There is no evolution or creationism - this is the new Matrix/DNA world view

I am challenging everybody to bring on here a unique real proved scientific fact that could debunk this new theory, because I am searching it everywhere, every new scientific paper or NASA's Images, in the last 30 years, and never found anything.

Are you sure that isn't because it is unfalsifiable?

I tried to get knowledge of the most possible quantity of natural laws and mechanisms enrolled by human natural sciences, from physics to biology to neurology to geology, etc; and I have not found one single law that is not obeyed by the whole natural Universal History described by the theory.

What about F=ma or V=IR? One of Newton's Laws and Ohm's Law.

Newton's 2^nd Law of Motion: Force equals mass times acceleration.

Ohm's Law: Voltage equals current times resistance.

How do those fit within your theory?

Then, for to answer how to those fit within the theory it is necessary that I take three heavy books telling about millions of events and explaining how each event fits within the laws.

Well that right there is a big red flag. We have a lot of people come here telling us that they have some big grand theory. The ones who end up not having anything tangible to provide are the ones who complain that its just too big and complicated to post here.

That's a load of bullshit. We've discussed all kind of really complicated topics from intricate biology to deep cosmology. You can use analogies and metaphors to truncate the concepts into shorter stories.

And if you can't, that's because your theory isn't described well.

As I said, I have not found one single law that is not obeyed by the whole natural Universal History described by the theory. About the laws you remembered above, I did not see any slice of that narration of the History that "does not fit with those laws".

What do you mean by a law being "obeyed by" the history described by the theory?

Also, how are you employing a null hypothesis?

What have you done to try to prove that there can be a law that does not fit within your theory?

Simply force-fitting every theory you come across into your own theory is going to cause it to be rife with false positives.

For example, the Bohr model of the atom look kinda like a solar system. You could theorize that there is some overarching phenomenon that has caused atoms and solar systems to behave in the same way. But it's really only a superficial resemblance, and without testing your theory against a null hypothesis, you're only going to be able to convince yourself that the overarching phenomenon actually exists.

There is a good method for avoiding that we make a theory full of mistakes when it is peer-reviewed by specialists. And I applied this method. It is about never advances to the next step in your theory before finding in Nature here and now a real proved fact that fits with yours last theoretical conclusion. You need to attach every conclusion in solid grounds, and the unique solid ground is Nature. If there is in Nature another figure that fits with yours last theoretical figure, you can go on. If not, stops, search where you made mistakes, or give up with your theory because you are entering into the reign of metaphysics.

That is very unscientific. And your approach is more like metaphysics than it is science.

What you are doing is a post-hoc rationalization of your preconceived theory. You're forcing phenomenon to fit within your theory, and when you find something that doesn't, you form the theory around the phenomenon. "The algorithm evolves" you say, but really that's just what you need to do to it to keep it looking like it is alive.

With this approach, your theory will not have any predictive power. It will forever be left to being a descriptive process that can only take into account the things that have already been understood. Your theory may inspire people to look for a new place for scientific inquiry, but scientific inquiry will never be a part of your theory, itself.

I think it's time you give us something to evaluate. Your "formula" would be a good start.

I don't think he's talking about a mathematical equation.

The "formula", itself, is the thing he posted in Message 7:

quote:

---

The formula is the algorithmic shape of the flow of energy/information that runs inside the systemic circuity connecting the parts of the system.

---

If you look at his (?) website, you'll find a bunch of other systems that he tries to force-fit into that same pattern: http://theuniversalmatrix.com/en-us/index.html

Hey Louise,

I didn't say that your theory was bullshit, I said that the excuse that it was too long to explain was bullshit.

Anyways, you've gone off on a bit of a ramble and posted over 2000 words in your latest replies to me. It's going to take me a little while to catch up, and that's not going to happen right now.

I do, though, have an outstanding questions that I don't feel you've answered, and explaining it will help me understand what you mean:

When you say that you have not found one single law that is not obeyed by the whole natural Universal History described by the theory, what do you mean by "a law being obeyed by the history"?

Well geez, Louise, I ask you to explain one simple question while I go through the 2000 words that I'm behind you, and then you go on to drop another 700 words at me

I'm not going to go through and quote it, because frankly a lot of it just doesn't make much sense.

I think I have a good grasp of what you are proposing, and I find it to be kind of interesting.

I wonder, how much did you employ entheogens during your time in the jungle?

Anyways, if you want people to take you ideas seriously, then you're going to have to leave descriptive land and start getting into predictions.

By that I mean, if you've identified all these cycles and figured out the pattern, then use that knowledge to determine what comes next in our current cycle. If you can make a viable prediction that comes to fruition, then I promise you that more people will take your ideas more seriously.

Simply finding patterns in the patterns of the past, for one has no rigor, but also just makes you out to be a kook, no offense. Because humans are very good at noticing patterns (even when they're not there), and if you dive deep into patterns of patterns then you're bound to run into false positives that have no relation to reality.

That's why you have to test them against a null hypothesis. Simply determining that you are able to fit a phenomenon into your pattern does not tell you whether or not it actually belongs in your pattern. You never bother to find that out, if it fits then you are happy with it, but you never actually go on to check if it really needs to be included.

So then you just keep building into the pattern, and finding more and more stuff that you can fit in there. And then you begin to think that you are on to something HUGE, because of all the implications it has, when you're only fooling yourself by keeping that "bar of inclusion" set too low.

What you'll end up with is a Delusion of Grandeur. And then if anyone ever disagrees with your theory, you'll take offense and think they're against you. Without any help, it won't be long before, perceivably, the whole world is conspiring against your ideas. That's when you've gone full blown skitzo.

