Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
39 online now:
dwise1, Faith, GDR, jar, PaulK, ssope (6 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,979 Year: 19,015/19,786 Month: 1,435/1,705 Week: 241/446 Day: 39/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Applying Ocam's Razor To BB vs Biblical ID Creationism and EvC
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 16 of 38 (662922)
05-19-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
05-19-2012 9:37 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
NoNukes writes:

I'd give Buzsaw most of the credit on this question. It is only the surface of the sphere that is relevant, and that surface is a 2D space.


But I wouldn't give him credit.

He is only able to say that CF's sphere is 2D by not understanding CF's example.
Surely that means that Buz is talking about a 3D sphere - like a football?

NoNukes writes:

Buzsaw fails to get full credit because he refused to note that a 2 sphere is simply an analogy for the topology of the universe.


"Refused to note" or "fails to understand"?
I am going with the latter.
He still denies the existence of crystals, ffs!

{abe}
I have just read your edit, and I thank you for your best wishes...We will need them!

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2012 9:37 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 17 of 38 (662923)
05-19-2012 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 9:40 PM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
I also note that you still can't bring yourself to address your stupid comments about chaotic systems never creating order.
That probably means that we will have to continue saying "Crystals!" to you.

CRYSTALS!!

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 9:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 18 of 38 (662924)
05-19-2012 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tangle
05-19-2012 5:34 PM


Ocam's razor is a philosopher's tool to make their lives a little easier - beyond trying to organise hypotheses into their most likely order it doesn't and can't solve a problem in science. Science needs evidence and the simplest solution is not a requirement for the correct answer.

Well, it depends. Insofar as problems can be solved in science (i.e. provisionally) sometimes Occam's razor does in fact solve them.

To take an example I often use, suppose I leave my dog alone with a slice of pizza, and when I come back the pizza is gone. I might conjecture that the pizza was stolen by pizza-stealing fairies, but this involves introducing an entity otherwise unevidenced, whereas I already possess evidence for the existence of a pizza-eating dog. There is no need to add a hypothetical entity when I have a real one to hand.

Now if I had no evidence of dogs either, then it would be impossible to say which hypothesis was simpler. But since I do, then the one without fairies is simpler in a clear and objective sense --- the universe with dogs but without fairies is a proper subset of the universe with dogs and fairies.

What is essential here is the concept of a proper subset, since this makes it epistemologically significant that one hypothesis is simpler than another.

Other forms of simplicity are not significant. If I hear a crash when someone throws something through my window, then a perfect sphere is simpler (in the sense: requires less information to describe) than a jagged rock, but this is not a reason to exalt the idea that the object was perfectly spherical to the status of a most likely hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tangle, posted 05-19-2012 5:34 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2012 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 19 of 38 (662925)
05-19-2012 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 9:40 PM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
Buzsaw writes:

No, Panda. Infinite systems are never created.


So - the universe was not created.
Is that what you meant to say?

Buzsaw writes:

The energy in the Universe changes forms as work is applied, Wonderfully designed complex closed systems within it are created and/or destroyed by the intelligent designer of them, the working designer being the Biblical god, Jehovah, the majestic manager of the Universe.


"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

And no, neither 1LoT nor Occam's Razor mentions an intelligent designer.

Well, we seemed to have moved away from your first post.
So, in an attempt to move us back:
CRYSTALS!!!

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 9:40 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:19 PM Panda has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 38 (662926)
05-19-2012 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NoNukes
05-19-2012 9:37 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
NoNukes writes:

I'd give Buzsaw most of the credit on this question. It is only the surface of the sphere that is relevant, and that surface is a 2D space. The stuff contained in the "interior" of a 2 sphere is not real.

Buzsaw fails to get full credit because he refused to note that a 2 sphere is simply an analogy for the topology of the universe. I don't believe any of us can visualize the 3 spheres and 4 spheres. At least I know I cannot.

Of course you can't. Your bogus model does not model the system. That's how conventional science deceives the young impressionable minds of the sheeple in the schools of learning.

To apply a 3 metrical dimension model to the 3 dimension Universe would falsify what conventional science advocates. Conventional science must restort to this deception and to abstract renditions of math, relativity and QM, etc in order to support un-probable and un-observable positions, contrary to Ocam's Razor.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Spelling corrected, noted by Crashfrog


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2012 9:37 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2012 10:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 38 (662927)
05-19-2012 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Panda
05-19-2012 9:52 PM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
Panda writes:

Well, we seemed to have moved away from your first post.
So, in an attempt to move us back:
CRYSTALS!!!

Go back and read carefully. You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Panda, posted 05-19-2012 9:52 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2012 10:31 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 26 by Panda, posted 05-20-2012 5:37 AM Buzsaw has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 38 (662928)
05-19-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:19 PM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE

Then you've committed the fallacy of the looming caveat; crystals are incredibly common, most elements and compounds can be induced to adopt a crystalline structure under quite prosaic conditions, and usually they do so because the enthalpy change of the system under those conditions as it crystalizes exceeds the entropy loss.

That happens all over the place, Buz, and it's not just something you can sweepingly dismiss with a "by and large." It's a direct and omnipresent counterexample that you can't just pretend is nonexistent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:19 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 7:47 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 38 (662929)
05-19-2012 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:13 PM


Re: Applying Dimensions
To apply a 3 metrical dimenal model

Is this even meant to be English?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 36 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 24 of 38 (662930)
05-19-2012 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ringo
05-19-2012 4:54 PM



Is water common enough for you? Simple hydrogen and oxygen molecules spontaneously combine to form more complex water molecules - and the spark that touches it off is pretty much void of intelligence.

That is only because the formation of H2O from H2 and O2 is a highly exothermic reaction. Any decrease in entropy is vastly outweighed by the increase in exothermic enthalpy that results in a reduction of free energy. Any reaction that results in a reduction of free energy is by definition spontaneous.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 4:54 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 38 (662931)
05-20-2012 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr Adequate
05-19-2012 9:48 PM


Dr.A writes:


To take an example I often use, suppose I leave my dog alone with a slice of pizza, and when I come back the pizza is gone. I might conjecture that the pizza was stolen by pizza-stealing fairies, but this involves introducing an entity otherwise unevidenced, whereas I already possess evidence for the existence of a pizza-eating dog. There is no need to add a hypothetical entity when I have a real one to hand.

Sure, like I said, Occam (or, some would say, common sense) will help you prioritise hypotheses and it would correctly claim that the dog is by far the simpest and most likely solution. But it proves nothing.

To prove Occam's preferrence that 'it was the dog wot done done it, yer honour', science would examine the contents of its stomach to find the evidence.

Edited by Tangle, : Bloody quote...


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2012 9:48 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 7:15 AM Tangle has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 26 of 38 (662932)
05-20-2012 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
05-19-2012 10:19 PM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
BS writes:

Go back and read carefully. You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE


Those are weasel words.
quote:
A weasel word is an informal term for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated. (wiki)

As crashfrog has said, you are just sweeping all the masses of counter-evidence 'under the rug' by using ambiguous terms; hoping no one will notice.

CRYSTALS!!!


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2012 10:19 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 6:24 AM Panda has responded

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 38 (662933)
05-20-2012 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Panda
05-20-2012 5:37 AM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
Panda, stop trolling my thread. Either poop or get off the pot.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Panda, posted 05-20-2012 5:37 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Panda, posted 05-20-2012 7:09 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 28 of 38 (662934)
05-20-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Buzsaw
05-20-2012 6:24 AM


Re: Pertaining To 1LoT
BS writes:

Panda, stop trolling my thread. Either poop or get off the pot.


I am not trolling.
And there is more than enough poop from you - I don't need to contribute more.

Perhaps you could try to support your claims?
Try again:

BS writes:

Go back and read carefully. You will note that I emphasied BY AND LARGE


Those (i.e. "BY AND LARGE") are weasel words.
quote:
A weasel word is an informal term for equivocating words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim, or even a refutation has been communicated. (wiki)

As crashfrog has said, you are just sweeping all the masses of counter-evidence 'under the rug' by using ambiguous terms; hoping no one will notice.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 6:24 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 38 (662935)
05-20-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tangle
05-20-2012 4:14 AM


Re: Evidence of Observed Phenomena
tangle writes:

To prove Occam's preferrence that 'it was the dog wot done done it, yer honour', science would examine the contents of its stomach to find the evidence.

Well, me friend, at least the scientific examination of the stomach content of doggie is physically observable. Not so with Ocam's application to the concocted evolutionist abstract science methodologies, pertaining to the BB 13.5 billion year ago alleged zero singularity event, having no area/space in which it could have happened, no outside area/space into which it could have expanded and no existing time in which it could have happened.

Talk about creationist faith based sciences. Yours is are all essentially faith based allegements, so as to exempt you in your deluded mindes from accountability the supreme intelligent designing majesty of the Universe, the Biblical god, Jehovah.

Plenty of physically observable evidence of his existence has been aired in the debates. The same goes with the credibility of his Biblical record.

This evidence has been aired by me and others in the threads over the years. Secularist minded members catagorically deny the existence of higher forms of intelligence in the Universe, no matter how much evidence creationists cite.

Application of Ocam's Razor supports ID conclusions, more-so than those of narrow minded scecularistic minded skeptics.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2012 4:14 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 05-20-2012 7:25 AM Buzsaw has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 7101
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 30 of 38 (662936)
05-20-2012 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Buzsaw
05-20-2012 7:15 AM


Re: Evidence of Observed Phenomena
Buz writes:

Application of Ocam's Razor supports ID conclusions, more-so than those of narrow minded scecularistic minded skeptics.

Simply saying it's so, doesn't make it so, Buz.

You keep claiming to have provided evidence for the belief in a creationist god, but so far I haven't seen any that counts as real evidence - just spectulation and assumption plus a huge pile of many times refuted error.

What's your best shot at real evidence?


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 7:15 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 05-20-2012 7:56 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019