Evidence for Evolution: resources

[Phronesis]

Talk about the chap with preconceived notions of a book and a certain group of people... So objective that person... oh wait, preconceived and objective... oil and water.

Rwenzori, this chap (family of yours?) is waiting for that scientific example of something that does not have a cause...

 

[rwenzori]

Really good post arf9999.

+1

 

[Phronesis]

Rwenzori stop dragging your arse

and give that scientific example of something that does not have a cause... other than your question-begging example of the universe of course.

 

[rwenzori]

Rwenzori stop dragging your arse

Lollers! You might recall, if you did read with any comprehension, that it is YOUR TURN to answer.

Until such time as I get some sensible answer,

/me continues dragging my arse.

To paraphrase Tom Petty:

So you’ve had a little trouble in town
Now you’re keeping some demon down
Stop draggin’ my, stop draggin’ my
Stop draggin’ my arse around

 

[Phronesis]

Does not look like an answer is coming from you.... yet again. Ag, no surprise there, because quite frankly, any answer you will give would be hilariously unscientific anyway.

I don't claim the universe does or does not have a cause or that it is causally closed or open. It is a belief of mine that the universe has a cause and that science does not exclude the possibility of the universe having a cause. Contra your assertion (and question begging it seems) that it does not.

 

[rwenzori]

Does not look like an answer is coming from you.... yet again. Ag, no surprise there, because quite frankly, any answer you will give would be hilariously unscientific anyway.

I don't claim the universe does or does not have a cause or that it is causally closed or open. It is a belief of mine that the universe has a cause and that science does not exclude the possibility of the universe having a cause. Contra you assertion that it does not.

Fair enough. I'll let these out in dribs and drabs.

Random item #2: artichokes

Random item #3: mutants

Random item #4: the air you just breathed in

Hows that for starters? You can go read that Taleb chap for more if you get bored waiting while I drag my arse around.

 

[Phronesis]

Fair enough. I'll let these out in dribs and drabs.

Random item #2: artichokes

Random item #3: mutants

Random item #4: the air you just breathed in

Hows that for starters? You can go read that Taleb chap for more if you get bored waiting while I drag my arse around.

ROFL, are you all of a sudden asserting random events (define random btw) do not have a cause? Oh my, you seem to be more unscientific...no scientifically illiterate tham previously thought. You are hilarious.

Cause of an artichoke... read up on genetics...read up on the fine-tuned laws of the universe...heck read up on evolution once in a while.
Cause of a mutant... more genetics....more evolution.....more laws.
The air I just breathed in.... you have got to be kidding me... mixtures of gases, floating around in the atmosphere...randomly.. as dictated by those fine-tuned laws of the universe you hate so much because well, they cause things to happen.... more laws for you to read up on.

Do the following won't you, go to physics and genetics department at a university near you and tell the good scientists there:
Sorry folks, there is no cause for the stochastic behaviour of these particles because you know what, crap happens. Buhlieve it.

Try it, you might get a nobel prize...or a Darwin award. Who knows, crap happens right? Pffff....

 

[rwenzori]

ROFL, are you all of a sudden asserting random events (define random btw) do not have a cause? Oh my, you seem to be more unscientific...no scientifically illiterate tham previously thought. You are hilarious.

Cause of an artichoke... read up on genetics...read up on the fine-tuned laws of the universe...heck read up on evolution once in a while.
Cause of a mutant... more genetics....more evolution.....more laws.
The air I just breathed in.... you have got to be kidding me... mixtures of gases, floating around in the atmosphere...randomly.. as dictated by those fine-tuned laws of the universe you hate so much because well, they cause things to happen.... more laws for you to read up on.

Do the following won't you, go to physics and genetics department at a university near you and tell the good scientists there:
Sorry folks, there is no cause for the stochastic behaviour of these particles because you know what, crap happens. Buhlieve it.

Try it, you might get a nobel prize...or a Darwin award. Who knows, crap happens right? Pffff....

Lollers! I put artichokes in there because they are such random things. You really need to work on your sense of humour.

But you are quite wrong about the mutants and the gases. They are to a large extent undeterministic - you cannot take the current state-of-affairs and causally predict the future. You see, old boy, at the heart of everything lies uncertainty ( no doubt you can recall the science behind THAT one ). I'll give you item #5 as an example - go outside, look at the stars. No uniformity, no crystal-like pattern, out there - just random groupings throughout the known universe. Randomness and uncertainty at the core of all there is.

Einstein said out of hope that he believed that god does not play dice. He never could demonstrate or prove that, simply because god does play dice. If you "buhlieve" in god. Else you can just say "sh|t happens".

 

[Phronesis]

Lollers! I put artichokes in there because they are such random things. You really need to work on your sense of humour.

Ok Mr standup comedian .

But you are quite wrong about the mutants and the gases. They are to a large extent undeterministic - you cannot take the current state-of-affairs and causally predict the future. You see, old boy, at the heart of everything lies uncertainty ( no doubt you can recall the science behind THAT one ).

Oh dear, you are hopeless.
Welcome to rwenzori rainman's lair of logic.
Where there is no cause for the indeterminancy and uncertainty of a system because crap happens. There is no point in trying to ascertain why a system is indeterminate because rwenzori's Defecatory Fatalist beliefs dictate that there is no cause.

Hold the press, rwenzori rainman is coming to a lab near you, telling your scientists that crap happens and there is no cause for it.

You can show him how an uncertain system can be created, coherent and scientifically useful...e.g. stochastic molecular simulations. Imagine someday in an indeterminatee uncertain simulation created by us to find the idiots inside it saying indeterminate systems have no cause. Oh the laughter...

Undeterministic and uncertainty does not imply that there is no cause for a system acting in such a way. Logic? Is it impossible to have an indeterminate system governed by determinate laws? Oh, and define randomness.

I'll give you item #5 as an example - go outside, look at the stars. No uniformity, no crystal-like pattern, out there - just random groupings throughout the known universe. Randomness and uncertainty at the core of all there is.

And yet, there is still a cause for why it is like that.... laws of the universe... read up on them old chop, you know thise things you assert have no cause... While you are at it, read up on the fine-tuning of the laws...
Here is a presentation by the nuclear physicist, Prof Heddle.

Einstein said out of hope that he believed that god does not play dice.

To which Niels Bohr replied: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do. Suggest you do the same

 

[rwenzori]

Oh dear, you are hopeless.
<snip customary rude twaddle, empty of any relevant response>
To which Niels Bohr replied: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do. Suggest you do the same

I tell you what TelePhrone old boy, let's try a little experiment.

Rwenzori gives TelePhrone 1 times atom of Caesium-137. Now, Telephrone, old boy, you predict for rwenzori - using whatever you CAN determine of the current state of the atom plus all your lovely rules of causality - precisely when it will decay into Barium-137, and explain, using said rules, exactly why that particular atom decayed when it did.

Can't do it, can you. Looks like you're the hopeless one LOL.

I quite like Bohr's reply. Who's god BTW? Maybe I could meet him on the road to Jericho one day.

 

[Phronesis]

I tell you what TelePhrone old boy, let's try a little experiment.

Rwenzori gives TelePhrone 1 times atom of Caesium-137. Now, Telephrone, old boy, you predict for rwenzori - using whatever you CAN determine of the current state of the atom plus all your lovely rules of causality - precisely when it will decay into Barium-137, and explain, using said rules, exactly why that particular atom decayed when it did.

Can't do it, can you. Looks like you're the hopeless one LOL.

I quite like Bohr's reply. Who's god BTW? Maybe I could meet him on the road to Jericho one day.

Oh hopeless one. Does your massive argument from ignorance (oh I just can't predict something because I can't account for all possible variables) suddenly mean the system does not have a cause for being indeterministic or unpredictable?

Tell you what, let's play another game.
This time there is a programmer that simulates an indeterminate environment. He then chucks old rainman rwenzori the molecule into the system to bounce around a little and decay. There is no way to determine where old rainman rwenzori the molecule is going to be in the next 20 seconds or 10 days or when he is going to decay. Does this mean old rainman rwenzori the molecule can come to the conclusion that that old system he is in not have a cause?

Try again. Indeterminate environments does not imply they have no cause. That is your own little question begging assertion. :erm: Another one...

 

[rwenzori]

Oh hopeless one. Does your massive argument from ignorance (oh I just can't predict something because I can't account for all possible variables) suddenly mean the system does not have a cause for being indeterministic or unpredictable?

<another rude bit snipped>

Try again. Indeterminate environments does not imply they have no cause. That is your own little question begging assertion. :erm: Another one...

Erm... Oh helpless one LOL! Looks like you do not understand quantum indeterminacy at all. Go back to my experiment and tell me what caused the atom to decay precisely when it did. Explain your wonderful "cause".

Lollers! You can't, can you. Now, your inability to do so is not a matter of weak measuring instruments - random chance is a fundamental property of all matter.

Furthermore, any attempted prediction will be based merely on inductive logic. Black swans anyone? Throw a bell curve at swan colours a few centuries back LOL!

Let me quote for you from John Gribbin's Encyclopedia of Particle Physics:

It is not the case that by having a large number of quantum events happening at the same time you can predict what will happen in a statistical way.

On radioactive decay:

Each nucleus in a sample decays spontaneously, at random, in accordance with the blind workings of chance.

"Blind workings of chance" = samey samey "cause"? Maybe not. Maybe sh|t just happens.



BTW - you got a kitteh in a box? Is Fred the kitteh alive or dead. Or both?

 

[alloytoo]

Originally Posted by alloytoo
We're talking about intentional objects that have no existance other than as intentional objects.

How do you prove the physical existance of such objects?

Mindless jibberish.

I forgot. You don't actually understand intentional objects. My Bad.

Mind giving us any proof of the existence of your mind? Even scientific evidence would be nice. Not just jibberish, anecdotal evidence etc. Question for you now is... (paraphrasing you of course) how do you detect something that doesn't exist?

Ooooh a (Barely) veiled insult. Still avoiding my question (and I'm not letting you crib off me).

How do you detect something that doesn't exist?

 

[alloytoo]

Lollers! You might recall, if you did read with any comprehension, that it is YOUR TURN to answer.

Until such time as I get some sensible answer,

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Phronesis]

Erm... Oh helpless one LOL! Looks like you do not understand quantum indeterminacy at all. Go back to my experiment and tell me what caused the atom to decay precisely when it did. Explain your wonderful "cause".

Another argument from ignorance from rwenzori rainman's lair of logic.
rwenzori rainman's law nr 2: Because the cause of random atom decay is unknown, it therefore means there is no cause. Never mind science trying to figure the nature of the laws operating and science actually able o predict statistically with reasonable accuracy when such a supposed random event will occur...because you know, they are actually aware of the causes (read laws and forces, maybe not all though) involved in the process.

Perhaps you should read up on determinant laws resulting in indeterminate systems...

Lollers! You can't, can you. Now, your inability to do so is not a matter of weak measuring instruments - random chance is a fundamental property of all matter.

Random chance is property of all matter says MyBB's resident physicis...oh wait no. You believe crap happens and that is about the depth of your scientific knowledge it seems.

Radioactive decay? Completely random? You still have not described to us what you think random actually means. Just so you know, the cause of this seemngly random decay is as a result of the interaction between the attractive nuclear force and the repulsive electrostatic force. Knowledge of the cause (read cause) of seemingly random decay allows scientists to predict (statistically) when radioactive decay will happen. Not crap that happens without a cause or a force going randomly astray. Radioactive decay happens exactly like it should as dictated by he laws and force resulting on it.

 

[Phronesis]

I forgot. You don't actually understand intentional objects. My Bad.[/quot] Yeah, and you do... oh wait, you pretend to bu never actually get to how you do. Big words there alloytubby. I suggest yo get a dictionary.
Read up on reductionism while you are at and then use reductionism to detect the meaning lol.

Ooooh a (Barely) veiled insult. Still avoiding my question (and I'm not letting you crib off me).

How do you detect something that doesn't exist?

One would have thought you would have figured that one out.
So alloytubby now is a good time for that proof of the existence of your mind. Scientific evidence would be fine.
But like you ask out of ignorance (or madness, who knows), how do you detect something that doesn't exist?

 

[alloytoo]

I forgot. You don't actually understand intentional objects. My Bad.[/quot] Yeah, and you do... oh wait, you pretend to bu never actually get to how you do. Big words there alloytubby. I suggest yo get a dictionary.
Read up on reductionism while you are at and then use reductionism to detect the meaning lol.




One would have thought you would have figured that one out.
So alloytubby now is a good time for that proof of the existence of your mind. Scientific evidence would be fine.
But like you ask out of ignorance (or madness, who knows), how do you detect something that doesn't exist?

Ok, fine, we understand you don't [-]won't[/-]can't, to answer the simple questions.

I'll consider this correspondence closed before you bend the 9th commandment beyond all recognition.

 

[Phronesis]

Ok, fine, we understand you don't [-]won't[/-]can't, to answer the simple questions.

Alloytubby, you are a joke matey. You think you can detect something using reductionism. That alone should let you think twice about your own comprehension. But no, you soldier on, asking how to detect something that does not exist.
Look, I don't go trying to detect whether the universe is surrounded by tellytubbies, because quite frankly I don't believe it is. This betrays my bias unfortunately trying to detect something that does not exist in my opinion is daft and crazy. Trying to find out whether our reality is based on mind, intentionality, truth and reason is a different story and can hardly be compared to pink unicorns. If someone conflates the two, it betrays their total philosophical ignorance of the matter. Your question asking how to detect something that does not exist only betrays your bias, made up mind and philosophical ignorance. nothing more.

I'll consider this correspondence closed before you bend the 9th
commandment beyond all recognition.

Rather not quote mine the Bible like you always do.


So alloytubby, being the faith head that I am for believing in the existence of other minds, I am actually agnostic on you having a mind. Mind giving us some scientific evidence that you do have one?

 

[rwenzori]

Another argument from ignorance from rwenzori rainman's lair of logic.
rwenzori rainman's law nr 2: Because the cause of random atom decay is unknown, it therefore means there is no cause. Never mind science trying to figure the nature of the laws operating and science actually able o predict statistically with reasonable accuracy when such a supposed random event will occur...because you know, they are actually aware of the causes (read laws and forces, maybe not all though) involved in the process.

So, as expected, you cannot answer my challenge. In fact, it seems you don't even understand it, let alone quantum indeterminacy and inductive logic. Sad really. I'll leave you to your universe of causal determinism, as this is getting a bit pointless.

 

[Phronesis]

So, as expected, you cannot answer my challenge. In fact, it seems you don't even understand it, let alone quantum indeterminacy and inductive logic. Sad really. I'll leave you to your universe of causal determinism, as this is getting a bit pointless.

ROFL, that indeterminate created system does not have a cause right? Talk about not understanding...
Indeterminate environments does not imply there is no cause for it being indeterminate. Your comprehension of "inductive logic" seems to fail... again.

You and your ilk are just like the epicureans for believing that the cause of it all is random chaos. Without even defining true randomness as well. Guess what, no meaningful endeavour has ever arisen out of such crap beliefs.
Talk about being unscientific.

BTW, indeterminism is a good argument for free will.