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

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

Say what? I suppose now that you've explained it, there is no point in me asking for your algorithm.

I'm not surprised that you've never encountered anything on the internet contrary to your ideas.

The Matrix formula is under evolution like our DNA, its first shape was a light wave and when it arrived at galaxies the formula became a closed system, as the formula above. Then, the system closed its door to evolution, was attacked by entropy, fragmented in its bits-information-photons, which are spreaded as seeds of life, rebuilding the formula as opened systems and in microscopy dimension.

A good friend once told me that there was a line from Blazing Saddles for every occasion. I have such a line in mind, but I wonder if anyone else might have one.

2) In any way the whole theory touches metaphysics or anything beyond the observable universe. So, the theory is not dependable of some untouchable element or entity. It explains every natural phenomena or event inside the universe, and if someone find one, the theory could be debunked.

Explanation is insufficient to establish falsifiability. Does your theory make predictions which can be shown to be correct or incorrect by some experiment. If your theory provides only explanations and no predictions, then it is not falsifiable.

A theory that can explain every conceivable outcome predicts no outcome and explains nothing. But in particular such a theory is not falsifiable.

MD may be getting his ideas from here: The Universal Matrix of the Systems and Natural Cycles

More likely source of the ideas here and on the web page are one and the same.

quote:

---

The period of seven years of research in the jungle between 1980 and 1987 are added to the last 23 years employed in testing the models against the facts and actual events of naturals phenomena.

---

We were well overdue.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I think we could easily assign the following points. Someone following the discussion more closely could surely find many more.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".'

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Ok, Nonukes let's go playing yours game. Please, bring on here any statement that you think that it is logically inconsistent.

Sure. I'll go with this one for three points.

Avoid cosmology and astronomy, I am working more in those immediate facts that can bring practical results.

Why should I avoid such things. After all your theory covers everything, right? If you don't recognize any cosmic facts turning up in your searches because everything you do find is mere theory, then is your claim that your own work matches fact of any value? Don't you spend more time dismissing than finding agreement?

ICANT writes: Where did all that added information come from? Chaos can not produce it. Neither can mutations as most of them are determentinal to the cell.

I imagine that if you were playing a game of draw poker, you would always stand pat with your original cards because most of the cards in the deck would be detrimental to your hand.

Poker is a game. Mutations are not a game. They are either beneficial or detrimental to the cell.

So you would discard three bad cards and draw new ones from the deck even though the cards from the deck are in random order. Why?

And what is the difference between a beneficial mutation and one that adds new information?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You really wouldn't want to play poker with me. Poker is a game of math.

I'm not afraid of your math.

In any event, a poker game has very little to do with math because everybody competent knows the relative probabilities.

A beneficial mutation would be one where something is aided such as a worm in my garden. I spray him with poison and eventually his offspring builds an immunity to the poison.

How exactly is that accomplished, ICANT. You are describing a possible result and not a mechanism.

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?

If the human brain contains all of the information necessary to produce a sculpture of Platos head, then how can that same brain do mathematics?

Seriously ICANT, this has got to be one of the lamest arguments every made.

I am not talking about a possible result. I am talking about observed results from years of farming.

Let's restore the context to your claim.

I spray him with poison and eventually his offspring builds an immunity to the poison.

Quite frankly it is difficult to tell what you are claiming happens. You keep spraying a single worm and eventually that worm produces immune worms? I don't believe such a thing happens but I don't believe this is what you mean even though it is literally what you said.

I think you meant to say that you were spraying succeeding generations of worms. If so my question to you is what type of analysis of the worms did you do that allows you to tell us that the immune worms do not continue new information in their DNA that their ancestors did not have. How would you recognize new information and distinguish that from a beneficial mutation that did not add new information?

You mean asking if the DNA in each cell contained all the information to build a human body and how information can be added to that DNA is an argument. I thought it was a question.

Except that your question was not a query regarding 'how' information could be added to the DNA, now was it? Here is your question:

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?

Your question has a built in bad argument. Just because the information is sufficient to build a human body does not mean that said information is insufficient for other tasks. I provided an example intended to point out the problem.

Secondly, if a mutation does not add information, then your question has a simple answer. Some change to the current information, via mutation, is what is needed. If you don't believe that a mutation is new information, then I challenge you to show that something other than mutation is needed.

Sorry admin.

Edited by NoNukes, : self censored as being off topic