Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Constraints of Design
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 76 of 84 (483937)
09-25-2008 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid
09-24-2008 11:14 AM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Having responded to your Message 73, I want to get this topic back on track and return to some of the questions posed in the OP.
In particular, I want to dig a bit deeper in to the claim you made in Message 60, that your god “is all knowing. So He knew all design knowledge.”
In my dictionary, knowledge is defined as, “understanding of or information about a subject which has been obtained by experience or study”.
This begs the question, where did your god obtain its knowledge from? What experiences did it draw upon? What sources were available for it to study?
I keep coming back to this point, but it’s important. When we examine a human design, we can deduce a great deal about the knowledge (or limitations of) that were prevalent at the time of the design. By examining designs from the past, we can tell a very great deal about the technological knowledge that existed at the time of each design. Furthermore, we can make deductions about the way people lived at various times in the past by examining the technologies and designs they employed.
Finally, we can trace the evolution of designs back through history and see how new discoveries of knowledge led to modifications in design. In short, examination of design through the ages gives us a good insight into the development of human knowledge during that time.
So I repeat my question to you. What are you able to deduce about your god, based upon the design you claim to observe within nature?
To date all you have offered is the assertion that your god is “all knowing” and imagined a design for the universe, without any reference to the context against which any of this occurred.
Human design does not happen in isolation. It is an integral part of the environment in which it occurs. It draws upon knowledge gained from observing the universe in which it occurs. It is constrained by the properties of the energy, forces, processes and matter with which it has to work.
If you insist that your god formulated an idea in its head, without experience of or access to pre-existing knowledge of similar environments or designs, then please desist in making comparisons between what you claim and what we can clearly observe to be human design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-24-2008 11:14 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 77 of 84 (484012)
09-25-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
09-24-2008 1:02 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
What "design"? What "infinite" force?
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
I guess you don't undertand design? Please read... Design
Designs have a purpose....Something that appears to have a purpose would be suggestive of design....
wiki writes:
In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese. The fine tuning of the universe is positive evidence for design. Now I realze that you can argue against this, but it is still positive evidence and not an argument against anything.
Again, what design?
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...
So far, I would say that you are making the assertions, and you aren't looking too good...
I have backed up my claims....
Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it? That is what the BBT says isn't it? But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
wiki writes:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. BBT
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
wiki on singularity writes:
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite.
BBT doesn't imply that something was created from nothing does it? No, BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
We don't.
I think we do.
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc2 does not stand for matter...
No the m stands for mass, which all matter has. And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
So where may I ask is the rubbish? Please be specific this time, and try and type more that just a few comments. Arguments have premises. You haven't created any yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 09-24-2008 1:02 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 7:25 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 09-25-2008 7:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 80 by onifre, posted 09-26-2008 10:28 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 81 by dogrelata, posted 09-26-2008 1:41 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 78 of 84 (484023)
09-25-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
Gravity is not an 'infinite' force - this is a meaningless statement. Curvature (all usual measures, though interestingly not Weyl) increases without bound as one approaches T=0 in a FRW universe (Big bang cosmology)
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions. While you're at it, where would this purpose show itself in the equations of General Relativity? Where would this purpose affect the metric exactly? Could we detect this purpose by detecting abberations from GR?
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese.
Yes, and you brought up the AP which is rather odd as it speaks directly against design (other than in its stronger versions, which are assertions, and not evidence.)
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions.
I have backed up my claims....
Sorry, I must have missed them
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it?
Perhaps a claim of your layman books... we would say it is a possibility.
But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
And? That would be a result of the infinite energy density And of course this is a purely classical claim...
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
No, why would it?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
Which measure of the gravitational field? R, RR, RR, CC? And more importantly, so what? How does this imply that
Gravity, therefore is a non-material infinite power source that science recognizes must have existed at the beginning
BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
No. That's like saying the Earth was created by something cold because it is cold at the North Pole. The initial singularity is just one point in the Universe - it is not a point of "creation".
If science can reason a non-material infinite power source
I think we do.
what have YOU to do with science?
AOkid writes:
We know for a fact that matter and energy are interchangeable.
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts.
And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
Ah, so you are retracting your previous claim? Or do you really think that this substantiates it Matter is not created from energy whatever your layman guide of the day states. Time to up the quality of your reading material... perhaps a bit of study, then come back?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-29-2008 1:05 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 79 of 84 (484027)
09-25-2008 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
quote:
What "design"? What "infinite" force?
The infinite force is gravity as I clearly stated.
How is gravity infinite?
I guess you don't undertand design? Please read... Design
Designs have a purpose....Something that appears to have a purpose would be suggestive of design....
quote:
wiki writes:
In philosophy, the abstract noun "design" refers to a pattern with a purpose. Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that gravity is purposeless and randomness?
I would argue that gravity is one of the fundamental foces of the Universe, and as such has no more purpose than the color cyan (color, of course, being an expression of one of the other four fundamental forces of the Universe - electromagnetism). If your definition of the word "purpose" is so inclusive as to include gravity and color, I would question what precisely you would say does not have a purpose.
quote:
What are you talking about? We use the AP to demonstrate the *lack* of design in fundemental "constants".
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese. The fine tuning of the universe is positive evidence for design. Now I realze that you can argue against this, but it is still positive evidence and not an argument against anything.
The Universe is not finely tuned. It simply exists. Life is finely tuned to fit the Universe. You are a puddle who is foolishly insisting that the pothole it rests in must have been designed specifically for it, because it fits so well.
quote:
Again, what design?
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
What purpose? How did you determine that the mind and consciousness have a purpose, as opposed to simply being emergent properties of our brains?
Or are you using that same definition of purpose that applies to everything? Again, I'd question what you would not define as designed.
quote:
I'd say it's your collection of assertions and basic misconceptions regarding the Univeres. Not looking too good...
So far, I would say that you are making the assertions, and you aren't looking too good...
I have backed up my claims....
cavediver is a physicist. When a physicist says you don't understand physics, it might be a good time to check yourself before you are revealed to be an idiot. Just a warning.
quote:
Complete rubbish. Infinite energy density (if it existed) does not imply infinite energy nor infinite "power".
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it? That is what the BBT says isn't it? But it is not just infinite energy density is it? Doesn't BBT also claim infinite temperature?
The infinities implicated at T=0 are what we call a "singularity," and are the very reason we say that our understanding of physics breaks down at that point.
quote:
wiki writes:
Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. BBT
And wouldn't infinite temperature imply infinite energy or power?
No. In the case of the Big Bang, it is a finite amount of mass/energy contained in an infinitely small volume. Density is mass divided by volume; if volume is equal to 0, then even a single gram of mass would have infinite density. That doesn't mean there is infinite mass.
You're speculating based on far too little understanding of physics, and the results are not tied to reality. Energy cannot be infinite because of the Laws of Thermodynamics - there is not currently an infinite amount of energy, and matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so your concept of the implications of the Big Bang violates one of the best-tested laws in all of science (as matter/energy would need to be destroyed to result in finite matter/energy from infinite matter/energy). Do you really think physicists would so obviously contradict themseves?
And the singularity which is the BB, doesn't it imply that the gravitational field was infinite in magnitude...?
Don't be silly. The density of matter does not imply an infinitely strong gravitational field. Take for example a micro-black hole created by the LHC. If it was made by the collision of two protons, what would the mass of the black hole be? The same as the starting mass - that of two protons. Its gravitational field would be the same as that generated by two protons. Its event horizon would (as I understand it) be smaller than a single Planck length. At such a scale the gravity generated by the black hole would be insufficient to overpower the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces holding together the matter around it.
Similarly, if our Sun was to collapse into a black hole tomorrow (impossible, but it still serves as a demonstration), the gravitational pull of the resulting black hole would be the same - gravity is a function of mass, and no mass has been gained. The Sun would now be much smaller and more dense, and light approaching too closely would be unable to escape, but the same stable orbits would remain for the Earth and other planets.
