Thought Experiment 1: Let us assume that there is a teacher or professor who has 50 students in a given class. The teacher/professor would like to give test/examination to the class with questionnaire, having 100 questions. The teacher/professor will surely explain to the students that the passing score is, say, 70 scores, and the perfect score is 100 scores. As you can see, that the teacher/professor is asking the students to make two solutions, one for passing score and one is for perfect score, in one given exam (problem). From this, we can derive intelligence.
No, the teacher asked the students to make 100 solutions. Each question is a potential solution or not. Whether or not they get 70 of 100 correct is an arbitrary threshold already set by the teacher, a design (intelligent) choice that (presumably) tells their grade. Your other threshold for the students makes no sense as an determination of intelligence.
I certainly haven't used the word "intelligence" incorrectly. If you think I have, you're welcome to give the reasons you think so.
The biological cell is obviously not "designed." Look at the prokaryotes and the eukaryotes. Eukaryotic cells developed (naturally) as prokaryotic cells took other prokaryotic cells as internal organelles such as mitochondria, chloroplasts and, of course the nucleus of the eukaryotic cell itself.
As for your claims that evolution is wrong: (1) the living organisms around you reproduce by the usual means (bacteria divide, hawks lay eggs, cats give birth) that we are familiar with (2) living organisms have been doing this for millions and billions of years (3) living organisms on the planet in past times, say ten million or a hundred million or a billion years ago, were very different from the ones we see around us today (4) the living organisms alive today are descended from those earlier living organisms (5) therefore living organisms must have evolved.
To prove that you’d have to assume both a finite past and that each cause takes a minimum amount of time to produce its effect.
My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise.
Now when you use the word "time" in this context, you have to be careful. Since the beginning of our universe (which is granted so far) is the beginning of time in our experience. In context of anything outside our universe, you must be meaning something else that has similar properties to "time". I referred to it as a "temporal" something. But I am willing to use the term "time" to refer to whatever this property outside the universe would be.
So that said, the amount of time it would take for a cause to produce an effect is irrelevant as long as it is not zero. Are you are suggesting a cause and its effect are both created at the same instant?
I'm pretty sure that Tangle's point was that logic by itself is insufficient.
But that is not what he said. He said: "Logic is of no use". That is a very different meaning than 'insufficient'. I agree that logic alone is insufficient. But it is a necessary part. And 'maths' is based on logic. So at the very least, his statement was a self-contradiction.
Of course, it is possible. That often happens in mathematical models.
But mathematical models do not always represent realities. They are always conceptual.
So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?
This statement is breathtakingly bad. You do realize that there is no math without logic.
Oh, please. Tell me, what's logical about quantum theory? By logic here I'm meaning our ability to simply think philosophically about a problem and hope to solve it. The universe is not something that makes normal, logical sense.
Not really. Just seeing if y'all can think. Figure out why a causal chain going backwards in some temporal chain infinitely is not logically possible. Use your maths.
Fuck off, if you have a point to make, make it.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
quote:My challenge was specifically not assuming a finite past, in fact I explicitly stated otherwise.
That was not in the post I replied to, but that hardly makes it better for you. Given an infinite past, an infinite chain of cause and effect is not only possible, it seems to be very likely.
quote:Now when you use the word "time" in this context, you have to be careful. Since the beginning of our universe (which is granted so far) is the beginning of time in our experience. In context of anything outside our universe, you must be meaning something else that has similar properties to "time". I referred to it as a "temporal" something. But I am willing to use the term "time" to refer to whatever this property outside the universe would be.
Again, that doesn’t really matter for my point - since I am arguing that you are wrong even if past time is finite.
quote:So that said, the amount of time it would take for a cause to produce an effect is irrelevant as long as it is not zero. Are you are suggesting a cause and its effect are both created at the same instant?
I am not arguing that that is the case - indeed since I am arguing from mathematics, the time can be greater than zero and the argument still works (which is why I specified a minimum time rather than arguing that the time must be greater than zero). The integral calculus only works because adding an infinite number of terms - each greater than zero - can have a finite value. (That is first year stuff for university mathematics).
However, in a similar discussion I have seen someone arguing that our universe was created assert that cause and effect can be simultaneous. Indeed, unless you assume that there was a time - or “temporal something” before our universe that assumption is necessary to claim that our universe DID have a cause.
And of course it is a logical - and scientific - possibility that there was no time preceding our universe. It therefore seems that you must concede that it is possible that our universe did not have a cause.
quote:So to help y'all along. Can anyone show an actualized infinity?
Logic and mathematics are clearly not your strong point.
First, a lack of empirical observation of something that cannot be directly observed is not even good evidence - let alone a logical proof.
Second if you admit the possibility of an infinite past you accept that an actualised infinity may exist.
Third for any continuous quantity any finite portion of that quantity can be infinitely subdivided. Therefore unless space is quantised, any length is an actualised infinity and unless time is quantised any duration is an actualised infinity.