#101 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

How many universes are there? String theory, the Big Bang, Dark Energy... it all might be pointing to an infinite number of universes...

#102 Edited by novi_homines (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: That higgs boson seems to be out of place. Lol it looks so lonely. And what about their anti particle partners. Why aren't they included? Or is there a chart solely for those as well?

#103 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

@willpayton said:

@jezer said:

True, but I can only go by what the text actually says, not by what people think it says. I dont know what they think or assume, or which parts they decided to believe literally, figuratively, allegorically, or otherwise. If the text says "6 days" then I read "6 days". I'm pretty sure that if the text actually comes from an all-powerful entity, then if he/she/it wanted to say something other than "6 days"... he/she/it could have done so.

If the text says "day", then you you may read "day". But, you may also consider that the word that was translated into day may not have only meant day as conceptually understood of today. You may also consider that whether the actual meaning was lost in translation or not, if its largely irrelevant(to the point of the story),

1. I'm not saying you cant take those things into account, just that if the text clearly makes a statement about fact, then I see no reason why I would want to speculate about it not being what it claims to be. Assumptions and interpretations are hardly a basis for making absolutist claims. All it leads to are false conclusions and I'm not interested in wasting my time with that.

@jezer said:

....Also, the idea of only going by what a text literally says kind of eliminates the idea of similes, metaphors, and various literary tools.

2. It doesnt eliminate similes and metaphors at all. Similes and metaphors are not statements of fact.

1. My point is that within a statement of fact, ambiguity within a term can point to similar variations of that same fact. Conceptually, the fact referred to here is the idea that the Earth was created in 6 separated periods of time. Whether "day" is a millisecond or an eon, that underlying fact remains. The term ambiguity suggests that you can question how big those sections were. Since "day" has ambiguity, day as understood of today is not a "statement of fact".

It is more scientifically minded to acknowledge such ambiguity, instead of simply saying "well since I have no personal reason to consider the ambiguity, I'll just read is as if such doesnt exist. Even though such ambiguity may contradict the conclusion I'm coming to"

Analyzing your assumptions and interpretations are a basis for rejecting false dilemmas. Such as "Either the Big Bang is True, or this bible verse is true based on this being the only interpretation. Both can't be true" "Well there's also the possibility that your interpretation is not true" is another possibility, and the false dilemma is erased.

2. Similes and metaphors are not statement of facts.....because you speculate they are similes and metaphors and interpret them not as statements of facts. Otherwise, "Sandra was a snail on her way back home" sounds like a statement of fact. Metaphors specifically are phrased as statements of facts. Interpreting it literally doesn't allow it to work as a metaphor. You only choose to speculate its interpretation because otherwise it doesn't make sense to you. This is no different than anyone choosing to speculate "days" because even though its phrased as a statement of fact, it doesn't make sense to them.

#104 Posted by PartialSanity (433 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: You have to take into consideration basic human behavior for all of those interpretations though. When it was written a "day" should've meant what a day was, not 24 hours, but the span it took for the sun to rise, go down, and come up again - even so, it might've just meant the span of the sun rising and setting. The real problem begins when scientists kept making more and more discoveries - pulling back the curtain if you will. At some point people would've had to either abandon their beliefs or make their beliefs fit somehow. Over 2,000 years ago, at a time where our knowledge of the universe was barely in its infancy, were people making these interpretations? I honestly doubt it. Why would they? There was nothing that was accepted to indicate that these things were at all inaccurate.

It is not uncommon for people to fabricate or misinterpret reality on purpose when facing certain truths. At the core, it is a self-defense mechanism when something is shaking the very foundations of what they believe to be true. When facing the reality that we might be nothing more than a product of chance, it is easy to feel a sense of... aloneness. The universe is vast, and with the possibility of a multiverse, it simply adds to it.

One can't even get started on other aspects, such as greed and pride. The heads of religions must make things fit in order to preserve their status. How much money is simply given to the catholic church by their followers? How much power do men have over women within the orthodox islamic community? The alternative would be to cut their loses and disband, but more importantly, admitting they were wrong. Science has provided a healthy flow of approximated truths for centuries now, and more and more people keep catching on, without the need of killing off everyone who disagrees. Considering that countless people have died because of these religious beliefs, simply saying "my bad" is really not an option for them.

These interpretations, I suspect is nothing more than a self-defense mechanism in part of the followers, and support of the status quo in part of the heads for their own benefit. As @willpayton said, you can only take this at face value, because when it was written that's how it was supposed to be taken as - not how it would be interpreted millenia later.

There is beauty in science in that it doesn't care about anyone's beliefs - scientists just keep doing their thing, discovering what they discover. The world of science is open to mistakes, which is not unexpected since it aims to explain... well, everything. Conveniently enough, if something comes around that goes against the approximated truth, then the correction simply replaces its predecessor.

Everybody can't be right. Funnily enough, scientists are the first to admit when they're wrong, which makes them the only ones.

#105 Posted by Nefarious (19658 posts) - - Show Bio

Science can be a friend or an enemy.

#106 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: That higgs boson seems to be out of place. Lol it looks so lonely. And what about their anti particle partners. Why aren't they included? Or is there a chart solely for those as well?

Well particle physics isnt exactly my thing, but as far as I know every particle has an anti-particle. It's also very possible that there's other missing particles in the Standard Model, but if so they're going to be hard to find.

@jezer said:

1. My point is that within a statement of fact, ambiguity within a term can point to similar variations of that same fact. Conceptually, the fact referred to here is the idea that the Earth was created in 6 separated periods of time. Whether "day" is a millisecond or an eon, that underlying fact remains. The term ambiguity suggests that you can question how big those sections were. Since "day" has ambiguity, day as understood of today is not a "statement of fact".

It is more scientifically minded to acknowledge such ambiguity, instead of simply saying "well since I have no personal reason to consider the ambiguity, I'll just read is as if such doesnt exist. Even though such ambiguity may contradict the conclusion I'm coming to"

Analyzing your assumptions and interpretations are a basis for rejecting false dilemmas. Such as "Either the Big Bang is True, or this bible verse is true based on this being the only interpretation. Both can't be true" "Well there's also the possibility that your interpretation is not true" is another possibility, and the false dilemma is erased.

2. Similes and metaphors are not statement of facts.....because you speculate they are similes and metaphors and interpret them not as statements of facts. Otherwise, "Sandra was a snail on her way back home" sounds like a statement of fact. Metaphors specifically are phrased as statements of facts. Interpreting it literally doesn't allow it to work as a metaphor. You only choose to speculate its interpretation because otherwise it doesn't make sense to you. This is no different than anyone choosing to speculate "days" because even though its phrased as a statement of fact, it doesn't make sense to them.

Ok, so it could be a statement to be taken literally or a statement to be interpreted as a metaphor. Now what? Either way I still dont see how "God created the universe in 6 days" is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. You have stretch that so far into the unknown to even come close to making it plausible as a metaphor that it makes it completely arbitrary. You'd basically be interpreting "days" as "any amount of time you want". Like I said before, that's basically a waste of time and only fruitful if your goal is to use vague and ambiguous quotes to try to support some preconceived idea.

The other reason why I dont care for the metaphor argument when it comes to the Biblical creation timeline is that a metaphor is a figure of speech that relates two things that are not logically or literally related. So, saying "Sandra was a snail on her way back home" is obviously a metaphor because Sandra is (presumably) a human and "snail" is often used to denote slowness. But, if you're talking about the passage of time, and someone says something takes "6 days"... at best it's a very poorly conceived metaphor. More likely it's just some b.s. made up by people that already had a concept of the 7-day week, which existed as far back as the Babylonians and maybe earlier.

As far as whether the original word translates as "days" or something else... meh. It makes little difference to me. Seems like that should concern the people making the translations. If they seem to be ok with "days" then I dont see why I need to be speculating and worrying about it.

#107 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: @willpayton: @partialsanity: First, The Bible tells us exactly how long a day is.

Genesis 1: 5 says: God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. "

so from morning to morning was a day.

then it says again at Genesis: 1:6 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Because sunrise varies from day to day it may not have been exactly 24 hrs but it was very close. If science has proven that wrong it's best to accept it and move on.

