island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 No, actually it was the first thing that I said to wisdumn that MIGHT be disputed. My point is that you've yet to successfully dispute any of my claims, and yet you continue to ramble on anyway as if you had. Go ahead, dispute point 1 without going beyond that this time. Point by point, FT. Go ahead. ... if you can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: island But, I'll stick by what I said: Anybody that THINKS that they can dispute me, please start here... or don't bother to continue, because I will not respond, except to Uncle Martin for the statements that I just made to him: Please disprove... or you will be admitting willful ignorance if you cannot do so, and yet still insist that there is no REAL plausibility when I say: Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, then it would require an unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics, since the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANT tendency or PURPOSE of the universe. Use your friend's reply to dispute the above, point, by point, FT, because that's where I got it. We won't move forward until each point is agreed upon as settled, and I won't dismiss your points out of hand, while giving you all due respect, but expecting the same. Total honesty is required. In other words, you can't just assume that the first cause isn't the final cause if the first cause is always predominant in an expanding universe. That doesn't mean that you can't make that leap, but it does mean that you cannot exclude it from whatever supported rationale that you use to show exception, since the predominant entropic bias of the first cause is always constant in an expanding universe. I have to qualify this or someone will lose it:1) Purpose=Final Cause - purely physical - no religious implications.2) Big Bang theory is supported by all vald theories to the degree that particle theory intersects with the physics of all of the cutting-edge and mainstream theories at the beginning of time in n-dimensional space, including stringy theories, Loop Quantum Gravity, Relativity, or even Guth's universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandSince the second law doesn't require a closed universe, as you claimed, then we now know the second law apples, which is what you asked, right???In case you want to claim you missed the SAME QUESTIONS the first time around... 1) PROVE the 2nd law applies to the Universe. No the 2nd law does not require a closed universe. The 2nd law does not require ANYTHING of the universe. It just does not apply if the universe is NOT closed. If you understood the concepts you are attempting to discuss you would understand the difference. So, then we should have been able to continue from there, right?... Oh ya, you'd love to claim you can continue your unsupported claims just because you choose to. And you can. Just don't think you are convincing anyone when you fail to support your claims.We should have been able to get to the next point from there if you were straight up about it, rather than fanatically grasping at straws.Yes expecting actual factual answers from you has definately proven to be grasping for straws!Did you admit that you were wrong when you incorrectly pronounced that a teleological theory is NECESSARILY the same thing as the religious usage of teleological arguments. NOPE... you sure didn',Nor would I admit I was wrong when I am not. And especially when you have never shown me to be wrong. Unlike all the times myself, peer reviewed authorities on the subject, and others here have shown YOU to be wrong. I like how FT nitpicks stuff that has nothing to do with scienceLike the false assertion regarding the 2nd Law. No science there! At least not from your side!So, FT... doesn't the arrow actually hit the target when space and time falls off into oblivion when the distance between the arrow and the target falls to less than the planck length?If you could comprehend that Zeno had more than one "paradox", perhaps you could stop arguing the WRONG ONE! Doesn't it, FT?... Surely there is some grammar flaw that you can find that will "thoroughly expose" me... since you've clearly demonstated that physics isn't your bag... LOLI have stated and proven to what extent physics is or isn't MY bag. I have also demonstrated to what extreme extent the outside references bag IS Physics. YOU have ignored the request to show the same level of intellectual integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: Freethinker No the 2nd law does not require a closed universe. The 2nd law does not require ANYTHING of the universe. It just does not apply if the universe is NOT closed False. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Argument fallacies. There are a number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive argument; they're known as fallacies. Petitio principii / Begging the question This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example:Originally posted by: islandAssuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature,The BB "theory" (ignoring all the mis-termonology bagage) is NOT a "fairly accurate representation of nature". The premise is flawed. Prove it first. "relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology" ARE a "fairly accurate representation of nature". The BB only covers the first few instances.then it would require an unfounded leap of faith outside of the basic entropic nature of nature to presume that all action in the universe isn't ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamics,You love using that leap of faith statement as an advance ad homenum against anyone that disputes you. But let's stick to exposing the continous use of Petitio principii.all action in the universe is() ultimately directed toward the satisfaction of the second law of thermodynamicsSuddenly the CREATION OF ORDER, the creation of particles, atoms, molecules, stars, heavy elements, gases, planets, .... is "directed toward" entropy! The premise is flawed. Prove it first.since the entropic tendency was instilled into the energy of the universe at the moment of the BigBang, (or t=10^-43), and still exists today as the PREDOMINANTReply (as you have ignored previously) from a peer reviewed, highly tenured Particle Physics Prof."No Big Bang required for entropy. Clausius finally chose the word ``entropy'' for his slowly formulated wisdom in the area of thermodynamics, around 1865, long before the Mount Palomar telescopes were built. Entropy measures the randomness of heat; it is a triumph of the 1800's---due to Rudolph Clausius---to get ``heat'' split up into entropy and energy. (I caution against an error I see these words may generate: you do not need heat to have entropy, entropy is a general measure of disorder.) So the sentence projects the silly thought that physicists had to discover the Big Bang in order to catch on to the idea of heat!" YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED AGAIN!tendency or PURPOSE of the universe.PROVE the universe has a PURPOSE. Again Petitio principii. YOUR PREMISE IS FLAWED! Use your friend's reply to dispute the above,I included some of his stuff. That you had not refuted, just ignored, the first time around!point, by point,Petitio principii by Petitio principii. That's all you use!We won't move forward until each point is agreed upon as settled, and I won't dismiss your points out of hand, while giving you all due respect, but expecting the same. You have