Black holes are not what they are shown to be on television.
quote:
wiki on singularity writes:
A gravitational singularity (sometimes spacetime singularity) is, approximately, a place where quantities which are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite.
Because the mass density approaches the infinite. Again, this is because the original stellar mass is now compressed into a near-infinitely small volume. The total gravitational effect of a black hole is no greater than the mass of teh matter that comprises it.
BBT doesn't imply that something was created from nothing does it? No, BBT implies that the unverse was created from something. That something involved infinite temperatures, infinite density, and infinite magnitude of gravity didn't it?
The Big Bang doesn't say anything about how the Universe was created. It's a model of teh expansion of the Unvierse with the observation that the spacial dimensions of height, width and length all approach 0 as time approaches 0. This has a number of consequences, such as increasing mass/energy density approaching T=0. It says nothing about how the Universe itself came to exist. The Big Bang model has nothing to say regarding any sort of "before" T=0 in exactly the same way a cartographer has nothing to say regarding anything farther North than the North Pole.
quote:
No, they are not. They are entirely different concepts. The m in e=mc2 does not stand for matter...
No the m stands for mass, which all matter has. And matter can be created from energy.... ask NASA
Energy has mass as well. And "created" is a very poor choice of words. "Converted from" is a much more accurate choice. Matter and energy are equivalent. It's all the same "stuff" in different forms, much like ice and water vapor are all water in different phases.
So where may I ask is the rubbish? Please be specific this time, and try and type more that just a few comments. Arguments have premises. You haven't created any yet.
I've noted several of your misunderstandings. I'm certain cavediver will do more. Your understanding of physics is relatively weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 84 (484087)
09-26-2008 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
AOKid writes:
And that is a reasonable scientific hypothesis,
Yes, I think we recall you saying that, however, it is not an infinite force so you're just making an assertion about gravity based off of your limited knowledge about physics, hence cavedivers question "What infinite force?". Just because you repeated your original answer, didn't make your answer any clearer.
I would argue that gravity seems to have a purpose in the universe.
Gravity is the effect caused by mass density, what purpose does it have? Please explain further...
I was asked for positive evidence of design in the univese. The fine tuning of the universe is positive evidence for design.
This is what you determine to be evidence for design, this is your subjective interpretation from a limited PoV, and not evidence in a scientific sense.
As I said in the other thread, your knowledge of physics is lacking a bit. Lets let cavediver school you for a while. I'll hang on the sidelines and watch you work your physics magic.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
dogrelata
Member (Idle past 5312 days)
Posts: 201
From: Scotland
Joined: 08-04-2006


Message 81 of 84 (484099)
09-26-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid
09-25-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
Apologies for butting into an exchange between others, but this caught my eye:-
AlphaOmegakid writes:
I guess you don't undertand design? Please read... Design
Interesting link. Especially as it contains this definition of design:-
Wikipedia writes:
Dino Dini states that the design process can be defined as "The management of constraints".
Which seems a little at odds with what you were arguing in Message 60 when referring to your god:-
AlphaOmegakid writes:
His power is unconstrained. Infinite.
So you offer us a definition of design that acknowledges the process as "The management of constraints", yet when you claim to see design in nature, that leads you to conclude your supposed designer’s “power is unconstrained. Infinite”. Would you like to clarify this apparent lack of consistency?
Before closing, this also caught me eye:-
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Designs have a purpose....Something that appears to have a purpose would be suggestive of design....
Let’s see what happens if we retain the sentiment but change a couple of the words.
Zebras have four legs . Something that appears to have four legs would be suggestive of a zebra. .
That doesn’t really work for me. How about for you?
Edited by dogrelata, : Tidying up link to previous message

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-25-2008 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 82 of 84 (484557)
09-29-2008 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by cavediver
09-25-2008 7:25 PM


Re: Prediction falsified!