That part of why I ask, seriously: Did you trip on any drugs in the jungle?

'Cause if not, you may be harboring some mental illness. No offense.

Oh, I had mentioned other people "like you" earlier that we get coming here from time to time. Check out this other guy: He found patterns in Star Trek episodes, and then he found a pattern in those patters and did a bunch of math and then figured out that the pattern proved a triune god.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=17825

Check it out, what do you think?

Hey Louise, I've been really busy lately. I'm trying to keep up on the reading (you type a lot), and not finding the time to compose a reply. I've got some ideas I want you to consider that I'll reply with later.

In the mean time I do have one quick question:

But I can guarantee to you that I don't permit nobody and any substance taking control of my mind,

Have you ever tested for schizophrenia?

.

Really I had drink ( sorry, it is missing me the right word in English here)

*drank

1) From the first cell or living being to humans, all them, are natural systems and their bodies were made by a unique common formula called DNA. 2) Atoms, stellar and galaxies are natural systems; 3) Conclusion: all natural systems, including atoms and astronomicals, must have in common a formula called "universal" DNA, or, better: The Matrix/DNA

That conclusion does not logically follow. I think it is the Fallacy of Composition, or something similiar. You are assuming that since one natural system behaves one way then all other natural systems must also behave that way.

-"Oh,... this is absurd!" - you says. Ok, then, give-me the yours conclusion...

Sure:

1) From the first cell or living being to humans, all them, are natural systems and their bodies were made by a unique common formula called DNA.
2) Atoms, stellar and galaxies are natural systems;
3) Conclusion: Nothing.

It is up to you bring on the proof for yours affirmation.

Since I have not concluded anything, there is no affirmation to prove.

I'll just sit here comfortably in limbo and wait for you to support your conclusion in a way that is not a logical fallacy. That is, assuming that you are interested in providing logical support for your ideas.

I'm still planning on getting to the other stuff too, just FYI.

No, I never tested for it, ... I suggest that you take the test.

I have. I don't have any qualities that are associated with schizophrenia.

There's a little online test here:

http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/schizophrenia.htm

Here are the questions that, from what I've seen you post here, I think pertain to you:

quote:

---

2. I hear or see things that others do not hear or see.

3. I feel it is very difficult for me to express myself in words that others can understand.

5. I believe in more than one thing about reality and the world around me that nobody else seems to believe in.

6. Others don't believe me when I tell them the things I see or hear.

8. I have magical powers that nobody else has or can explain.

11. I am treated unfairly because others are jealous of my special abilities.

---

Try it out, see what you get.

There are predictions that goes backwards.

No, those are called descriptions.

Thousands of scientific data that I did not know before getting the theory, I have learned after the theory and all of them fits in the models.

But what you have not shown is whether or not that is just a superficial resemblance.

Just because two things look alike does not mean they follow the same underlying principles.

If you want people to take your ideas seriously, you have to show that the underlying principles are the same. You cannot just point to an apparently superficial resemblance and then expect people to go along with your assumption that there is the same underlying principle governing both.

That is why your ideas are not gaining traction. Its not because there is a conspiracy, or because people were brainwashed in school.

It is simply because you have not shown that your theory follows from the evidence.

Instead, you are expecting people to share your assumption that because they look the same then they must be the same.

if the same formula is not there, I will put 50 years of hard work in the garbage.

Don't ever do that. There's no reason to throw all that work away.

Even if you figure out that you were wrong, there's still stuff that can be learned from all that work.

Sorry again by the 2.000 words but there is no other way explaining a never imagined before world view and talking about systems.

There are other ways.

I'm pretty sure I've got your theory understood well enough to summarize it.

I'll give it a go when I get some more time.

Then you can correct any misunderstanding.

Then I can explain why your theory is an unsupported assertion.

Then we can talk about the real reasons why people are rejecting it.

Then we can talk about what you can do to provide evidence for you assertions and maybe you can make some progress on making your theory more palatable.

Every time a duplicate cell is made it has the exact same DNA information as the original.

He's not talking about cells duplicating, he's talking about gene duplication.

DNA replicates itself, but that replication process is imperfect and prone to errors.

Whenever DNA replicates itself, the new strand of DNA is never exactly the same as the strand it was duplicated from.

Yes, that is not perfect duplication.

But those replication errors do lead to new information being added to the DNA.

As I understand it each human cell has all the information required to build a human body. Is this true? If each human cell has all the information required to build a human body, how can the information in those cells produce anything other than a human body? For the information in those cells to produce something other than a human body a lot of new information would be required.

Wow, is your understanding of evolutions really limited to one individual giving birth to an offspring that is a different species?

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

And its so gradual that nobody would ever really notice.

Do you really think that one day a wolf gave birth to a chihuahua?

So why is not that slow process observed on a daily basis today...

Because it takes generations, not days.

You're basically asking how you can know that your fingernails are growing when they're the same length as they were last night - well, yeah, you're gonna have to wait more than 8 hours to notice.

For evolutions, it's going to be centuries.

...with a complete record of the process?

Well, fossilization is a rare event.

How complete are you looking for? Horses, whales, and humans all have a great record of the process, but its never going to be totally complete.

My fingernails are longer now at 12:00 o'clock than they were at 8:00 AM when I ate breakfast.

But you cannot tell the difference, just like you cannot see evolution on a "daily basis".

The horse record that RAZD has trotted out so many times has been proven to be incorrect.

No it hasn't.

Can you point me to the Whales you are referring too?

Well, we can start with this: