Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2013, 04:13 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(28-06-2013 03:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Random in terms of the underlying physics on a macro, Newtonian level are the products of the big bang, n'est pas?

That is not a sentence. That is some words strung vaguely together. Even the French is wrong (it's n'est-ce pas).

(28-06-2013 03:02 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  No, cosmic geometry is a consequence of cosmology, that is, how the universe began? Big bang? Steady state? God did it? PICK ONE. "2" shows evidence of DESIGN.

"2" is evidence of butt fuck all. I already gave you a brief indication as to why it appears, to us, to be '2'. It's predicated on a number of social constructs we use to conceptualize the universe. Natural numbers are one of those; so are vector fields and dimensionality. But the "2" isn't random; it's simply a consequence of our models of the universe.

Those same models have proven to be incredibly effective at understanding, predicting, and manipulating the universe around us. That's why we stick with them until otherwise demonstrated. (and so far as efficacy at predicting and manipulating the universe goes, belief in the supernatural has accomplished the aforementioned butt fuck all).

Why that should be - that many interactions take the form of irrotational divergence-free vector fields in macroscopically 3-dimensional space, thus leading to inverse-square relationships - is indeed something we can't presently explain.

What it is not is evidence of design.

Positing design, one must be able to explain why this configuration, instead of another - for surely, an all-powerful creator could design a universe to any specifications, n'est-ce pas?

Anthropic principle, you say? To suggest that no other possible set of physical laws could result in a vibrant, living universe indicates a profound lack of imagination. The idea that this - us - is the most perfect of possible creations (and a perfect creator could create no less!) is so astoundingly and fundamentally flawed, ass-backward, and narcissistic that it isn't worth contemplating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
01-07-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Quote:That is not a sentence. That is some words strung vaguely together. Even the French is wrong (it's n'est-ce pas).

You are being kind of silly here. Nest pas is a colloquial abbreviation used in the States like "s'aright" for "it's alright". I'll clarify my sentence for your use:

Either you believe in an eternal universe or not, but the formula, you would say, is not a product of intelligent design, right? That means it's random, n'est-ce pas?

Quote:"2" is evidence of butt fuck all. I already gave you a brief indication as to why it appears, to us, to be '2'. It's predicated on a number of social constructs we use to conceptualize the universe. Natural numbers are one of those; so are vector fields and dimensionality. But the "2" isn't random; it's simply a consequence of our models of the universe.

In a sense, 2 is derived from our models of the universe. However, two (2) meaning two items in a set was a number in all base systems used for millennia before there was a formula relating gravitational attraction between objects. Again, it could have worked to have been 2.00000 or not. It is indeed 2 to five decimal places. If you want to create a new system of mathematics so that 2 works out in gravitational formulae as 1.56432, go for it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2013, 03:18 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2013 06:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Either you believe in an eternal universe or not, but the formula, you would say, is not a product of intelligent design, right? That means it's random, n'est-ce pas?

No.
That is the typical ignorant fundie nonsense constantly spewed by complete idiots who do not understand probability, or anything about science, Cosmology, or Physics. Probability IS NOT RANDOM, you fool, and you really are a fool, SPJTJ.
Proven yet again, with every post. Weeping

You still have yet to state that you actually understand what the "2" is actually referring to. Until, or unless you do, we will assume you have not the slightest clue what you are ranting about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You are being kind of silly here. Nest pas is a colloquial abbreviation used in the States like "s'aright" for "it's alright".

I'm aware of the use as a colloquialism. There's still a right way and a wrong way...

(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  In a sense, 2 is derived from our models of the universe. However, two (2) meaning two items in a set was a number in all base systems used for millennia before there was a formula relating gravitational attraction between objects. Again, it could have worked to have been 2.00000 or not. It is indeed 2 to five decimal places. If you want to create a new system of mathematics so that 2 works out in gravitational formulae as 1.56432, go for it.

You fundamentally misunderstand (or merely mischaracterise for rhetorical purposes) the nature of mathematics, science, and physics. I don't know how else I can explain this.

(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ... it could have worked to have been 2.00000 or not.

It's not 2.000... whatever. It's "2". A natural number (not rational or real). It is "2" because dimensionality is a property which only occurs in natural number amounts (because that's how we define it). Gravity behaves in a three dimensional universe. It behaves as a divergence-free conservative field. Therefore the magnitude of the inverse distance relation is two.

But sure - technically it could be different. Of course it could be! And if it were, we (or our equivalents) would have come up with different models and descriptions. So what?

(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It is indeed 2 to five decimal places.

No, it isn't. It's not two to five decimal places, and it's not two to a thousand decimal places. It's an exact value. There's a conceptual difference between sets of numbers (natural numbers, here, as opposed to rational [decimal] or real numbers).

(01-07-2013 02:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  If you want to create a new system of mathematics so that 2 works out in gravitational formulae as 1.56432, go for it.

That it has the value it appears to is the consequence of our mathematics as applied to our sciences. No more, no less. Said sciences being the ones which have proven most effective at understanding, predicting, and manipulating observable reality.


The fact that we have conceptualized a very accurate description of it (which happens to involve natural numbers in places - the ratios between fundamental constants are not anything like natural, mind) does not allow one to conclude anything beyond that the description is effective.

Does our existence require the physical constants and relations of the universe being what they are? Yes - but the question's backwards: rather, the physical constants and relations of the universe require us to exist in the manner we do.

This still has absolutely nothing to do with design.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
02-07-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Quote:No.
That is the typical ignorant fundie nonsense constantly spewed by complete idiots who do not understand probability, or anything about science, Cosmology, or Physics. Probability IS NOT RANDOM, you fool, and you really are a fool, SPJTJ.
Proven yet again, with every post.