#108 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@glitch_spawn:

Entropy and Causality used as a proof for God's existence The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost (mostly as heat) in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand; therefore, it is finite in size. All events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. We've already established the universe cannot be infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of unusable energy, which it is not. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist. An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause. This uncaused cause is supernatural. By supernatural is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning. This means that God is uncaused. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.

I finally go around to reading this. You seriously need to use paragraph breaks or something. No one wants to read a wall of text.

But, anyway, you make some unfounded assumptions, logical errors, and leaps to conclusions. So, I'm afraid you didnt prove your final statement. Sorry.

#109 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@novi_homines said:

@willpayton: That higgs boson seems to be out of place. Lol it looks so lonely. And what about their anti particle partners. Why aren't they included? Or is there a chart solely for those as well?

Well particle physics isnt exactly my thing, but as far as I know every particle has an anti-particle. It's also very possible that there's other missing particles in the Standard Model, but if so they're going to be hard to find.

@jezer said:

1. My point is that within a statement of fact, ambiguity within a term can point to similar variations of that same fact. Conceptually, the fact referred to here is the idea that the Earth was created in 6 separated periods of time. Whether "day" is a millisecond or an eon, that underlying fact remains. The term ambiguity suggests that you can question how big those sections were. Since "day" has ambiguity, day as understood of today is not a "statement of fact".

It is more scientifically minded to acknowledge such ambiguity, instead of simply saying "well since I have no personal reason to consider the ambiguity, I'll just read is as if such doesnt exist. Even though such ambiguity may contradict the conclusion I'm coming to"

Analyzing your assumptions and interpretations are a basis for rejecting false dilemmas. Such as "Either the Big Bang is True, or this bible verse is true based on this being the only interpretation. Both can't be true" "Well there's also the possibility that your interpretation is not true" is another possibility, and the false dilemma is erased.

2. Similes and metaphors are not statement of facts.....because you speculate they are similes and metaphors and interpret them not as statements of facts. Otherwise, "Sandra was a snail on her way back home" sounds like a statement of fact. Metaphors specifically are phrased as statements of facts. Interpreting it literally doesn't allow it to work as a metaphor. You only choose to speculate its interpretation because otherwise it doesn't make sense to you. This is no different than anyone choosing to speculate "days" because even though its phrased as a statement of fact, it doesn't make sense to them.

1. Ok, so it could be a statement to be taken literally or a statement to be interpreted as a metaphor. Now what? Either way I still dont see how "God created the universe in 6 days" is compatible with the Big Bang Theory. 2. You have stretch that so far into the unknown to even come close to making it plausible as a metaphor that it makes it completely arbitrary. You'd basically be interpreting "days" as "any amount of time you want". Like I said before, that's basically a waste of time and only fruitful if your goal is to use vague and ambiguous quotes to try to support some preconceived idea.

3. The other reason why I dont care for the metaphor argument when it comes to the Biblical creation timeline is that a metaphor is a figure of speech that relates two things that are not logically or literally related. So, saying "Sandra was a snail on her way back home" is obviously a metaphor because Sandra is (presumably) a human and "snail" is often used to denote slowness. But, if you're talking about the passage of time, and someone says something takes "6 days"... at best it's a very poorly conceived metaphor. More likely it's just some b.s. made up by people that already had a concept of the 7-day week, which existed as far back as the Babylonians and maybe earlier.

4. As far as whether the original word translates as "days" or something else... meh. It makes little difference to me. Seems like that should concern the people making the translations. If they seem to be ok with "days" then I dont see why I need to be speculating and worrying about it.

1. No..... my point is that there is vagueness in the word "day". I'm not saying that it is definitely a metaphor or literal statement, I was using the idea of metaphors to convey situation where people chronically consider multiple interpretations of sentences/phrases/words instead of simply taking it literally because of ambiguity. Which is why you shouldn't simply go, "well there's no reason to consider it more than the literal day".

2. I disagree. You'll have the chance to see me do so in my magic thread ;)

3. I don't think you are fully understanding the point of my "metaphor" argument. For example, I wasn't saying/didn't say that "day" is a metaphor. However, like I said, day may simply denote separate, distinct periods of time. That is true for any of the possible interpretations of how the word day translated(whether its literal 24 hours or denotes long periods of time).

4. Of course, you only need to speculate such if whether its 24 hours or longer is a premise in your conclusion that the Big Bang Theory and Genesis aren't compatible. If part of your reason for saying such is that "The Universe wasn't obviously created in 6 literal days." then people can take the premise right out from under that aspect of your argument by simply pointing it out that it may not be true.

#110 Edited by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer: @willpayton: @partialsanity: First, The Bible tells us exactly how long a day is.

Genesis 1: 5 says: God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. "

so from morning to morning was a day

.

then it says again at Genesis: 1:6 "And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Because sunrise varies from day to day it may not have been exactly 24 hrs but it was very close. If science has proven that wrong it's best to accept it and move on.

That's interesting point of view. It works if you interpret "evening" and "morning" as literal evenings and mornings, instead of simply representing say a beginning and an end to a period of time.

However, such a literal point of view falls apart when you consider that the verses were saying and there was "evening and morning" before God made the sun and moon in a later day in later verses, which is instrumental to your literal interpretation of a literal morning and evening.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So, if you accept that your verse is explaining how long a day is - according to a 24 hour period related to the sun and moon and literal evening and literal morning, you must also accept that it could not have been literal 24 hour day dictated by the sun and moon, as the sun and moon were not created until the 4th literal day passed. Therefore, the mechanics for "evening" and "morning" must have run by some different mechanics. Therefore, there's no reason to believe its referring to 24 hour days or roughly the period of time---so your argument then contradicts itself, and then implodes on itself.

#111 Edited by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: No what contradicts itself is the Bible itself. God already created the day and night in verse 4,5. The fact that the Bible contradicts itself in the very first chapter shows why it has little scientific merit.

#112 Edited by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer: No what contradicts itself is the Bible itself. God already created the day and night in verse 4,5. The fact that the Bible contradicts itself in the very first chapter shows why it has little scientific merit.

Unfortunately, we are not talking about what the bible says. We were talking about your interpretation of what the bible says, the verse, evening and day, etc.. As there is no objective interpretation.

So....actually your interpretation is what contradicts itself and then implodes on itself.

#113 Edited by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer: The problem here is not whether we're talking about interpretations of words, metaphors, literal interpretations, or any of that. We can do that all we want, but it goes outside the scope of this thread, and wont be especially fruitful anyway.

Part of what I was trying to say when I talked about taking it literally or not, is that if it's literal then we can compare it to known facts. If it's not, and you cant say what the meaning is, then it's pointless to speculate about it and how it compares to facts.

@jezer said:

So, if you accept that your verse is explaining how long a day is - according to a 24 hour period related to the sun and moon and literal evening and literal morning, you must also accept that it could not have been literal 24 hour day dictated by the sun and moon, as the sun and moon were not created until the 4th literal day passed. Therefore, the mechanics for "evening" and "morning" must have run by some different mechanics. Therefore, there's no reason to believe its referring to 24 hour days or roughly the period of time---so your argument then contradicts itself, and then implodes on itself.

Or I could point out that you're trying to apply logic and known facts about astronomy to what is a supernatural event, and then your arguments implodes on itself.

Or I could also point out that people 3000 years ago didnt know anything about astronomy, and again your argument implodes on itself.

The moral of the story: Dont try to make logical arguments based on stories initially written thousands of years ago, then modified countless times since then, relating to supernatural events that the authors didnt witness, and for which there is zero evidence.

Seriously, if we cant even agree on what the word "day" means when it says something took "6 days", then it's completely pointless and a waste of time to speculate on what any of it means.

#114 Edited by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

@jezer: The problem here is not whether we're talking about interpretations of words, metaphors, literal interpretations, or any of that. We can do that all we want, but it goes outside the scope of this thread, and wont be especially fruitful anyway.

Part of what I was trying to say when I talked about taking it literally or not, is that if it's literal then we can compare it to known facts. If it's not, and you cant say what the meaning is, then it's pointless to speculate about it and how it compares to facts.

@jezer said:

So, if you accept that your verse is explaining how long a day is - according to a 24 hour period related to the sun and moon and literal evening and literal morning, you must also accept that it could not have been literal 24 hour day dictated by the sun and moon, as the sun and moon were not created until the 4th literal day passed. Therefore, the mechanics for "evening" and "morning" must have run by some different mechanics. Therefore, there's no reason to believe its referring to 24 hour days or roughly the period of time---so your argument then contradicts itself, and then implodes on itself.

Or I could point out that you're trying to apply logic and known facts about astronomy to what is a supernatural event, and then your arguments implodes on itself.

Or I could also point out that people 3000 years ago didnt know anything about astronomy, and again your argument implodes on itself.

The moral of the story: Dont try to make logical arguments based on stories initially written thousands of years ago, then modified countless times since then, relating to supernatural events that the authors didnt witness, and for which there is zero evidence.

Seriously, if we cant even agree on what the word "day" means when it says something took "6 days", then it's completely pointless and a waste of time to speculate on what any of it means.

You could point that out. But....you're actually pointing that out to the wrong person.

........

See, I was using Pooty's literal interpretation and understanding of day as 24 hours against him. So, I was applying those astronomical facts to his argument because I was showing that arguing from the basis of his own point of view, literal interpretations and astronomical facts, his argument kills itself.

Middle two paragraphs are relatively pointless(partly because of the assumed premises), so I don't have much to say.

Your last paragraph, I'll quote myself: "1. My point is that within a statement of fact, ambiguity within a term can point to similar variations of that same fact. Conceptually, the fact referred to here is the idea that the Earth was created in 6 separated periods of time. Whether "day" is a millisecond or an eon, that underlying fact remains." Agreeing on exactly how long "day" is is relatively unimportant.

#117 Edited by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty: Your "no interpretation" is a "literal" interpretation.

C'mon now... you guys are starting to make me feel how Sherlock Holmes feels about everyone on the show Sherlock.....

As for your last paragraph(since its underlined, I guess I should address it), is say for example the foreword of a book interpreted the same as the epilogue interpreted the same as the glossary, interpreted the same as the preface? Are the parables of the bible interpreted the same as Revelations interpreted the same as Song of Psalms?

I think we're done here though. We have derailed this thread quite a bit.

#118 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

Forget it. i erased my comments. this is a science thread. so i'll only discuss things which are supported by science.

#119 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio
#120 Edited by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

Back on topic!

This is a nice lecture that covers a lot of stuff in modern physics including what space and time are, how it relates to things like string theory, quantum gravity, black holes, the Big Bang, and other stuff. 50 minutes long, but worth watching if you're interested in this stuff.

#121 Edited by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio
@jezer said:

On another note, what do any of you think about the findings of this study?

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

7 seconds before your consciousness has kicked in.

Sadly this article is VERY VERY misleading. The entire report was available a few months ago. this is a very brief summary that leaves out some very important parts:

The machine only guessed correctly 60% of the time. Since your only two options are left or right, you can almost guess correctly 50% of the time without trying. actually if you're lucky you can guess correctly even more then that. It was supposed to show that we lack free will. But the more options you give the machine the lower the chances it will guess correctly

#122 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer said:

On another note, what do any of you think about the findings of this study?

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

7 seconds before your consciousness has kicked in.

It's a very interesting experiment. I'd like to see the wider study and results, not just the one test in the video.

It suggests that much of what we call "decision making" and "free will" is actually just post hoc rationalization.

Not too surprising, considering how much subconscious work the brain does and how a lot of decision making is so "instinctive"... like the one in the video. Pick a button, left or right? There's really nothing to consider, so you just keep looking at them until you decide which to press. You have no real reason for why you did it.

In any case, I think free will is mostly just a story the brain tells itself, but objectively speaking it's hard to imagine what decisions are made that are not predetermined in some sense. At the lowest levels it's all just particles interacting with other particles. Sure, quantum physics plays a role, but not enough to say that what happens is random. People just dont act in "random" ways. If I could make a perfect model of a brain in a computer, and simulate all the same inputs, I'd also be able to replicate all the same decisions that the real brain made.

#123 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:
@jezer said:

On another note, what do any of you think about the findings of this study?

http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide

7 seconds before your consciousness has kicked in.

Sadly this article is VERY VERY misleading. The entire report was available a few months ago. this is a very brief summary that leaves out some very important parts:

The machine only guessed correctly 60% of the time. Since your only two options are left or right, you can almost guess correctly 50% of the time without trying. actually if you're lucky you can guess correctly even more then that. It was supposed to show that we lack free will. But the more options you give the machine the lower the chances it will guess correctly

That's interesting, do you have the URL for the full report?(I could probably go Google it or something)

Also, I didn't do well in statistics, but I'm moderately sure that the 10% increase from 50 to 60 is considered statistically significant. Also, I thought that they acknowledge free will as supported by the fact that they weren't able to guess 100% based on the subconscious workings of what our brain is pushing us towards.

#124 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20143 posts) - - Show Bio

#125 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I agree. I wonder how well they'd perform analyzing more complex actions and choices. Like, whether they could ever tell if someone agreed or disagreed with something being explained to them.They'd have to somehow be able to know which parts of the brain would react appropriately or fail to fire representing disagreement or agreement; I wonder if its that simple and how much it would differ on the type of thing being explained(math versus musical opinion versus who's gonna win a UFC fight)

How does the randomness of probability waves/quantum particles play a role on the larger level of everyday life?

#126 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@jezer I just used 50% as a base. a human can guess 100% if they are lucky. so a 60% success rate can be chalked up to guessing. I can't remember your article but the one I read was trying to disprove free will. yours may have been supporting free will. until more variables are added it really supports neither

#127 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

Once you get larger than 100x the size of atoms, quantum physics plays very little role. So it's still relevant at the sizes of modern integrated circuits, but not much larger. We do of course use quantum phenomena for things like Scanning Electron Microscopes and we're even getting closer to having quantum-based computers... but those are still a ways off.

On the scales we're accustomed to, classical mechanics rules the world.

As far as the brain, I wouldnt rule out some quantum mechanics going on in there, but if it's mostly just a function of electricity flowing around cells... the quantum effects will be localized to small areas. Overall, which is what matters when you're talking about that much stuff all connected together, it's macro effects that will determine how the brain does what it does.

#128 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer I just used 50% as a base. a human can guess 100% if they are lucky. so a 60% success rate can be chalked up to guessing. I can't remember your article but the one I read was trying to disprove free will. yours may have been supporting free will. until more variables are added it really supports neither

I have no doubt that one day we'll be able to build computers that structurally match the complexity of the brain. Some scientists are already building small neural networks on chips for this purpose, but they are super-primitive right now. Once they get to a certain level, I'm sure we'll start to see computers that think they have free will as well. And, to all extents and purposes, they will. It will just happen to be free will that's also 100% deterministic.

#129 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@jezer I just used 50% as a base. a human can guess 100% if they are lucky. so a 60% success rate can be chalked up to guessing. I can't remember your article but the one I read was trying to disprove free will. yours may have been supporting free will. until more variables are added it really supports neither

No....I think you're most likely doing the statistics wrong. Assuming that they said 60%, they weren't talking about one instance, but most likely multiple trials. A summation of their results over most likely multiple people and trials. I say that because no scientist publishes a report without doing basic scientific method protocols such as establishing more reliability and validity by using the results of the study after its been done multiple times.

So if it said 60%, it would be overall. Not a single instance where someone managed to guess correctly 60%. But if the guess is luck, it would be roughly 50% overall(I'm assuming. ignoring any other random, lurking variables) regardless of whether there are specific people who guessed 60% or specific people who only guessed 30%. It would most likely average around 50% with maybe a standard error range. And 60% overall would be regarded as statistically significant.

#130 Posted by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

Once you get larger than 100x the size of atoms, quantum physics plays very little role. So it's still relevant at the sizes of modern integrated circuits, but not much larger. We do of course use quantum phenomena for things like Scanning Electron Microscopes and we're even getting closer to having quantum-based computers... but those are still a ways off.

