Do you beileve in evolution? Why or why not?

[El_Machinae]

You claim that you understand what created the universe?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Does he?

XCL

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a well-established fact that a conversation with Punkbass will result in you answering questions at a rate of 3:1. I find it really funny when he does it to someone else.

 

[Perfection]

It doesn't have to be. It is internally consistent to think that 'something' created the infinitely complex universe that we live in, and create it such that humans would result. There is an infinite amount of information for scientists to discover, just to keep you happy.

We don't need that. We already know that there are an incredible investigative lines to work on. Infinite really seems to give no practical value. Also you're asserting a fact (infinite complexity) without scientific reason.

The only real conclusions they have about God (that you don't) is that a) He's greater than the universe (much like a painter can create an internally-consistent painting), b) He's sentient and c) He cares. And you kinda have a)

In what way do I have A?

You have to admit that 'something' created the Universe, something that you don't understand.

Not really. I will admit I don't understand the origin of the universe that well, but there seems no reason (other than some competing scientific thoeries) to believe that time itself simply began at the big bang, and all notions of before the big bang being time dependant are meaningless.

Faithful people merely assume that this 'something' has attributes that make is greater than what you assume it to be.

not true, I don't imply the existance of said something.

If the faithful say "God created a universe that allowed abiogenesis", the scientists (faithful and non-faithful) can look at evidence for the "how". But science can never answer the "why". If the non-faithful say "Something created a universe that allowed abiogenesis", everyone can still answer "how", but not "why".

Why can only be investiaged in terms of relative morality, and is innately unscinetific (though in common usage I should note that why and how are often used interchangeably).

 

[El_Machinae]

Also you're asserting a fact (infinite complexity) without scientific reason.

It's reasonable, since any measurement can be infinitely accurate. Unless you think that the 'final result' of any measurement can be expressed as a formula. (Along similar lines, pi is an infinitely complex number, but I believe it can be expressed as a formula with finite limits).

Basically, I think that the memory needed to 'express' the universe as a formula cannot be condensed into a formula smaller than the universe itself.

I will admit I don't understand the origin of the universe that well

Do you think that the cause of the Big Bang is knowable? With 100% confidence?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why can only be investiaged in terms of relative morality, and is innately unscientific

Exactly. However, the question 'why does the universe exist' is still a valid question before mankind began - all it needs is an independent observer. The religious person merely holds that the answer to the 'why' is the same for every observer.

 

[Perfection]

It's reasonable, since any measurement can be infinitely accurate.

No it can't. Heisenberg uncertainty principle prevents it.

Do you think that the cause of the Big Bang is knowable? With 100% confidence?

I don't think a cause is neccesary.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just because a measurement cannot be made does not mean that an absolute does not exist.

In fact, by coding in all the variable predictions (due to uncertainty), you've increased the complexity of the formula.

You may not be able to predict with 100% accuracy where a discrete photon will land, but that does not change the fact that it will land in a discrete place. Hence, it's infinitely complex.

PS: why is a cause not necessary? I've said before, there is theory that humans could create their own Big Bang (which would result in a unique universe). So, there MIGHT be a cause for ours, by extrapolation. So, again, is the cause of our Big Bang knowable? Can you even know if it was caused? (not if it needed to be, but if it was?)

 

[Perfection]

Just because a measurement cannot be made does not mean that an absolute does not exist.

Doesn't mean it does

In fact, by coding in all the variable predictions (due to uncertainty), you've increased the complexity of the formula.

You may not be able to predict with 100% accuracy where a discrete photon will land, but that does not change the fact that it will land in a discrete place. Hence, it's infinitely complex.

And you of course can back up this fact with experimental evidence? You're trying to apply common sense about classical physics to quantum physics which often doesn't work.

PS: why is a cause not necessary? I've said before, there is theory that humans could create their own Big Bang (which would result in a unique universe). So, there MIGHT be a cause for ours, by extrapolation. So, again, is the cause of our Big Bang knowable? Can you even know if it was caused? (not if it needed to be, but if it was?)

Well, it depends which scientific thoery you subscribe to. Some clain time occured before the big bang others assert it does not. Those that assert it does not have time beforehand do not need a cause.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It's a well-established fact that a conversation with Punkbass will result in you answering questions at a rate of 3:1. I find it really funny when he does it to someone else.

Does what?

 

[El_Machinae]

Those that assert it does not have time beforehand do not need a cause

Can you prove this theory? A theory might be right, you know. There is an absolute answer to the question "did something cause the universe?".

I understand that there are theories that say that there isn't, but can you prove those?

And you of course can back up this fact with experimental evidence? You're trying to apply common sense about classical physics to quantum physics which often doesn't work.

Can you predict that a discrete photons leaving a star will hit my eye? No, because the variables (at the time of departure) are too large to accurately predict the photons location after 10,000 light years. However, this does not change the fact that a discrete photon from a star hits my eye.

The result of the action (photon leaving the star) is more accurate than what's predictable by the Uncertainty Principal.

Edit: the yes/no question of 'will this photon hit a human eye?' cannot be answered when the photon leaves the star (uncertainty). But the question has an answer.

 

[Bill3000]

(Along similar lines, pi is an infinitely complex number, but I believe it can be expressed as a formula with finite limits).

Impossible, well, not in the normal case. What we use for formulas is a series of polynomials - for example, taylor expansions. Other than obviously polynomial,s special functions, such as even relatively simple ones such as sin(x), ln(x), and e^x, are all infinite[/u] expansions, e.g. there is no limit. Pi is a Transcendental number, which means that it is impossible to make it a solution of a non-zero polynomial equation with integer or rational coefficients.

Just because a measurement cannot be made does not mean that an absolute does not exist.

That is hidden variable theory, the fact that a measurement exists whether or not an actual measurement is taken, which most interpretations of quantum mechanics and modern science in general does not allow at the quantum level. Ergo, it is meaningless to state whether a measurement exists if it is not actually measured.

Edit: the yes/no question of 'will this photon hit a human eye?' cannot be answered when the photon leaves the star (uncertainty). But the question has an answer.

But "Will the photon hit a human eye?" is not a matter of complete certainty. You're giving a range (the width of a human eye) where there is error - you're not asking for the actual exact position where the photon is hitting. If you try to measure that, then there are uncertaincies - in this case, if you try to measure the position where it exactly hits your eye, you cannot measure the momentum of said photon with any certainty.

 

[El_Machinae]

Pi is a Transcendental number, which means that it is impossible to make it a solution of a non-zero polynomial equation with integer or rational coefficients.

Ah, my mistake. So ... is there a finite formula that's used to generate the infinite formula that's used to generate pi?

 

[El_Machinae]

Ergo, it is meaningless to state whether a measurement exists if it is not actually measured

Hmmmn, I see what you're saying. My point is that there IS a true measurement, because the result of that event is measurable. We just cannot pierce it.

Regardless, my point for those statements is that the universe is infinitely complex. The potential truth of my statement doesn't change the position that some things aren't 'knowable' even if they have a cause.

 

[Bill3000]

Hmmmn, I see what you're saying. My point is that there IS a true measurement, because the result of that event is measurable. We just cannot pierce it.

The problem here is that quantum mechanics predicts that if two systems are completely identical, regardless of how accurate it is, there will be necessary variability. Let me quote Wikipedia, it's probably better to explain it concisely:

Quantum mechanics is nondeterministic, meaning that it generally does not predict the outcome of any measurement with certainty. Instead, it merely tells us what the probabilities of the outcomes are. This leads to the strange situation where measurements of a certain property done on two identical systems can give different answers. The question naturally arises whether there might be some deeper reality hidden beneath quantum mechanics, to be described by a more fundamental theory that can always predict the outcome of each measurement with certainty. An analogy exists with opinion polling: it is not that opinions are indefinite, but only if a reasonable sample of the population has been polled does one expect the poll results, as statistics, to be in line with the trend in the population at large.

In other words, quantum mechanics as it stands might be an incomplete description of reality. Some physicists maintain that underlying this level of indeterminacy there is an objective foundation. Such a theory is called a hidden variable theory. Most believe, however, that there is no deeper reality in quantum mechanics — that, indeed, experiments have shown hidden variables to be incompatible with observations.

Last sentence bolded - There are experiements which can show that there are no hidden variables, that there is no exact answer underlying the uncertaincy.

Regardless, my point for those statements is that the universe is infinitely complex. The potential truth of my statement doesn't change the position that some things aren't 'knowable' even if they have a cause.

Define what you mean by "infinitely complex." That would mean that there are no building blocks to the universe, because a system with fundamental building blockswould be finitely complex. Subatomic particles exist, and while there might be string theory which says that said subatomic particles are not the last level of complexity, that doesn't solve the question on whether or not the universe is infinitely complex.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Ah, my mistake. So ... is there a finite formula that's used to generate the infinite formula that's used to generate pi?

I took a programming course where I covered this last year.
Pi = 16*arctan(1/5) - 4*arctan(1/239). The formula is from 1709 by John Machin.

arctan(1/5) can be calculated as [ 1/(5) - 1/(3*5&#179 + 1/(5*5^5) - 1/(7*5^7) + 1/(9*5^9) ... ]
arctan (1/239) has a similar formula.

Carl Størmer found a more efficient one in 1896.
Suggest you simply view the pdf file for the exercise. It's in Norwegian, but the mathematical symbols are universal.


Of course, another and possibly simpler formula is pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 ... but it approaches pi very very slowly.

 

[El_Machinae]

But "Will the photon hit a human eye?" is not a matter of complete certainty

But does it have a discrete answer? Either the photon landed withing the 'barriers' of the eye (which aren't exactly known) or it didn't. Either way, a photon can miss an eye completely, and that's what I'm talking about. The fact of a hit/miss is not measurable.

 

[punkbass2000]

You claim that you understand what created the universe?

I'm sorry, I what?

 

[punkbass2000]

It's a well-established fact that a conversation with Punkbass will result in you answering questions at a rate of 3:1. I find it really funny when he does it to someone else.

Hey, it's not nice to make fun of me just because I'm slow and don't understand all these words people are always throwing at me.

 

[punkbass2000]

Does what?

You know, sooner or later you're going to have to realize and accept that you're one of my favourite posters and deal with it just like the rest of them.