All quotes from cavediver:
Gravity is not an 'infinite' force - this is a meaningless statement. Curvature (all usual measures, though interestingly not Weyl) increases without bound as one approaches T=0 in a FRW universe (Big bang cosmology)
Actually you are just asserting that it is meaningless without anything but your words to back it up. The fact is that however you descibe gravity (a force, a fundamental particle, a curvature of space time) they all can be described as "meaningless" , because no one on this earth can difinitively describe what gravity is. It is a fundamental force. And that has meaning. It is the curvature of spacetime. And that has meaning. It may be the accumulative effect of fundamental particles. And that has meaning. But even with your supposed great physics wisdon, you cannot absolutely define what gravity is. It defies your ability to accurately describe it without observable anomalies and discrepancies.
The claim I am arguing is two-fold.
1. Gravity is non-matterial. It is not matter.
2. Gravity has been reasoned by science to be infinite in the singularity of the BBT.
Now, let's see you wiggle your words around these two statements, and they are not assertions
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions. While you're at it, where would this purpose show itself in the equations of General Relativity? Where would this purpose affect the metric exactly? Could we detect this purpose by detecting abberations from GR?
Oh and I guess you would consider equations as empirical scientific evidence. Equations, all of them are reasoned arguments. That's all. Equations yield the infinities at the BB. Your equations aren't evidence of anything. They are logic and reasoning.
In regards to the purpose of the fundamental force, purpose is a matter of reasoning about evidence. The empirical evidence of gravity is well documented throughout the cosmos.
wiki writes:
Purpose serves to change the state of conditions in a given environment, usually to one with a perceived better set of conditions or parameters from the previous state.
The question is does gravity appear to change the state of conditions in a given environment to one with a better set of conditions or parameters from a previous state? When a star forms, is this just a random purposeless event of nature or does gravity change the state of matter to a better one? When earth formed, was this puposeless and random or did gravity change the state of matter to one of disorder to one of order. These are teleological arguments based on empirical evidence. They are logic just like equations are logic.
Yes, and you brought up the AP which is rather odd as it speaks directly against design (other than in its stronger versions, which are assertions, and not evidence.)
Again, this is a red herring. Positive evidence is positive evidence. Arguments on AP are not evidence of anything.
In reference to the mind and consciousness, I would again argue that the mind and consciousness appear to have a purpose in the universe. Would you argue that the mind is purposless and randomness?
I would say that you should go find some evidence to support your argument, rather than making assertions.
You wrote the sentence above didn't you? That is the evidence. Now did you have a purpose in writing it, or did your mind just act with purposeleness and randomness. My reasoning says that your non-material thoughts (information) have a pupose.
I have backed up my claims....
Sorry, I must have missed them
Sorry, that's the definition of ignorance.
"if it existed" Well this is the claim of main stream science isn't it?
Perhaps a claim of your layman books... we would say it is a possibility.
I don't really care about what "we" would say. The field of science has reasoned that gravity was infinite in the singularity of the BB. You cannot legitimately deny and run from that statement.
And? That would be a result of the infinite energy density And of course this is a purely classical claim...
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702113v3.pdf
Based on scientific grounds, one can hardly accept the possibility of a physical object transforming into a mathematical abstraction (a point) and vice versa. The existence of singularities necessarily implies infinite gravity and, hence, the availability of an infinite amount of energy from finite sources. If a singularity is a point (in the mathematical sense) then the universe, born from a singularity, must have passed from non-existence to existence, which violates the conservation principle.
What is highlighted in yellow is part of the BBT.
Which measure of the gravitational field? R, RR, RR, CC?
More red herring questions.
what have YOU to do with science?
About 23 years worth now.
Matter is not created from energy whatever your layman guide of the day states.
More assertions. Back it up with citations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by cavediver, posted 09-25-2008 7:25 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2008 1:23 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 83 of 84 (484561)
09-29-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid
09-29-2008 1:05 PM


No more AoKid
Please do not post to this thread any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-29-2008 1:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 09-29-2008 4:34 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 84 of 84 (484577)
09-29-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by AdminNosy
09-29-2008 1:23 PM


Re: No more AoKid
I am not trying to argue this suspension, but can I ask why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by AdminNosy, posted 09-29-2008 1:23 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024