Creationism--Proof ?

[damocles]

Damocles, ''God does not play dice with the universe'' means exactly what i said, the universe is not random. everything has meaning and order. if this were not true, science and math would not exist. suppose every time you added 1+1, a random answer would occur?

 

http://Stephen Hawking

 

Does God Play Dice?

 

This lecture is about whether we can predict the future, or whether it is arbitrary and random. In ancient times, the world must have seemed pretty arbitrary. Disasters such as floods or diseases must have seemed to happen without warning, or apparent reason. Primitive people attributed such natural phenomena, to a pantheon of gods and goddesses, who behaved in a capricious and whimsical way. There was no way to predict what they would do, and the only hope was to win favour by gifts or actions. Many people still partially subscribe to this belief, and try to make a pact with fortune. They offer to do certain things, if only they can get an A-grade for a course, or pass their driving test.

 

When one discusses another man's use of a term(god), one had better be quite sure what that man meant.

 

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God --Albert Einstein The Human Side, 1954

 

Understand this.

 

Einstein, don't tell God what to do. (Niels Bohr in response to Einstein's 'God does not play dice)

 

Imposition of one's own ideology;

 

The god of the cannibals will be a cannibal, of the crusaders a crusader, of the merchants a merchant.

--Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

is not the definition of reality.

 

As to the the question of how do you have a mathematics in which 1+1 not =2?

 

There are oddball situations in math when ^0!= 1

 

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/chavis3.18.98.html

 

Date: 03/18/98 at 13:10:04

From: Denise Chavis

Subject: 0 factorial = 1

 

Why does 0! = 1? Is there a reason or is this like anything to the

power of 0 = 1 - there is not a reason?

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Date: 03/18/98 at 16:39:40

From: Doctor Sam

Subject: Re: 0 factorial = 1

 

Denise,

 

You are correct that 0! = 1 for reasons that are similar to why

x^0 = 1. Both are defined that way. But there are reasons for these

definitions; they are not arbitrary.

 

You cannot reason that x^0 = 1 by thinking of the meaning of powers as

"repeated multiplications" because you cannot multiply x zero times.

Similarly, you cannot reason out 0! just in terms of the meaning of

factorial because you cannot multiply all the numbers from zero down

to 1 to get 1.

 

Mathematicians *define* x^0 = 1 in order to make the laws of exponents

work even when the exponents can no longer be thought of as repeated

multiplication. For example, (x^3)(x^5) = x^8 because you can add

exponents. In the same way (x^0)(x^2) should be equal to x^2 by

adding exponents. But that means that x^0 must be 1 because when you

multiply x^2 by it, the result is still x^2. Only x^0 = 1 makes sense

here.

 

In the same way, when thinking about combinations we can derive a

formula for "the number of ways of choosing k things from a collection

of n things." The formula to count out such problems is n!/k!(n-k)!.

For example, the number of handshakes that occur when everybody in a

group of 5 people shakes hands can be computed using n = 5 (five

people) and k = 2 (2 people per handshake) in this formula. (So the

answer is 5!/(2! 3!) = 10).

 

Now suppose that there are 2 people and "everybody shakes hands with

everybody else." Obviously there is only one handshake. But what

happens if we put n = 2 (2 people) and k = 2 (2 people per handshake)

in the formula? We get 2! / (2! 0!). This is 2/(2 x), where x is the

value of 0!. The fraction reduces to 1/x, which must equal 1 since

there is only 1 handshake. The only value of 0! that makes sense here

is 0! = 1.

 

And so we define 0! = 1.

 

I hope that helps.

 

-Doctor Sam, The Math Forum

Check out our web site! http://mathforum.org/dr.math/

 

True, that is a restrictive example and it is confined to exponential operations but it is an example of the fact that in mathematics the consistent result is determined by the consistent rule for that operation in that particular mathematics.

 

Like every other observer biased information system that works logically, the rules are defined by the user. The only requirement is that the rules be self consistent within that information system to yield repeatable information results interpreted by the observer according to the defined rule.

 

Where modelling comes in and the approximations of the TRUTH observed is when the observer surrenders his role as rule definer and instead adopts the role of, as much as possible, explainer within the event-so that the event itself sets up the definition of the rule.

 

So in this case of mathematics, when working with exponents- when adding and subtracting exponential place powers, one discovers that 1*10^0 is not equal to 0 while 0.0 *10^n+1 is. And that is a simple everyday example of where ramdom values plugged into an equation will yield a singular result.

 

So beware when you make assertions as to what you think Einstein believed. He may have believed in a god, but it was a god as he defined it without evidence; as Neils Bohr was so quick to point out and as R.W. Emerson observed the century before.

 

Damocles

[questor]

Damocles, you seem to be a nice and sincere person and i don't mean to be rude, but you can't seem to discuss creationism without a discussion of God. mankinds perception of God is not what i'm talking about, so you and i are talking apples and oranges. further discussion of two different subjects will yield no common ground, so...go in peace.

[damocles]

Damocles, you seem to be a nice and sincere person and i don't mean to be rude, but you can't seem to discuss creationism without a discussion of God. mankinds perception of God is not what i'm talking about, so you and i are talking apples and oranges. further discussion of two different subjects will yield no common ground, so...go in peace.

 

Are you denying that creationism implies a creator?

 

If so, then I agree that I find your logic is incomprehensible. The action of a creator on a universal scale matches the human definition of a godlike act.

 

You may squirm about this equivalence definition but we are humans here and we use human defined information terms when we have no event defined information on which to form our definition of "creationism".

 

Now, likewise, go in peace.

[questor]

creation of the universe would indeed imply a creator.

[damocles]

creation of the universe would indeed imply a creator.

 

Thank you for conceding the logic.

 

Such a creator would be by human definition a god.

 

Such for which you would test by negation.

 

Best wishes;

[questor]

Damocles,if there was a creator as i define it, it is a supreme force that is possessed of infinite power and intelligence and has nothing to do with any GOD concept imagined by man. this force existed before man, will exist after man and the earth and maybe the universe. it has no body or human traits and does not show interest in the human race.

we cannot imagine or contemplate this force with our current knowledge, but i feel certain

it is not Allah, God, Jehovah, or any other man-made creations of divinity. if this meets your definition, we are on the same page. you can call it what you wish, i call it the Creator. i think this is the God of Einstein.

[TRoutMac]

Damocles,if there was a creator as i define it, it is a supreme force that is possessed of infinite power and intelligence and has nothing to do with any GOD concept imagined by man. this force existed before man, will exist after man and the earth and maybe the universe. it has no body or human traits and does not show interest in the human race.

we cannot imagine or contemplate this force with our current knowledge, but i feel certain it is not Allah, God, Jehovah, or any other man-made creations of divinity. if this meets your definition, we are on the same page. you can call it what you wish, i call it the Creator. i think this is the God of Einstein.

 

Here's where I think we part ways, questor… at least to some extent. When you say "infinite power and intelligence" you, in fact, are describing something that matches what the Bible describes as God. And along with that, you are describing an entity that's not an impersonal "force" as in Star Wars, but rather a personal, intelligent being with omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

 

I won't deny that mankind has his own conceptions of gods, nor will I deny that many of those are false, contrived gods. But if the Intelligent Designer we're talking about here turns out to be the God of the Bible, then that God is not really just an contrivance of man's imagination, is it? And, if that's true, it's not a God such as deists would describe that has "no interest" in the human race.

 

I guess my overall point is that the resistance to I.D. has nothing to do with science. It has only to do with the fact that people see that if there is an Intelligent Designer, then it might be the God of the Bible, and apparently people don't much like that idea. As a Christian myself, I really can't understand what they find so objectionable about it, but then to each his own. I guess they're just much more comfortable with the idea that there is no purpose and that nothing's expected of them and that mankind is pretty much the supreme being of the universe. It's too bad for them that the evidence doesn't point in that direction.

[questor]

Mac, if after reading my post, which you quote, you have arrived at these conclusions, i must admit to an inability to communicate, since you clearly misunderstand what i have written.

[damocles]

Sigh.

 

Let us build the chain of evidence.

 

Logical premise accepted by questor.

 

Posted by questor

 

creation of the universe would indeed imply a creator.

 

Logical premise disputed by questor is that creator=god.

 

Posted by damocles

 

Such a creator would be by human definition a god.

 

 

Basis cited for refutation by questor.(Appeal to an authority definition)

 

Damocles,if there was a creator as i define it, it is a supreme force that is possessed of infinite power and intelligence and has nothing to do with any GOD concept imagined by man. this force existed before man, will exist after man and the earth and maybe the universe. it has no body or human traits and does not show interest in the human race.

we cannot imagine or contemplate this force with our current knowledge, but i feel certain

it is not Allah, God, Jehovah, or any other man-made creations of divinity. if this meets your definition, we are on the same page. you can call it what you wish, i call it the Creator. i think this is the God of Einstein.

 

Einstein describes his view on the creator.

 

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God --Albert Einstein The Human Side, 1954

 

Einstein sure used the term "god" to define creator. Notice that he uses his observer viewpoint(experience as a mathematical physicist/theoretician) to define his version of the term, "god"?

 

Now then was the specimen, Einstein, human?

 

Definition of a Human being;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

 

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "wise man" or "clever human"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the other apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

 

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection. Current evidence indicates that bipedal locomotion appeared during human evolution before the large human brain. The origins of bipedal locomotion during human evolution and its role in human brain evolution are topics of on-going research.

 

The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for the complexity of human behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and observation have led to a variety of explanations for consciousness and the relation between mind and body. Psychology, especially neuropsychology, attempts to study them from the scientific point of view. Religious perspectives generally emphasise a soul, qi or atman as the essence of being, and are often characterised by the belief in and worship of God, gods or spirits. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often used in expressing these concepts and feelings.

 

(Strong recommendation-READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE. D.)

 

 

Now for a cursory view of just what the animal looks like;(Anatomy of the animal, so that you can look for matching point and organizational characteristics of the planform.)

 

http://www.innerbody.com/htm/body.html

 

And what the male animal looks like under workload;

 

 

And now compare to the specimen, Albert Einstein, with full body under workload;

 

 

 

Einstein, the specimen, meets the accepted definition of human being?

 

Einstein, the human being. used the term "god" to define what he meant by an organizing spirit that created the universe?

 

Therefore when Einstein uses the term "god" as he defines it, he uses a "human" definition.

 

QED.

 

As do you, questor, when you try not to define it. Information theory again. You communicate information as defined by your operating system rules and characteristics.

 

Being human, means you use human definitions even when you use those terms in human refutation of the definitions.

 

Best wishes;

[questor]

Dear Damocles, please tell me your definition of God.

[damocles]

Dear Damocles, please tell me your definition of God.

 

Fair enough.

 

If you are fighting the term you should know what I mean.

 

I firmly accept the premise of the self-organizing system

 

Self organizing principle;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

 

Self-organization refers to a process in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases automatically without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (though not always) display emergent properties.

 

Now note the bold italics?

 

Open systems typically display such an attribute mathematically.

 

If the intelligent designers took that as a clue, they have one of the physical parameters to form one of the negation tests they could run.

 

Now on to my definition of god

 

It depends on non locality and the exchange of information.

 

I will use Venn diagrams to explain.

 

First, for the condition of existence we must define what the set contains;

 

http://www.sci.wsu.edu/math/Lessons/Logic/vennDiagramOld.html

 

1. nothing

2. something

 

If it contains a boundary(where there is a set S and something not set S(S BAR) then we have non-locality.(This is a testable condition to see if you have a "creator" by the way .D.)

 

For those conditions where there is only set S and no boundary there is no need to distinguish between S=S so there is no need for a "creator" to explain S.

 

However what happens when you have two sets?

 

 

You have a merge where set A, a god, interacts with set B, the creation. There will be information exchange(violations of the set boundary----of homogeneous operations, locality, causality, conservation, cause effect, etc.- a whole host of effects for which you can locally testy well within the means available to an observer.

 

Then you have the two sets; no merge condition.

 

 

Set A creates set B and now there is no information exchange post boundary condition as set A physically remnoves itself from set B.

 

This is also a testable condition within current observer limits. The presence of two boundary conditions-one an lower limit(beginning) and a upper limit(end) by implication proves a two set condition for a certainty, and if the testing for a merged or overlapped sets condition proves outcome negative then a two boundary condition must exist thus proving a three set condition with certainty. I accept thye multiple bubble eruption description for this condition burt if some can prove that one of the "bubbles" is causing the other bubbles to inflate?

 

However I have always been fascinated by the Bell Theorem

 

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html

 

(Quoting from that article; one proof; D.)

 

Sometimes people have trouble with the theorem because we will be doing a variation of a technique called proof by negation. For example, here is a syllogism:

 

All spiders have six legs. All six legged creatures have wings. Therefore all spiders have wings

 

If we ever observe a spider that does not have wings, then we know that at least one and possibly both of the assumptions of the syllogism are incorrect. Similarly, we will derive the inequality and then show an experimental circumstance where it is not true. Thus we will know that at least one of the assumptions we used in the derivation is wrong.

 

Also, we will see that the proof and its experimental tests have absolutely nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics.

 

Now we are ready for the proof itself. First, I assert that:

 

Number(A, not B, C) + Number(not A, B, not C) must be either 0 or a positive integer

 

or equivalently:

 

Number(A, not B, C) + Number(not A, B, not C) greater than or equal to 0

 

This should be pretty obvious, since either no members of the group have these combinations of properties or some members do.

 

Now we add Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C) to the above expression. The left hand side is:

 

Number(A, not B, C) + Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(not A, B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C)

 

and the right hand side is:

 

0 + Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C)

 

But this right hand side is just:

 

Number(A, not C)

 

since for all members either B or not B must be true. In the classroom example above, when we counted the number of men without blue eyes we include both those whose height was over 5' 8" and those whose height was not over 5' 8".

 

Above we wrote "since for all members either B or not B must be true." This will turn out to be important.

 

We can similarly collect terms and write the left hand side as:

 

Number(A, not :) + Number(B, not C)

 

Since we started the proof by asserting that the left hand side is greater than or equal to the right hand side, we have proved the inequality, which I re-state:

 

Number(A, not :) + Number(B, not C) greater than or equal to Number(A, not C)

 

We have made two assumptions in the proof. These are:

 

Logic is a valid way to reason. The whole proof is an exercise in logic, at about the level of the "Fun With Numbers" puzzles one sometimes sees in newspapers and magazines.

Parameters exist whether they are measured or not. For example, when we collected the terms Number(A, not B, not C) + Number(A, B, not C) to get Number(A, not C), we assumed that either not B or B is true for every member.

 

Altogether that is something better understood if you realize that it means if you can predict with absolute certainty the statistical outcome of the spin state of two electrons that were shined through a polarized trap two light years apart, then locality is dead.

 

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html

 

Spooky Action at a Distance

An Explanation of Bell's Theorem

Copyright © 1999 by Gary Felder

 

I. Introduction

There are many aspects of modern physics which seem to violate our intuition. The classical theory of physics which was held from the time of Newton until this century provided an orderly model of a world made of objects moving around and pushing each other around in predictable ways. The mathematics could be difficult, but the basic ideas meshed with our common sense notions of how the world works. Starting at the beginning of this century, our physical theories began to include aspects which ran counter to that common sense, and yet the theories consistently made accurate predictions of experiments which could not be explained with Newtonian physics. Gradually, and despite much resistance, physicists have been forced to accept these new results.

In this paper I am going to discuss one of those results, called nonlocality. Its converse, locality, is the principle that an event which happens at one place can't instantaneously affect an event someplace else. For example: if a distant star were to suddenly blow up tomorrow, the principle of locality says that there is no way we could know about this event or be affected by it until something, e.g. a light beam, had time to travel from that star to Earth. Aside from being intuitive, locality seems to be necessary for relativity theory, which predicts that no signal can propagate faster than the speed of light.

 

In 1935, several years after quantum mechanics had been developed, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a paper which showed that under certain circumstances quantum mechanics predicted a breakdown of locality. Specifically they showed that according to the theory I could put a particle in a measuring device at one location and, simply by doing that, instantly influence another particle arbitrarily far away. They refused to believe that this effect, which Einstein later called "spooky action at a distance," could really happen, and thus viewed it as evidence that quantum mechanics was incomplete.

 

Almost thirty years later J.S. Bell proved that the results predicted by quantum mechanics could not be explained by any theory which preserved locality. In other words, if you set up an experiment like that described by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, and you get the results predicted by quantum mechanics, then there is no way that locality could be true. Years later the experiments were done, and the predictions of quantum mechanics proved to be accurate. In short, locality is dead.

 

(Article continues. I urge you to read it in its entirety .D.)

 

So what if we find condition, set A not merged with set B in our universe,

 

 

that behaves as if it were

 

 

even though we could demonstrate discreteness and quantization of interval?(boundaries between influences)?

 

Well, a curious thing happens when you Venn an expanding information set system from a single set;

 

 

That by implication suggests something?

 

1. Some time in the past; there was no boundary condition.

2. Some time in the past; there was unity and simplicity.

3. Some time in the past; there was singular concentration.

4. Some time in the past there was at least one unit of information; then suddenly two units,Is and not Is.

5. Some time in the past subsetting began as a common merged condition.

6. Sometime in the past; common conditionals, true to all sets was imposed , so all merged sets when they demerged carried those common conditionals which you can call "entanglement" as part of the one feature that all observed sets contain.

7. That if there is a "god", it is that feature of entanglement which might be a footie print(I doubt this; I regard "entanglement" as the common feature produced by the demerging of the sets.).

8. And you can test for this.

 

But before that time there was NOTHING.

[questor]

Damocles, congratulations on your treatise in logic. i can now understand why we have trouble communicating.

[TRoutMac]

Mac, if after reading my post, which you quote, you have arrived at these conclusions, i must admit to an inability to communicate, since you clearly misunderstand what i have written.

 

My apologies, questor, if I've misunderstood.

[goliah]

COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate and particularly religion is in for difficult times. For a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, evidential, testable scientific method, is published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. An intellectual, religious and political bombshell!

 

It is described by a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, delivering a correction to human nature, including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!

 

So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.

 

However improbable, what history and theology have presumed to be impossible is now all too achievable. The implications defy imagination! No joke, no hoax and not spam.

 

Review copies of the manuscript prior to paper publication, are a free pdf download from a number of sites including: http://www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

[Biochemist]

COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate...

Welcome to the site, Goliah.

 

This bit of an odd document, but I think you might want to start a new thread if the topic is of interest to you. This is a bit of a divergence from the original topic of this thread.

 

FYI, the conflict is not really between ID and evolution, although that is popularly represented. The conflict is between ID and Naturalism, as two opposing views of the same data. ID incorporates and includes most elements of evolution. Michael Behe (one of the original ID proponents) regards the ID point of view as an addition to evolution, not a rejection of it.

[cosmo]

why should anyone attack me for asking simple questions? attacks usually originate from persons with an agenda opposite to the one proposed. the fact is that you don't believe in creation although you cannot defend that position scientifically. the truth also is that the politically correct movement and the ACLU are trying to drive religion out of our society, when the very laws and societal mores we live by were founded on these principles. the result will be a poorer society rather than a better one, with fewer curbs on bad behavior.

the word science derives from the Latin word meaning ; to know. i am not playing

semantical games here, i am saying neither you nor i know the origin of the universe, you're taking the non-creational position with no facts to back it up, i'm assuming there is a

possibility of a creator, and the evidence i see points in that direction.

 

I agree with you. No one on the face of this planet can give any evidence at all of there not being a creator. But, there is infinite evidence to prove the existance of a creator and the evidence is all around you. I'll never forget these words I heard in a speech by Dr. Hugh Ross that he made back in 1994. He said, "Everything that is created must have a creator," thus proving the existance of God. The evidence is the universe. It wasn't some accident that happened once upon a time, it was created. Albert Einstein said that the creation of the universe or the "Big Bang" theory he believed in must have happened through means of a greater intelligence far beyond that of any human. He was talking about God.

 

The speech that Dr. Hugh Ross made back in 1994 about God and the universe can be wread and listened to here: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm

 

I encourage everyone to listen to this. Trust me, its something you really don't want to miss. :surprise:

[ughaibu]

The proof of christian creation is anal hair in human males. The proof depends on the assumption that the Bible is reliable on two points, 1) that God created man in his image and 2) that God is all-powerful. As the Bible is the word of God we can throw out any doubts about it's reliability, any problems of logic arising from it being the word of God about God are overruled by the fact that it is God.

We know that anal hair in human males is not an evolutionary development because it's such an inconvenience, further, humans are the only animals requiring artificial aids (paper, sprays, buckets, etc) in order to avoid a mass of smelly and matted hairs. The Bible is specific in stating that 'man' was created in the image, the sample of women so far tested has proven them bereft of anal hair, pointing to the significance of this feature for those seeking meaning in the details of the image. We can easily demonstrate from God's all-powerfulness the absurdity of him saying "I'm famished, one of you cherubs nip down to the chippy and get me a creation and creation pie", or God shouting from inside the toilet "which one of you idiots didn't replace the paper again!". In short, God neither eats nor defecates so is not inconvenienced by his own anal hair. So, there you have it, interestingly we can see God's sense of humour in leaving this rather obvious clue.

"Aha!" some of you might say, "but what if the image refered to in the Bible is functional, not one of physical form?" and you would have a point. We then have to consider pogonophora which as animals that neither eat nor defecate, could be considered to be created in the functional likeness. Interestingly pogonophora live way down in the depths where it's very hot and smells of sulphur, unavoidably bringing the other camp to mind. This leads us on to the further idea that the God/Devil divide is less one of good and evil than one of form and function. As the Bible represents form and evolution represents function we are confirmed in our initial assumption that the Bible is of divine origin and therefore reliable.