You still have yet to state that you actually understand what the "2" is actually referring to. Until, or unless you do, we will assume you have not the slightest clue what you are ranting about.

2 is not "probable", it is. If we have 1,000 possible universes in different dimensions or if you like, different collapsing and expanding universes subject to different laws, in how many of them will the constant be 2 to five places? In how many will the relationship/attraction be in direct proportion to the square of their distance?

We can't know for certain about other universes, but we can note the extraordinary coincidences we find in classical mechanics and the natural world. Coincidence and synchronicity are observations and have nothing to do with "probability" unless you'd care to tell us how many universes have been and will be via your special knowledge? The beauty and harmony of the gravitational laws, Pi, "sacred geometry", animal, plant and animal/plant symbiosis, etc. testify of a universe with great order and harmony.

Do you believe that or do you believe it's all random?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-07-2013 10:39 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:No.
That is the typical ignorant fundie nonsense constantly spewed by complete idiots who do not understand probability, or anything about science, Cosmology, or Physics. Probability IS NOT RANDOM, you fool, and you really are a fool, SPJTJ.
Proven yet again, with every post.

You still have yet to state that you actually understand what the "2" is actually referring to. Until, or unless you do, we will assume you have not the slightest clue what you are ranting about.

2 is not "probable", it is. If we have 1,000 possible universes in different dimensions or if you like, different collapsing and expanding universes subject to different laws, in how many of them will the constant be 2 to five places? In how many will the relationship/attraction be in direct proportion to the square of their distance?

We can't know for certain about other universes, but we can note the extraordinary coincidences we find in classical mechanics and the natural world. Coincidence and synchronicity are observations and have nothing to do with "probability" unless you'd care to tell us how many universes have been and will be via your special knowledge? The beauty and harmony of the gravitational laws, Pi, "sacred geometry", animal, plant and animal/plant symbiosis, etc. testify of a universe with great order and harmony.

Do you believe that or do you believe it's all random?

False dichotomy. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Quote:You fundamentally misunderstand (or merely mischaracterise for rhetorical purposes) the nature of mathematics, science, and physics. I don't know how else I can explain this.

You can explain their nature in sensible terms or lay terms, and not use another "D'uh, you don't understand" term. Science, by the way, contains rubrics and methodologies, while mathematics and physicis describes sets and subsets of what is. So in which area do you claim special knowledge of their "nature"?

Quote:No, it isn't. It's not two to five decimal places, and it's not two to a thousand decimal places. It's an exact value. There's a conceptual difference between sets of numbers (natural numbers, here, as opposed to rational [decimal] or real numbers).

I don't recall the source but it has been estimated that were it as changed as little as 1.99999 or 2.00001, things would not adhere the way that sustains life in the universe. That's five places of design IMO.

Quote:That it has the value it appears to is the consequence of our mathematics as applied to our sciences. No more, no less. Said sciences being the ones which have proven most effective at understanding, predicting, and manipulating observable reality.

The fact that we have conceptualized a very accurate description of it (which happens to involve natural numbers in places - the ratios between fundamental constants are not anything like natural, mind) does not allow one to conclude anything beyond that the description is effective.

Does our existence require the physical constants and relations of the universe being what they are? Yes - but the question's backwards: rather, the physical constants and relations of the universe require us to exist in the manner we do.

This still has absolutely nothing to do with design.

1. Sorry, again, "2" was a concept well established before we knew the correlation of gravitational pull between objects. 2. It has everything to do with design of some type except that you now have special knowledge that there is no being that exists that is capable of forming this universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-07-2013 10:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I don't recall the source but it has been estimated that were it as changed as little as 1.99999 or 2.00001, things would not adhere the way that sustains life in the universe. That's five places of design IMO.




The things that exist within the universe are a result of its properties. If there were different properties, different things would exist within it. We wouldn't exist, but something would.

But about the value in question: it is not the strength of the interaction. It is the proportionality constant of distance. Are you aware of the difference between the two? It can't vary in such a way as you suggest. Such variance is not compatible with the definitions we use to understand it. Gravity, in any universe where it behaves as we think it does in ours, cannot have an arbitrary floating point value for the magnitude of proportionality of its effect with distance.

(02-07-2013 10:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. Sorry, again, "2" was a concept well established before we knew the correlation of gravitational pull between objects.

So what?

(02-07-2013 10:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2. It has everything to do with design of some type ...

Why?

"Because things are what they are (?)" is not a reason.

(02-07-2013 10:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ... except that you now have special knowledge that there is no being that exists that is capable of forming this universe.

And you, I suppose, have special knowledge that there does exist such a being?

The existence of such a being is not sufficient to prove that such a being did create the universe.

The existence of such a being, and the corollary that such a being created the universe, is not sufficient to prove that such a being designed the universe - either that this is the only or only satisfactory universe.

The existence of such a being, and the corollary that it originated our universe, and the corollary that it did so consciously and to specific purposes is STILL not sufficient to prove that such a being bears any resemblance to the specific God you believe in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
You have STILL failed to state exactly what "2" refers to in the equation.
You have no clue what you are even talking about.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Quote:But about the value in question: it is not the strength of the interaction. It is the proportionality constant of distance. Are you aware of the difference between the two? It can't vary in such a way as you suggest. Such variance is not compatible with the definitions we use to understand it. Gravity, in any universe where it behaves as we think it does in ours, cannot have an arbitrary floating point value for the magnitude of proportionality of its effect with distance.

No, it can if we stick with the "best of all possible worlds concept." But let's not digress, though you are STILL not explaining why the value derived is two.

Perhaps you can tell us all how and why gravity behaves as you think it does? I'm fascinated...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: