|
Author
|
Topic: There is no evolution or creationism - this is the new Matrix/DNA world view
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Jar
What is the theory?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Capt Stormfield
What is the theory?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Percy
The rational thing to do is trying to fell the phenomena intuitively, with yours mind, without trying to translate it to human languages And yet you are trying to translate it into human language despite your own doubts about the rationality of the attempt. Well, apparently your doubts were well-founded, since we cannot understand your translation from feeling into language. Nor does cause us to have the same feeling as you have. If you want to achieve that, try writing a poem, a kōan, an aphorism, or a really good joke: these are hit-and-miss methods, but they are occasionally effective. But your unmeaning jumble of scientific terminology just brings on the feeling that is usually brought on by reading an unmeaning jumble of scientific terminology.
After that, it is hand at work testing the theory against real facts and trying experiments that could prove or debunk the predictions from the theory. But how can anyone do that? If you cannot say what the theory is, how can anyone derive predictions from it?
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
Message 42 of 149 (762331)
07-11-2015 1:46 AM
|
|
|
Bring me the finest popcorn in all the land.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Dr Adequate
Well, you seem to be blaming me for your failure to communicate. And since I'm guessing no-one else in the world can understand you, that'll be their fault too. Or, you know, maybe it's yours. After all, you're the guy who's writing gibberish.
For easing yours way I am trying to use yours terminology ... I don't see how that's meant to help either of us. If you were talking to a golfer, would you try to convey your ideas by talking of nine irons and sand traps? If you don't want to use scientific terminology, I advise you to stop. That way you will not have the fatigue of writing, nor I of reading, your seemingly random assortments of scientific jargon.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Ringo
If we focus a human body as system, Physics and Math can see data and describing the system only at micro level of particles, nuclear reactions, and the bone skeleton. Physics applied at the coverture of the skeleton - the meat-soft level - would see merely clouds of colored gases like the recently images sent by Hubble and others about far away galaxies. The stomach, the liver, etc. would be merely different coloreds/composed clouds of gas. Uh, no. In physics, solids are regarded as solids, not as gasses. It is not normally necessary to explain this.
I will mention another phenomena where Physiscs and Math is not working well: quantum mechanics. Hoo, boy.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Cat Sci
Now let's see if Matrix/DNA is logical and who is a kook: 1) From the first cell or living being to humans, all them, are natural systems and their bodies were made by a unique common formula called DNA. 2) Atoms, stellar and galaxies are natural systems; 3) Conclusion: all natural systems, including atoms and astronomicals, must have in common a formula called "universal" DNA, or, better: The Matrix/DNA 1) Whales are all mammals and live in the sea. 2) Giraffes, yaks, and anteaters are mammals. 3) Conclusion: all mammals, including giraffes, yaks, and anteaters, must have in common that they all live in the sea. Nah, see, that's not logic.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Cat Sci
That conclusion does not logically follow. I think it is the Fallacy of Composition, or something similiar. I don't think there's even a name for this abomination against logic.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Dr Adequate
Of course, it is not logic, you have distorted my composition. No, I've merely imitated it. You argument goes: 1) Class X has properties P and Q. 2) Class Y has property P. 3) Therefore class Y has property Q. This is not logic.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: To Dr Adequate
Wrong distortion again. My first and second premises talks about things of same class: both are natural systems. There is no classes X and Y. Class X: "the first cell or living being to human" Class Y: "Atoms, stellar and galaxies" Property P: being "natural systems"
And my sample of formal logics is used in philosophy for building theoretical models, not for affirmation of something. That is why I said "must" and not therefore Oh, you said "conclusion" instead of "therefore". Well, that suddenly turns raving nonsense into "formal logics". Wait, no it doesn't.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 98 of 149 (763041)
07-19-2015 9:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
07-19-2015 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: To Dr Adequate
This is what all these guys has been trying to pound into my head for the past eight years. No.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by ICANT, posted 07-19-2015 4:49 PM | | ICANT has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
|
|
Message 138 of 149 (766444)
08-18-2015 12:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by NoNukes
08-12-2015 2:09 AM
|
|
Re: To Dr Adequate
In any event, a poker game has very little to do with math because everybody competent knows the relative probabilities. * contemplates this sentence in silent wonderment *
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2015 2:09 AM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
