Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 76 of 318 (479626)
08-28-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
08-28-2008 1:06 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
But I am an advocate of creationism, and anticipation theory is just a tool for that. You just have to drop your hostility towards theories about freedom as a whole, for many reasons, the most important being that it is just not safe to be like that. You don't know how important knowledge about freedom is for people, but it could be very important. So take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 08-28-2008 1:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2008 9:59 AM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 77 of 318 (479660)
08-29-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Syamsu
08-28-2008 7:45 PM


message 69 please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 08-28-2008 7:45 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 78 of 318 (479669)
08-29-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Syamsu
08-28-2008 8:01 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
But I am an advocate of creationism, and anticipation theory is just a tool for that.
Are you saying that you do not actually care whether anticipation theory can be shown to be true or false? That you will advocate it anyway because it supports your wider beliefs?
You just have to drop your hostility towards theories about freedom as a whole, for many reasons, the most important being that it is just not safe to be like that.
Are you saying that it is unsafe to oppose theories that are false?
Surely it is more dangerous to prescribe to false theories than to oppose them?
If the theory is demonstrably wrong then it should expect to be treated with contempt. If the theory is demonstrably wrong then it's advocates should expect to be either educated or treated with disdain. It seems obvious to me that anticipation theory as you have described it is demonstrably false. You have been completely unable to refute any of the problems that have been pointed out to you and utterly unwilling to answer any of the questions posed.
You don't know how important knowledge about freedom is for people, but it could be very important
It could be very important. Or it could be complete rubbish that is worthy of no further consideration. How do you know it has any value at all? How will we know unless we analyse and ultimately scientifically test the theory?
So take care
I can only conclude from your complete refusal to even contemplate the idea of scientifically testing anticipation theory, on simple physical systems, that you have so little practical faith in it's ability to pass such tests that you would rather remain ignorant of such results on the basis that an untested theory that potentially supports your irrational world view is better than definite results that in all likelihood would force you to question the legitimacy of your irrational world view.
You are using anticipation theory in a flawed attempt to prop up your irrational beliefs and don't want to even consider the prospect of any hard evidence that might require those beliefs to be questioned or challenged. That pretty much sums up the entire ID/creationist position.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Syamsu, posted 08-28-2008 8:01 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2008 3:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 79 of 318 (479698)
08-29-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
08-29-2008 9:59 AM


Re: Scientific Theory?
If freedom is correct then you are making choices, and at the end of a choice there is a judgement. Again I fail to comprehend your opposition to what is known by direct experience, common knowledge, religion, science, courts of law etc. Your hostility is what, from some ideal for perfect knowledge. No it isnt based on that, it is unexplainable, incomprehensible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2008 9:59 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2008 4:57 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 80 of 318 (479702)
08-29-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by mark24
08-28-2008 7:02 PM


Meaning the decision is instantaneous over the distance, but the transfer of energy limited by the speed of light. The peculiar perihilion of mercury is described by general relativity before. As mentioned before, im unsure whether it is predicted in terms of probability, which is translated to freedom in anticipation theory, or that anticipation sets the same limit as described by general relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by mark24, posted 08-28-2008 7:02 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 08-29-2008 5:44 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 318 (479703)
08-29-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Syamsu
08-29-2008 3:53 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
If freedom is correct then you are making choices, and at the end of a choice there is a judgement.
I, and you, are indeed making choices and judgements. However your exptrapolation of this ability to choose and judge to planets, rocks, electrons, tables, chairs, telephones, cardboard boxes and all other inanimate objects despite all of the predictive evidence to the contrary not only defies all scientifc understanding it also defies the same common sense "knowledge" on which you seem to be basing your flawed argument.
Again I fail to comprehend your opposition to what is known by direct experience, common knowledge, religion, science, courts of law etc.
Is it really the case that direct human experience, common knowledge, religion, science and law all point to the free expression of cardboard boxes????????
Your hostility is what, from some ideal for perfect knowledge
Any "hostility" is borne of the frustration at your ongoing determination to present blatantly stupid and deeply flawed arguments whilst continually maintaining that evertyone who does not agree with your nonsensical view is somehow biased against a perfectly reasonable theory.
No it isnt based on that, it is unexplainable, incomprehensible.
There is nothing here that is incomprehensible or unexplaianable. There is only a theory that you do not wish to be comprehended, explained or tested for fear that it will be shown to be the obvious nonsense that it quite evidently is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2008 3:53 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2008 5:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 82 of 318 (479707)
08-29-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
08-29-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
Tell me, if it was forbidden to you by your professor to make theory about desire, emotions, love, beauty etc. because it violates the rule that science may not speak about what ought and ought not. Then if you had cleaned up your objective view this way from subjective opinion, would you then still be hostile to knowledge about freedom.
If I said your life has less value then a particular rock, then ok maybe I should go to jail, or to a psychiatric institution, fair enough, but i wont have it to be accused of being unscientific for that. I sense you are using science to prop up your valueing of human beings. It explains your reference to desire, and your hostility. The evidence for freedom being plentiful, that cant be the reason.
Edited by Syamsu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 08-29-2008 4:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 08-29-2008 6:25 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2008 2:52 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 83 of 318 (479710)
08-29-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Syamsu
08-29-2008 4:31 PM


Syamsu,
You said:
syamsu writes:
It seems to me the instantaneous propagation requires decisions
But when I ask what an "instantaneous propagation" is, you said:
syamsu writes:
Meaning the decision is instantaneous over the distance, but the transfer of energy limited by the speed of light
That's circular reasoning. You have to assume your conclusion in order to accept your premises. Of course "instantaneous propagation" requires decisions in your view, you have defined it as requiring decisions.
So, what you need to demonstrate is whether the orbit of Mercury displays "instantaneous propagation". Is this testable?
The peculiar perihilion of mercury is described by general relativity before.
Exactly, it follows known laws of physics, it "appears" to be constrained by them, it doesn't do anything but obey those laws. How can you possibly claim decisions are being made that infer freedom when exactly the opposite of freedom is evident?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2008 4:31 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 08-30-2008 4:50 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 08-30-2008 11:41 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 84 of 318 (479717)
08-29-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Syamsu
08-29-2008 5:04 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
Hi, Syamsu.
Syamsu writes:
Tell me, if it was forbidden to you by your professor to make theory about desire, emotions, love, beauty etc. because it violates the rule that science may not speak about what ought and ought not.
Can we just assume, for the time being, that there is no grand scientific conspiracy against everything that you, personally, hold dear in the world? Please? None of your opponents is assuming that your and Edwina's entire intent with this anticipation theory is just to ruin our world view, so why can't you at least extend the same courtesy to us?
Syamsu writes:
I sense you are using science to prop up your valueing of human beings.
Are you saying that scientific theories give Mankind a higher status in the universe than your "tool for creationism" does? Doesn't that also put anticipation theory at odds with creationism somehow?

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2008 5:04 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Syamsu, posted 08-30-2008 4:59 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 85 of 318 (479752)
08-30-2008 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
08-29-2008 5:44 PM


It logically follows that motion is useless as a measure of time for instantaneous action ove a distance, leaving decision which logically works.
As I said twice before, it may be so that a probalistic aspect of GR is translated into freedom of the sysem in anticipation theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 08-29-2008 5:44 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mark24, posted 08-30-2008 11:47 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 95 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2008 2:56 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 86 of 318 (479755)
08-30-2008 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Blue Jay
08-29-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Scientific Theory?
In creationism there is a division between the material and the spiritual, the objective and the subjective, so there is basically no problem. But you all seem very much to be fudging the objective with the subjective, that love and such is in a human brain, that love is partially material in the least, but may contain some unknown elements. That could ofcourse explain your hostility to knowledge about freedom, because freedom says you cant know love except freely, subjectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Blue Jay, posted 08-29-2008 6:25 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by dokukaeru, posted 08-30-2008 12:04 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 08-30-2008 3:25 PM Syamsu has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 87 of 318 (479789)
08-30-2008 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by mark24
08-29-2008 5:44 PM


.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mark24, posted 08-29-2008 5:44 PM mark24 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 88 of 318 (479795)
08-30-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Syamsu
08-30-2008 4:50 AM


Syamsu,
I asked;
mark writes:
So, what you need to demonstrate is whether the orbit of Mercury displays "instantaneous propagation". Is this testable?
You replied:
It logically follows that motion is useless as a measure of time for instantaneous action ove a distance, leaving decision which logically works.
Motion isn't a measure of time for instantaneous action anyway, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Please answer the question.
Marf

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Syamsu, posted 08-30-2008 4:50 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Syamsu, posted 08-30-2008 12:28 PM mark24 has replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 89 of 318 (479797)
08-30-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Syamsu
08-28-2008 7:45 PM


syamsu writes:
I am not the expert on knowledge about freedom, you can argue it yourself if it could have turned out another way, you don't need me for that.
Nice hand waving.
So your position is that you simultaneously know more than everyone here and not enough of this anticipation theory to argue your point?
I will ask the question again:
So tell me syamsu, did hominids "choose" to lose a functioning gene that creates a protein that can make vitamin c? If so, why did they, it, their atoms or whatever you are claiming to have freedom do so? It is much more likely that hominids lost this functioning gene due to their diet high in vegetable matter. We really could use that ability to produce vitamin c now. If they looked into the future wouldn't thay have seen this comming?
There had to be the option to have a set of functioning vitamin c producing genes because other mammals have it and we have almost all except one which is now pseudogene.
(In the most unhostile way)Please could you answer my question, and the questions of others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Syamsu, posted 08-28-2008 7:45 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 4615 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 90 of 318 (479800)
08-30-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Syamsu
08-30-2008 4:59 AM


Re: Scientific Theory?
Syamsu writes:
In creationism there is a division between the material and the spiritual, the objective and the subjective, so there is basically no problem.
This is the opposite of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Syamsu, posted 08-30-2008 4:59 AM Syamsu 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