Ziggy:
1) infinite flux/change. Flux/change is hard to quantify. Something moves an inch but it moved an infite amount of times to mave an inch. Is that what you mean?
2) constant observation or perception. By whom? Us? Then it's subjective and thus not constant.
This is the essence.
1) It cannot be quantified, think what your experience is.
Have you ever, under any circumstances, repeated an experience?
If each moment is unique, it therefore; is infinite flux.
Pure math/logic. You already experience the infinite flow, it is a tautology.
2) The observation has never changed, it has always been the 'you' that has perceived reality, from every memory.
If you get this part, you get the heart of the hypothesis.
warpus:
beingofone
No; you asked for tests, plural. I gave you one that demonstrates properties of the universe.
Does the universe have the properties of intelligence and design?
No, it doesn't look like it was created by an intelligent agent to me, if that's what you're asking.
Warpus:
And I still don't see what my particular intelligence has to do with this. Please explain.
I DO NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN - YOU NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE QUESTION?
HERE IS THE QUESTION I HAVE ASKED YOU OVER AND OVER:
Does the universe have the properties of intelligence and design?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT ANSWERING A QUESTION MEANS?
I must suppose it is a hearing problem because how you can continue to dance around a question is a skill of deception that has reached an altitude of dishonesty not previously known.
Erik Mesoy:
beingofone, can you not understand that the foogle wurpy engfeh?!? Gematria shows it very clearly.
Do you understand you have never had the same meal?
How hard is that to understand?
Incidentally, as for your theoretical physics job, I entered university when I was 15. Enough with the e-penis length contest already.
You dense head - my intelligence was being questioned, not my argument.
Get it right - I was not ego flexing, I was saying I am not an idiot.
Veritass:
BeingOfOne, by expressing yourself in undefined and poorly-defined terms, and by constantly darting about without following one line of thinking, you actually do a disservice to your cause, which as near as I can tell, is to help people see the incredible beauty, intelligence, and order in the universe.
That is because one person says "you are an idiot." Another says"explain the theory" and yet someone else "stick to biology."
I personally get great joy in reading the mystics and trying to expand my view of the universe to include the Divine, but attacking evolution doesn't help this cause.
Nothing can stop what must be.
Other posters have tried to help you sort out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
I know the difference - they are intrinsically linked, regardless the hyperbole.
If you wish to challenge one or the other, please try to be clear which one you are referring to, and what your argument is. It would be most helpful if you would present a post with a single argument against one of these, and we can use that as a basis for discussion. Something phrased as an argument would be best, not "...but look at this?" or "...but what about this?"
I did; scroll back.
It was not countered, just ridiculed with double standards of belief systems.
If you wish to challenge an extremely-substantiated theory such as evolution, you must tell us which parts of it you disagree with, and at least some thinking (preferably evidence) as to why you disagree. Again, from your previous posts, you seem to believe that species do evolve, but not to the point where they create new species. Other posters have presented evidence from the insect world where speciation has been shown to have happened. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
Species mutation is not the same thing as a brand new phylum.
To me, it makes perfect sense that we can observe evolution most easily in species that reproduce the fastest (recombine DNA most often). Now that we can watch evolution at the gene level, it becomes a simple experiment to prove that genetic shift occurs, and not much more of an experiment to prove that enough genetic shift can result in speciation. In the past, we had to rely on physical characteristics to try to identify speciation, which was less precise to be sure.
Then it logically follows that it can be duplicated in a lab.
Its easy to talk about how it can be done - do it - and back up all the claims. That is what I am saying. Otherwise, it is blind belief.
Einstein shocked the world with the paradigm of E = Mc2. Strike a single match and it becomes self evident.
Actually, striking a match merely transforms chemical energy into heat energy; it does not really convert matter to energy.
You missed the point. All and everything is energy at different states of velocity, understand?
beingofone:
It demonstrated that energy is mass.... An omnipresent energetic substructure interpenetrating everything and in fact is everything.
Veritass
Non Sequitur: energy is mass, but the "structure" you speak of is not implied by this.
How does it not follow?
If the Totality is in a constant state of spin/flux, how is it not the substructure?
Again: "cause and effect" do not imply infinite divisibility. Infinite divisibility does not imply unity ("exceed[ing] duality").
Then you just contradicted what you just said in the above. If cause and effect is not divisible, it therefore, is seemless.
You are making my point.
beingofone:
This universe that you experience is much too vibrant to be limited to cause and effect as if it were mechanical.
Veritass:
I agree with you here, but there is no objective evidence for this.
There is objective evidence - it is irrefutable in the above two quotes.
beingofone:
This begs the question - what is observing cause and effect? I am not that which is not conscious; I know which knows not. I am aware of cause and effect and naught exists for me unless I know it.
Veritass:
The ultimate non sequitur: none of this begs the question of consciousness. Consciousness may or may not exist, may exist in a number of different forms, and may have nothing to do with matter and energy.
How does it not follow?
You just restated my question in your own words and then called it a "ultimate non sequitur".
The rest of your arguments all stem from an assumed relationship between your consciousness, God consciousness, and the universe of matter and energy. While I personally agree that there is a relationship, the relationship is ill-defined at best, and is ultimately unprovable.
No; the argument is, that the universe is not possible without consciousness.
beingofone:
It is clarified with one simple question; Has anyone ever recalled the moment they became conscious or has anyone ever witnessed the event?
Veritass:
Nothing is clarified by this question or its answer.
Then answer the question and prove it is not clarified. You simply avoided the question and pronounced it irrelevant. That is not proof, it is evasion, answer the question.
beingofone:
To examine the universe all one must do is investigate their very own consciousness. We have a number of good reasons for sticking to the formulations of determinism that arise most naturally out of physics as our consciousness is part of physics.
Veritass:
You could make the point that we cannot truly examine the universe because we cannot get outside of it.
That is like saying "you cannot experience your life because you cannot live outside of it."
However, there is no substance to the argument that "...to examine the universe all one must do is investigate their very own consciousness." Mystics throughout the centuries have tried to explain that God is found within, and that universe can be explored by exploring your consciousness. However, this explanation has nothing to do with understanding and modeling the physical universe we live in. You are collapsing the term "universe" to mean two different things.
No; I am combining the universe into non dualism.
beingofone:
Your consciousness is the energy of the universe and therefore can never be destroyed and has existed as long as the universe.
Veritass:
There is no evidence that consciousness is composed of matter or energy.
The point is; if consciousness is energy, it therefore, is the substructure.
If consciousness transcends energy, it therefore, is the substructure.
Either way the argument goes, it proves the fabric is the same thing. The reason is, you cannot have the universe without consciousness.
beingofone:
Your consciousness, as it is an infinite fractal loop that is the universe.
Veritass:
Quoted for lack of meaning.
A fractal is a 'whole' no matter how many times it is divided. A loop is a constant.
beingofone:
Before the human race came into existence, before consciousness on earth evolved, what do you think existed?
Veritass:
I think a universe that was expanding and cooling, followed by a spark of life, an evolution of form, and a growing self-awareness that we call consciousness. What do you think existed? The Socratic method only goes so far: please supply some answers as well as asking the hard questions.
Can you tell me when you came into being? If you cannot answer this simple question, you are making assumptions of the universe as beginning before a perceiver. It must be held in the mind as a concept and separated all at the same time. That is; it must be the universe and not, all at the same time.
It is not possible to separate the observer from the universe, it is a single perception of the universe ascertaining its point of reference or velocity/position.
The self evident answer is "I have no recollection of having a beginning, it is and has been a process." This is true in all possible worlds.
We can conclude, without a single assumption, we have no discernable beginning. After this irriducable conclusion, the reader may compare this fact with a universe that is impossible without consciousness.
Aligning these two components of reality, we can conclude that consciousness is intrinsic and the absence of separation appears.
Reality is not a concept - it is the absence of separation. I not -I is a concept and results in polarity. If the I not -I merge, the concept evaporates. When concepts are absent the infinite field appears and is manifest.
To sum it up; the universe begins at the same moment it is perceived.
beingofone:
3-Your consciousness is carrying out at this moment the hypertask of transcendance.
Veritass:
Quoted for lack of meaning.
Really; has your experience ever paused?
Your hypothesis remains unproven. There is a school of philosophy that says that the universe only exists in your consciousness of it, but you have not really made this case. I still don't know what you mean by "infinite fractal loop that is the universe."
Show me a universe that you do not perceive and disprove the hypothesis.
Atlas14:
Seriously, I do not know how many times I must repeat this. I bet you are an awesome physicist and all, very brilliant, but if you are not going to discuss the topic at hand, or even relate your posts to evolution/biology, then you should probably simply stop posting things that merely interest you.
Thank you for the kind words(were they sincere?) - LOL.
Post #109 on page 6.
I am trying to say, biology does not explain the very result of what it is trying to underpin.
Evolution is true, but only in degrees, it is not an absolute and neither can be.
Adamb0mb:
First define Physicalism.
The term physicalism was coined by Otto Neurath.
It basically means materialism. There are no kinds of things other than physical things.
1. Knowledge of all physical truths does not entail knowledge of all phenomenal truths (there is an "epistemic gap").
I would say: Knowledge of all physical truths does not entail knowledge of all truths
but no one is saying the opposite is true (knowledge of all the physical = all knowledge). In fact Physicists (not physicalismacists or whatever) say that you can't even know all the physical truths (uncertainty principle).
So that is a strawman.
Oh yes; the explanation is that the brain is the source of consciousness and can be explained in only physical terms. This is clearly the Red Herring that needs to be addressed and biology alone has no explanation of its 'territory'.
It claims to be able to explain life while excluding the experience of it. That does not hold water.
Bluemofia:
beingofone:
Why should we begin the study of an imaginary life form when we have plenty right here?
Bluemofia:
Because our life is not the only possible combination? Your assumption is based on the only life that can develop is ours.
That is fine; as long as you allow for it being based on your very own reckognition that ID is allowable under the same falsification.
Yeah, but irreducible complexity has been evolved with computer programs knowing only how to self replicate to begin with. Avida
The resolving of the complexity is in knowing what can determine self-replication.
Because Cows and Frogs have seperated far far down the lineage, we would not see any forms of half-cow half-frog. If we did, then that would mean Evolution is wrong, and the species do not evolve, but randomly change on occasions.
So species cannot evolve beyond certain parameters in order for evolution to be true?
How is that cohesive?
Seperate. The first cells got Mitochondria endosymbiotes, then that diverged into plants and animals when some of them got Chloroplast endosymbiotes.
So then; plants and animals evolved in distinct and separate lineage of mutation at different periods of history?
It then follows, abiogenesis was universal rather than a single event. If this is not true my original question remains unaswered.
This one:
The second fallacy is the gap that separates vegetable and animal life. One deoxidizes and accumulates, the other oxidizes and expends. The animal never, in its simplest forms, assumes the functions of the plant. This gap can be filled up only by an appeal to our ignorance. Lacking one undeniable example of this bridging, this theory, is again, appealing to something other than common sense .
A rose, is a rose, is a rose. A=A.
Read the stuff you posted. You can't see a fruit fly turn into a butterfly for a number of reasons. They diverged early on, and one doesn't evolve into another; they evolve down their own paths. Second, as mentioned before, Evolution is not what you do on your lunch break, and it takes a very long time to accomplish. Third, you don't seem to understand that small changes add up.
And you missed my point; if this is true it is equally true of ID
I expected more from you, though.
