Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universal Perfection
Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 106 of 117 (64555)
11-05-2003 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by DNAunion
11-03-2003 10:24 PM


quote:
ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE
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:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
/*DNAunion*/ Rei, would mind explaining to us how code brackets themselves can be pretentious?
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by DNAunion, posted 11-03-2003 10:24 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2003 2:14 PM Rei has replied
 Message 111 by sidelined, posted 11-05-2003 9:38 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 113 by DNAunion, posted 11-05-2003 10:07 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 107 of 117 (64557)
11-05-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by DNAunion
11-03-2003 10:48 PM


quote:
quote:
Rei: You know, I personally don't care what Conway himself had to say about the issue.
/*DNAunion*/ Well of course you dont, because what Conway the inventor of the game of life said matches what I said.
/*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:
Rei: I seriously recommend that you try plugging in random rulesets from generalized automata before you make this claim.
/*DNAunion*/ I already supported the few claims I made about the game of life the one example that you offered. The way I see it, I'm done.
/*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:
You are dragging the discussion off onto a tangent and there is no requirement for me to follow along on a leash.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by DNAunion, posted 11-03-2003 10:48 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by DNAunion, posted 11-05-2003 10:19 PM Rei has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 117 (64558)
11-05-2003 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rei
11-05-2003 2:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:01 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 109 of 117 (64560)
11-05-2003 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
11-05-2003 2:14 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2003 2:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by DNAunion, posted 11-05-2003 10:13 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 110 of 117 (64561)
11-05-2003 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Jack
11-04-2003 11:10 AM


quote:
Crash, silicon lacks all of the properties that make Carbon suitable for life, so why are you singling it out as a likely alternate life candidate?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Jack, posted 11-04-2003 11:10 AM Dr Jack has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 111 of 117 (64643)
11-05-2003 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rei
11-05-2003 2:01 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:01 PM Rei has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 117 (64645)
11-05-2003 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by NosyNed
11-04-2003 1:52 PM


quote:
NosyNed: How is this underhanded? Is what Crash quoted not a quote of yours?
/*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*/ I haven't forgotten about it - I simply don't accept it as any kind of explanation for the "problem" being discussed. For example, it is based on the unsupported assumption that life could exist without oxygen, carbon, etc.
/*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*/ You've got it backwards.
All empirical observations (which are restricted the one observed universe) to date show that all life is life as we know it, and requires carbon and oxygen (which in turn require fairly specific values for certain constant of nature).
Your position - that life not as we know it does exist or even could exist (in some hypothetical universe that cannot be examined or tested) - is the one without any empirical observations whatsoever.
/*DNAunion*/ It wasn’t a one-time statement. It's something I repeated.
POST 60
quote:
*DNAunion*/ So....all empirical evidence to date shows only one form of life, based on organic molecules such as nucleic acids, proteins, etc., which in turn require carbon and oxygen (as well as other things).
An opposing position - that life unlike that we know - does or could exist is an unsupported presumption.
/*DNAunion*/ And let’s pay special attention to the PS in the following one.
POST 62
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life? None. So all empirical evidence we have shows that both carbon and oxygen are required for life.
Once again, your argument is not based on empirical evidence, but on imagination/speculation.
PS: I am not claiming "I am right and you are wrong": we don't know which position is actually true. However, based on repeatable, testable, empirical observations to date, my position is supported while yours is not.
/*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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashfrog: I think you're acting like life on Earth is all the life that exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*DNAunion*/ You woulnd't if you carefully read all of my posts in this thread.
/*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:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crashfrog: I'm sorry you'll have to point out where you've talked about life on other planets. As far as I've read you've talked about all the life we can observe, and as far as I know, all that life is on Earth. Can you point out where you've said anything about life on other planets?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*DNAunion*/ That's not what I have to point out. Read these previous statements from me in this thread, paying special attention to the part I've bolded this time [that's the PS part].
Earlier quote:
***************************************
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life? None. So all empirical evidence we have shows that both carbon and oxygen are required for life.
Once again, your argument is not based on empirical evidence, but on imagination/speculation.
PS: I am not claiming "I am right and you are wrong": we don't know which position is actually true. However, based on repeatable, testable, empirical observations to date, my position is supported while yours is not.
***************************************
/*DNAunion*/ In the past, I have frequently used arguments that assume there is life out there unlike our own. But I understand that when I do so, I leave the realm of the empirically based and move into the realm of unsupported speculation.
/*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*/ 1) All of the "millions" of various organisms examined to date are based on the same general chemistry (biochemistry involving nucleic acids, proteins, etc.). This supports (but obviously does not "prove") the position that all life is based on biochemistry as we know it.
2) No examples of life not based on the kind of general chemistry referenced in (1) have been found. This supports (but obviously does not "prove") the position that life can't be based on any chemistry except for biochemistry as we know it.
/*DNAunion*/ And note this one too.
POST 87
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Apparently it's not crystal clear to you yet: there is no false dichotomy.
Simply put, either:
1) Life can only be based on the kind of biochemistry we know of
or
2) Life can be based on a kind of chemistry other than that referenced in (1)
That is a true dichotomy. The question is, which is correct? The truth is, we don't know (which my statement you quoted indicates). All we can do is provide evidence and logic to come to a tentative conclusion.
You guys are asserting (2) is correct, without having any real evidence (i.e., it's all unsupported speculation). I am saying that all direct observations to date support (1), but am doing so without claiming that (1) is surely correct (again, which my statement you quoted indicates).
/*DNAunion*/ And another key statement from that same post.
POST 87
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Yes, the position that life-not-as-we-know-it exist is IN PRINCIPLE verifiable: it can't be done yet, and may never be able to be done...but IN PRINCIPLE, it could be.
/*DNAunion*/ And yet another from that same post.
POST 87
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Based on the supported (but not "proven") assumption that life is restricted to LAWKI, the Universe is fine-tuned for life.
/*DNAunion*/ And a couple of posts later
POST 90
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashfrog: The problem is, the fact that we observe that all the life on one little planet in a corner of the big, big universe has only one kind of life is not evidence for number 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*DNAunion*/ Wrong. It is evidence for (1). What it isn't is sufficient evidence to "prove" (1) or to rule out (2).
/*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*/ Yes, and that's the one I've been using all along.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashfrog: It wasn't the one you were using when I jumped in. It certainly wasn't the dichotomy Rei was a part of. Nonetheless I'll let you move whatever goalposts you like; the arguments are largely the same.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/*DNAunion*/ Wrong. It is evidence for (1). What it isn't is sufficient evidence to "prove" (1) or to rule out (2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crashfrog: Then why do you insist on using it to do just that? Why is it when we say "life could exist in other forms" you say "you're wrong; the fact that we don't observe such life proves it."
/*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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 11-04-2003 1:52 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 11-05-2003 11:38 PM DNAunion has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 117 (64647)
11-05-2003 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rei
11-05-2003 2:01 PM


quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Rei, would mind explaining to us how code brackets themselves can be pretentious?
quote:
Rei: 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.
/*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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:01 PM Rei has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 117 (64648)
11-05-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rei
11-05-2003 2:18 PM


quote:
Rei: Probably a good idea. He knows what he's seeming like [http://www.petsignsplus.com/1farmxgif/jackass.gif] by usage of them, it doesn't need to be emphasized further.
/*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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:18 PM Rei has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 117 (64649)
11-05-2003 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rei
11-05-2003 2:13 PM


quote:
Rei: It's your choice if [http://www.presidentmoron.com/headupass.jpg], in ...
/*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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rei, posted 11-05-2003 2:13 PM Rei has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 116 of 117 (64659)
11-05-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by DNAunion
11-05-2003 9:56 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by DNAunion, posted 11-05-2003 9:56 PM DNAunion has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 117 of 117 (64679)
11-06-2003 3:28 AM


Closing topic
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]

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024