Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 6:39 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,128 Year: 5,165/19,786 Month: 1,287/873 Week: 183/460 Day: 28/97 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   The first Universal Law of the Universe
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 31 of 36 (849782)
03-21-2019 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
03-20-2019 11:49 PM


You know everything is/gets/was entangled/intangled.

I need to get this untangled. Does any of this have anything to do with entropy?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 03-20-2019 11:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 03-21-2019 1:07 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2063
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 32 of 36 (849783)
03-21-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-16-2019 1:50 PM


First off, it seems to me that you are applying the term entanglement to interactions between particles that are already described as dependent on other properties.

I think of entanglement as Quantum Entanglement.

from Wikipedia:

quote:
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance.

Is “entanglement” going to be one of those words in science that has multiple meanings that really confuse non-scientific minded people, like “theory?” Does it also mean or include Quantum Chromodynamics and molecular bonds?

I thought the way things got entangled was like when a photon is split into 2 photons by a beam-splitter. Measure the polarity of one and you know the polarity of the other.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2019 1:50 PM RAZD has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 33 of 36 (849784)
03-21-2019 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tanypteryx
03-21-2019 12:19 AM


Does any of this have anything to do with entropy?

That's up to RAZD. I wouldn't think so but I'll go RAZD's way to start.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-21-2019 12:19 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 34 of 36 (850089)
03-31-2019 8:21 AM


Sorry I didn't get back to this thread and don't know how far behind I am, I just wanted to say something in this post, mainly for reading.

I have been thinking more about this issue of improbability for a cell constructing itself, the improbability of abiogenesis.

Because I don't think it is only a matter of improbability. RAZD and other may conjecture some imagined scenario by which a localised congregation of the correct parts may form a cell.

It SEEMS like only a matter of numbers but I don't think it is. So I would like to explain this more so please be patient and read my explanation to understand the philosophical point I am making;

With a solely improbable issue, a truly improbable issue say like winning the lottery, even though it's highly improbable a specific person we choose before the lottery draw, will win, it's improbable based on the available combinations of numbers, players etc. In other words, it's truly an improbable event because it can be made more probable for that person to win. So for example we could increase the chances of the person winning by having them play many more lines, or play all of the available lotteries each week or whatever. Or we may increase the chances of guessing someone's pin number by having 500 attempts rather than only one attempt. I am sure you see my point.

HOWEVER, there are some events which it seems to me we use the word, "improbable" for in a more colloquial sense. It seems there are events which are better described as UNREAL events simply because they are contrary to reality, in that we can't find any rational reasons why the event would occur.

So for example, (don't toy with the example, you can't tweak it) imagine there is a gentle man that exists, let's say he is a Buddhist monk or whatever, and is genuinely the least violent person or one of the least violent people to ever exist. Is it a matter of improbability for us to believe that one day he would decide just from whim to randomly chop to pieces all of his fellow monks?

IT MAY SEEM like an improbable event, but as with the lottery example, an improbable event can become more probable with available time and numbers yet with this example time and numbers will not change the unreality of the event. We innately know some things just don't happen. (you can't say he loses his sanity, remember you can't tweak the example, it is by his choice, by whim he one day decides to do it.)

RATIONALLY we can infer; "there's just no reason to believe it would happen, and it doesn't matter if we know of no examples because waiting for one example won't change the fact that under these parameters it will not occur."

In the same way we all know that none of us will ever march for rapist-day, to celebrate rape. It's not that it's improbable, because if we live for a billion years we know it's simply not in our nature to support such a notion.

CONCLUSION: We know that there are things which just don't happen. It may SEEM like you can say, "we just don't have enough examples", like when we look around and don't see proteins forming by chance outside of life. But in actual fact it has nothing to do with numbers, it's that there just aren't any realistic reasons for some things to occur even if they are technically possible.

It is technically possible we could replace the wheel with a cube-shaped wheel, have it wreck machines, then just replace the machine parts and wheels with new cubed wheels. But that it is technically possible doesn't give it any reason to ever happen.

Now you may protest, "but mike, we know that we have X number of possible amino arrangements, and if you increase the number, however improbable, you may get the correct arrangement."

Of course I am aware of that, but the question is, is it only a matter of numbers like the lottery?

If it is then it's the same for metal naturally creating a car chassis. You may say "there just needs to be enough metal on enough worlds, given enough time, for it to occur".

But the problem is there is no physical reason why it should occur, and coincidentally be perfect for a car's frame, as well as all the other parts coming together which are metal, and getting together locally.

Even if we assume some parts can occur, such as a protein and a DNA, nevertheless this doesn't give nature any reasons to continue the build, so to speak. There would be no goal for these parts in nature. The goal of life can only exist once life does, and to get to that stage there aren't any physical reasons why it would happen altogether at once, or stage by stage.

If it's stage by stage, why would nature collect the correct parts? If it's all in one well, that's basically impossible.

So we know that this, like with the gentle monk, has nothing to do with numbers, it's that there is something that would have to happen contrary to the facts. Just as our monk would never be violent, we know that even if there were a trillion worlds for a trillion years there are no reasons in nature to design something of immense sophistication.

Or are you saying you would believe a car chassis could come about, somehow given enough worlds simply because it's "possible" there may be physical forces that can for example, bore threads into the chassis, of the correct type, so that there are holes on the chassis, 175 holes, all with an 18mm thread and 50mm long?

Obviously the more sophisticated the design is, the more absurdly unrealistic the proposal. So then how sophisticated is a contraflow lung? How sophisticated is a human brain? How sophisticated are the designs in nature? Biomimetics has proven that there is always a design in nature better than our own in whatever area we look at.

CONCLUSION: Rationally, I can't see any reasons so suppose physics would not act as it usually does like the monk. If a protein was created, physics wouldn't single it out and wait for it to become part of a cell, all that would happen half way through the build is entropy. Entropy would break down anything that was built LONG BEFORE it was built.

Abiogenesis is an unreality even if it is technically possible. I am not saying it is possible, I am just saying that if it is technically possible evolutionists then infer that, "it is therefore improbable, and given enough time, eventually probable, and then certain."

I believe that is a false dichotomy. I don't believe that if something is not impossible that "therefore it is only a matter of improbability". I think there are unrealistic scenarios which have nothing to do with numbers. (the monk and the cube wheels).

God created life.

Edited by mike the wiz, : Edit to say. I am not saying this is the strongest argument I have ever made, but personally it's enough for me intellectually that I don't think there are any reasons for nature to act differently in regards to life. I think when we look at abiogenesis NOT happening anywhere, and even in experiments when they try to make it happen, this is because it is simply and UNREALITY. And scientifically if it is an unreality, then so is evolution.


Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 03-31-2019 9:12 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 36 by AZPaul3, posted 03-31-2019 9:15 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6745
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 35 of 36 (850094)
03-31-2019 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
03-31-2019 8:21 AM


MtW writes:

God created life.

For someone who boasts about his logical thinking, you're extraordinarily bad at it.

None of your arguments lead to this conclusion. It's a terrible non sequiter and it's obvious that you actually stared with this conclusion and generated a pile of words hoping to arrive back at it.

As far as we know everything in our world is natural. We have yet to find any supernatural intervention anywhere we look. Additionally, every time a supernatural claim is tested it fails. The correct hypothesis is therefor that until shown otherwise, life too is a natural process. That's the starting point, that's why science holds abiogenesis as an idea that requires testing.

The science of microbiolgy is very, very young - it began in our lifetime. Almost everything about it is yet to be discovered, just because we are currently ignorant of a process does not allow you to gleefully claim goddidit - that claim has been proven wrong time after time.

No amount of word games - a square wheel? - a deliberate paradox about a monk that we are not allowed to complain about and car chassis that create themselves - will get you anywhere near understanding the problem. When we hack away the verbiage you're simply repeating the creationist mantra that life can not start itself.

Well we've heard that before and we're just going to have to wait and see what science produces.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 03-31-2019 8:21 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3863
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 36 of 36 (850095)
03-31-2019 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
03-31-2019 8:21 AM


Good attempt, Mike.

But failure.

You know from your studies that we know with a great deal of confidence what chemistry can do and how it does its thing, electrons, bonds, thermodynamics, etc. You know we are closing in on a number of plausible abiogenic routes.

We do not have an answer, yet, but we have near a century of data and study pushing us toward a useful solution.

Your study in probability is the usual creationist trope of incredulity in the face of religious fervor and not from any respect for the science or the enormity of the numbers especially when viewed in parallel instead of in series. Yes, Mike, the reactive probabilities are in those large numbers.

BTW, this "first cell" thing has got to go. That first cell may have been but an evolutionary development by a life system already in operation for quite some time ... like centuries.

But the point is, Mike, we may not have an answer but we do have a lot of info on this subject.

God created life.

You have what? A gaggle of ancient stories retold, re-written and embellished x1000 by a small tribe of desert nomads seeking to find their way in a difficult and wondrous world of which they were totally ignorant?

Doesn't even begin to compete.

The universe created life through unguided natural chemistry.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 03-31-2019 8:21 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019