shown us every time that you don't bother RESPONDING to questions or requests for proof. Thus you have recieved the same respect you have shown here. Include your personal credentials specifically connected to particle phsyics. (3rd request at least) Total honesty is required.That would be a change!In other words, you can't just assume that the first cause isn't the final cause if the first cause is alw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandOriginally posted by: FreethinkerNo the 2nd law does not require a closed universe. The 2nd law does not require ANYTHING of the universe. It just does not apply if the universe is NOT closed False.WOW! My appologizes, Who could argue with such overwhelming amounts of evidence to support a claim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerArgument fallacies. There are a number of common pitfalls to avoid when constructing a deductive argument; they're known as fallacies. Petitio principii / Begging the question This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached. Typically the premises of the argument implicitly assume the result which the argument purports to prove, in a disguised form. For example: Originally posted by: island Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, The BB "theory" is NOT a "fairly accurate representation of nature". The premise is flawed. Prove it first. "relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology" ARE a "fairly accurate representation of nature". The BB only covers the first few instances. False. The Big Bang was the cause for every resultant effect. Please cut this falacy and restate, or give it up, cuz your gonna lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: island Originally posted by: Freethinker No the 2nd law does not require a closed universe. The 2nd law does not require ANYTHING of the universe. It just does not apply if the universe is NOT closed False. WOW! My appologizes, Who could argue with such overwhelming amounts of evidence to support a claim! I don't have to disprove that Santa Clause exists to make you wrong. e.g., you're not doing physics, you're fantasizing... so nothing is required from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandAssuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature,Originally posted by: islandThe Big Bang was the cause for every resultant effect. By any chance are you a supporter of the Shrub? You know They HAVE WMD's They have the ability to make WMD's They have programs to develop the ability make WMD's They have intent to have programs to develop the ability to make WMD's He was a bad man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandso nothing is required from me.Nor ever expected or received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: island Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, Originally posted by: island The Big Bang was the cause for every resultant effect. Are you perhaps, projection handicaped?... I think so. OHHHHHHHHH.... You must think that the event is DONE!!! OMG!!!... *now I've seen everything* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerOriginally posted by: island so nothing is required from me. Nor ever expected or received. Nor will it make you capable of making any statements about the subject, until you rectify, or at least limit your statements to within the confines of your ignorance, which essentially puts this discussion out of your league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandAre you perhaps, projection handicaped?... I think so.No one has ever complained abot my projection, except you. Try choking it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Originally posted by: islandlimit your statements to within the confines of your ignorance,Sorry, I don't use your approach to discussions.which essentially puts this discussion out of your league.It's been way below it since the start. But you are fun to string along. And your list of qualifications in the field of particle physics, which we all know you have supplied, because you would NEVER ignore a direct question, is overwhelming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 It was your attitude, dude... I'll bet that you and I would be together on most every other subject. The bottom line is that a final cause for teleology isn't necessarily supernatural in origin, and this is something that many good scientists like yourself reject out of hand without proper consideration because of the negative effect of abuses in the heated politics which DOES in every case decide what stickers do or do not get put on text books and what AGENDAS get pushed. Science has nothing to do with what's going on in the high schools, it's all about... whose got the vote. This is a fact and it is also a damned shame that the abuse has such vile consequeces to science. Make the connection... for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 Still dodging the questions eh? Most of us here have openly acknolwedged what our level of expertice is on various subjects we get involved with. I have specifically stated that, as I believe you might have referred to me, a reader of popular science, or something like that. I have no formal knowledge of physics other than the relatively inaccurate one I recieved while pursuing my formal Electronics education. Originally posted by: islandIt was your attitude, dude... My bad! Just chill'en, widda baddass blunt, in the hizzouse wi ma homies, bro!I'll bet that you and I would be together on most every other subject.There's plenty of others here.The bottom line is that a final cause for teleology isn't necessarily supernatural in origin,It requires a duality. you may not like SUPERnatural, but it is definately EXTRAnatural. Not physics but METAphysics.and this is something that many good scientists like yourself reject out of hand without proper considerationPROPER CONSIDERATION IS: PROVE IT and then we can talk. You want to make all kinds of claims. This has purpose, that is the "nature of nature", a first cause, a last cause a be cause... the 2nd law proves, the 2nd law proves, the 2nd law proves.... Make the connection... for a change.PROVE the connection... for a change! Or have the integrity to admit you can't. We have no problem discussing ideas and concepts openly regardless of how solidly they can be supported, as long as some form of logic and reason is involved and it is stated as such. Not claimed to be more than it is and supported by fallacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
island Posted August 30, 2004 Report Share Posted August 30, 2004 If you honestly think that "I" have avoided anything then you must have missed the part where I edited before you responded. It's the only possible explanation for the further rants of insignificance without ever addressing the point: Originally posted by: islandOriginally posted by: Freethinker Originally posted by: island Assuming that BigBang theory, (as supported by relativity, particle theory, observation and the historic timeline of cosmology) is a fairly accurate representation of nature, Originally posted by: island The Big Bang was the cause for every resultant effect. The Big Bang was the cause for every resultant effect. Are you perhaps, projection handicaped?... I think so. OHHHHHHHHH.... You must think that the event is DONE!!! OMG!!!... *now I've seen everything* Your move NOW... please restate or give it up, because you're gonna lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts