|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universal Perfection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Just out of curiousity... when a person argues using one of the most fundamental of all known logical fallicies, is it best to simply not respond, or to try and reason with the aforementioned "brick wall"?
quote:quote: We know very well who you are. You don't need to emphasize it as if you're some sort of royalty entering the room. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote:quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Conway only examined the tiniest subset of cellular automata. Many of his own predictions about even his own automata were incorrect, such as that there would be no infinitely expansive patterns. What you're doing is like referencing the Wright brothers in a discussion on how to build a Saturn 5 rocket.
quote:quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ I show you several dozen links that show that you're factually incorrect, and you say "I'm done"? What sort of "debate" is this? Of course, it's about what I should expect from someone who says /*DNAunion*/ I addressed what I cared to..
quote: We're talking about whether life can exist in alternative universes, even if very different, by examining what is happening at the low level and whether it shows the potential for the requisites of life (ability to store state information, organized rules but with ample entropy to allow random arrangements, etc). It's your choice if, in a discussion on alternative universes, if you refuse to address alternative universes. P.S. - why on Earth do you keep splitting up your replies into multiple posts? I keep having to try to piece them back together to stop you from derailing this conversation. P.P.S. - why did you avoid my post about the chemistry of silicon? ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We know very well who you are. You don't need to emphasize it as if you're some sort of royalty entering the room. Given that DNA seems intent on fixating on any percieved slight as a pretense to avoid substantial argument, isn't it better to just kind of ignore this stuff? It's annoying, yes, but I find Joralex's use of yellow text far more objectionable. I guess I'd think about his code brackets as though they were a huge pimple on his forehead - it's shocking and distracting, sure, but evenutally you're just going to have to overlook it if you want to talk to him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Probably a good idea. He knows what he's seeming like by usage of them, it doesn't need to be emphasized further.
------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7034 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: What properties of silicon do you feel prevent it from being suitable for life in the way that Carbon is? Seing as DNAunion completely skipped my post on the chemistry of silicon, perhaps you'll respond. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Rei
Concering your statement:
Just out of curiousity... when a person argues using one of the most fundamental of all known logical fallicies, is it best to simply not respond, or to try and reason with the aforementioned "brick wall"? as it relates to the other statement by DNAunion ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE I just wanted to make sure that the proper phrase is made available so I pulled this from a webpage covering Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. [This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-05-2003] [This message has been edited by sidelined, 11-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ No. The words Crashfrog put in quotes and attributed to me do not appear in any of my statements in this or any other thread. Furthermore, the position I repeatedly put forth in this thread is quite opposite of what Crashfrog attributed to me, as the following demonstrates. POST 52
quote: /*DNAunion*/ That was the point I continued to make. That the position that life unlike LAWKI exists or could exist is UNSUPPORTED SPECULATION: that there's NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE supporting it. That does NOT mean I said the position is false or disproven. In fact, later on I will present a quote of me where I stated I have used arguments based on that UNSUPPORTED SPECUALTION myself. Further, I will provide quotes where I explicitly state that the position that claims life must be LAWKI has not been proven, nor has the opposing position been disproven. POST 53
quote: /*DNAunion*/ It wasn’t a one-time statement. It's something I repeated. POST 60
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And let’s pay special attention to the PS in the following one. POST 62
quote: /*DNAunion*/ After I made all of those statements, Crashfrog jumped in at post 68. Note that I immediately attempted to point out that Crashfrog was misreading me. POST 69
quote: /*DNAunion*/ The following also makes it very clear - and is directed to Crashfrog personally - that the position he/she later attributes to me is not my position. POST 74
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Note in the following how I explicitly state that the empirical evidences DO NOT PROVE that life as we know it is the only kind that could exist, NOR DOES IT PROVE that life can't be based on any other chemistry. POST 85
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And note this one too. POST 87
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And another key statement from that same post. POST 87
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And yet another from that same post. POST 87
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And a couple of posts later POST 90
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And at this point Crashfrog accused me of moving goal posts and also attributed statements to me that are not in line with my repeated statements in this thread. POST 92
quote: /*DNAunion*/ For the sake of "let's all get along", let's just call it some kind of mistake on Crashfrog's part. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Of course I knew you were are calling ME pretentious, and doing it over and over and over and over and over and over... But I had to get it straight from the horse's mouth. Now you've openly admitted to taking personal jabs at me in virtually every one of your posts, six times in the one post I referenced above. (Gee, maybe I shouldn't point out Rei's blatant disrespect for another person on these boards, which goes against the rules...I might get supsended again for being on the receiving end.) [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-05-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Hold on a tick. I get suspended for being on the receiving end of Crashfrog’s stuff, and Rei admits to calling me pretentious over and over, and now Rei calls me a jackass? Gee, looks like I’m about to be suspended again for being on the receiving end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Moderators, I am so sorry for Rei's saying I have my head up my ass. Please forgive me and please don't suspend me again for my transgression. I'll do my best not be called pretentious or a jackass or a person with his head up his ass anymore.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For the sake of "let's all get along", let's just call it some kind of mistake on Crashfrog's part. Well, discussion is, after all, the process by which we make our arguments clearer. Now, I ask again, do you have substantial rebuttals to my core arguments? Which is: how can you make an argument for fine-tuning when you admit that the question of what life could be like besides how we know it isn't even answerable at this time? My position is that no argument could be made; therefore the ambiguity about the existence of life-as-we-don't-know-it supports my position and not yours. Your position appears to be that despite this ambiguity, we can somehow know that the universe is fine-tuned for life. I simply don't see how this is so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
As far as I'm concerned, this one is not going to be re-opened.
Adminnemooseus ps: DNAunion - Your'e being a twit. This includes the use of the "/*DNAunion*/". I SUGGEST you drop using the "/*DNAunion*/". Failure to follow Adminnemooseus suggestions can result in a suspension. ------------------Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads [This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-06-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024