><BR/><B>I may presuppose a God, but you must presuppose a plethora of things. Such a worldview is hardly "simpler".</B><BR/>Um, like what? I presuppose that I can trust my senses and my mind, and that matter/energy is all there is, because it was never created and cannot be destroyed. Everything else logically follows. Hardly a "plethora"nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146809755614614922006-05-05T02:15:00.000-04:002006-05-05T02:15:00.000-04:00I'm not whoever you think I am. Nor do I have a pr...I'm not whoever you think I am. Nor do I have a problem with Einstein, and as relativity does not prove the BB anyway why bring him up? <I>Bones of Contention</I> deals with paleoanthropology and not cosmology, hence is irrelevant too. You might remember that my post was in response to your assertion that energy formed the universe and not matter. But while energy can be converted to matter the reverse is true also. So you still have to account for the energy, and this offers no solution. You might worry less about deflecting criticism by implying I’m whoever this person is that you seem to have a problem with and dealing with the issue at hand.<BR/>As energy can be converted to matter, and vice versa they are simply states. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with particle physicist. If neither matter nor energy existed then it would have to be created from nothing if the materialist vision were true. That would be ex nihilo(from nothing). If you claim it’s eternal you would have to provide some reason to believe that; other than the alternative's unpalatable to you. Just so stories won't get it. The reason material causes are assumed is philosophical, not scientific. Hawkings and Ellis admit as much when they wrote, "We cannot make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology". <I>Hawkings and Ellis, "The Large Scale Structure of Space and Time"</I> <BR/>Dawson's post is rather tepid, largely consisting of question begging and circular reasoning laced with unsupported polemic. Cosmology has no explanation for the origin of anything prior to the BB, and indeed claims that we cannot know anything prior to it. This makes the foundation of BB cosmologies unfalsifiable. As we are dealing with the question of the origin of the components of the universe his charge of false dichotomy rings quite hollow. If quantum mechanics is a function of a universe that did not exist prior to the BB you are left with a problem. If you want to claim that natural laws existed in lieu of the universe then give us a "rational" reason to believe that. You are back to assuming what materialist claim is not unsupported belief, or what you call superstition. Either you can demonstrate in a "rational" way the origin of the universe from the beginning or you can't, and of course you can't. The oscillating universe, which is the most common eternal existence theory, is nothing more than a unproven assertion. Most cosmologist believe that the universe left unchecked will simply suffer heat death, as its expansion is actually accelerating with no end in sight. In order to escape this observation and make their cosmology work materialist have theorized a host of unobserved material such as the oort cloud, dark matter, and positron regions.<BR/>Once again we see that materialist claims of “rationality” are rife with philosophical assumptions and holding others to a standard they do not observe themselves. I’m afraid I don’t have the faith for such convoluted thinking. I may presuppose a God, but you must presuppose a plethora of things. Such a worldview is hardly "simpler".eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146786792964047902006-05-04T19:53:00.000-04:002006-05-04T19:53:00.000-04:00Eklektos,Duane? Duane Ertle?Care to explain my er...Eklektos,<BR/><BR/>Duane? Duane Ertle?<BR/><BR/>Care to explain my error in more detail?<BR/><BR/>Are you the "Bones of Contention" Duane Ertle that pops up in CreationTalk long enough to make a dolt of himself by confusing velocity and acceleration? The one who claims that Einstein was wrong?<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>I'm going to start a post on DC soon about cosmology. In the meanwhile, check out Dawson's <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/05/basic-contra-theism.html" REL="nofollow">response</A> regarding <I>ex nihilo</I>-esque silliness.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Dnsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146773449821323592006-05-04T16:10:00.000-04:002006-05-04T16:10:00.000-04:00Well done Steve. I have been having a similar dis...Well done Steve. I have been having a similar discussion with an individual in a theology list. He is a theistic evolutionist because he also asserts that God is subject to the laws of nature. Thank you for your well reasoned response to naturalism; it has given me both encouragement and ammunition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1146773350820818082006-05-04T16:09:00.000-04:002006-05-04T16:09:00.000-04:00Danny didn't do science very well either if he can...Danny didn't do science very well either if he can't grasp the relationship between energy and matter. Guess those guys slamming photons into atoms were wasting their time...eklektoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08258828442369684175noreply@blogger.com