On the scales we're accustomed to, classical mechanics rules the world.

As far as the brain, I wouldnt rule out some quantum mechanics going on in there, but if it's mostly just a function of electricity flowing around cells... the quantum effects will be localized to small areas. Overall, which is what matters when you're talking about that much stuff all connected together, it's macro effects that will determine how the brain does what it does.

Interesting. Thanks for the knowledge.

#131 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: Is that considered A.I ?

@jezer:

1) Where is it stated that 10% is a significant improvement? I've never heard that

2) 60% is only good if a human would guess less then that. I didn't see any data saying how well a human guessed.

#132 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@willpayton: Is that considered A.I ?

Yup, although technically we already have AI... it just happens to be pretty bad AI. Really, any artificial decision-making device would qualify. Video games have very basic forms of AI, but scientists have been working for a while now on neural networks (in software) that learn from either information fed to them or from sensory input. Think of IBM's Deep Blue computer that defeated Kasparov in chess. Problem is that getting to anything that even comes close to something like a house cat is still very, very far off.

#133 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm sure we'll start to see computers that think they have free will as well. And, to all extents and purposes, they will. It will just happen to be free will that's also 100% deterministic

Do you think human free will is 100% deterministic? something that is already programmed into us?

#134 Edited by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@willpayton: I'm sure we'll start to see computers that think they have free will as well. And, to all extents and purposes, they will. It will just happen to be free will that's also 100% deterministic

Do you think human free will is 100% deterministic? something that is already programmed into us?

Hmm... not programmed, but it's deterministic in the sense that you can tell what someone will think if you knew all the starting conditions (i.e. the state of the brain) and sensory input after that. The brain is basically just a very complex biological computer.

#135 Posted by RoyalDivinity (3172 posts) - - Show Bio

I've a seed of an idea for a formula; a formula for the prediction of the future.

#136 Edited by Jezer (3127 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@willpayton: Is that considered A.I ?

@jezer:

1) Where is it stated that 10% is a significant improvement? I've never heard that

2) 60% is only good if a human would guess less then that. I didn't see any data saying how well a human guessed.

Statistics wasn't really my class. So I'm convoluting/misunderstanding different principles. But, I got that from the the commonly used p-value of .05.

Like I said, If you find me the URL for the study, I could interpret it better. However, all of this should have been cleared up in whatever experiment write up you read. If it was a lab report, they wouldn't just throw the percentage "'60%" without context and they would have given you a p-value which deals with how likely it would be of them guessing 60% or whatever if it was random chance.

Also, this has more to do than what a single person guessed in any single instance. (I don't think they'd even necessarily need to compare it to how a human did)I said 50% before because, unless there's some lurking variable, its a toss either way.

#137 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio
#138 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

What do bullets look like when they hit things at 1 millions frames per second?

#139 Posted by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

I wasn't trying to convince anyone. It was just a new way to look at it for people who liked science but happened to be Christian. It was also a part of a joke I had going with a person at the beginning of this thread if you read who I was replying to so you shouldn't have taken it seriously. However, I do want to know the logical errors and unfounded assumptions I made.

#140 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20143 posts) - - Show Bio

#141 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

A team of scientists and programmers are trying to build a computer simulation of a worm, including all the cells that make it up.

OpenWorm is an attempt to build a complete cellular-level simulation of the nematode wormCaenorhabditis elegans. Of the 959 cells in the hermaphrodite, 302 are neurons and 95 are muscle cells. The simulation will model electrical activity in all the muscles and neurons. An integrated soft-body physics simulation will also model body movement and physical forces within the worm and from its environment.

The project started in early 2011 and is being worked on by an international collaboration of scientists and programmers in the US, Europe, and Russia. The effort is being treated as a first step towards simulating larger biological systems including, ultimately, the human brain. Although the wormconnectome was mapped in the 1980s, the neural network has never been fully simulated in a biologically realistic way. The philosophy of the project is that only by recreating a living organism can we truly understand it.

http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm

#142 Edited by Pfcoolio14 (1139 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm doing a project on bacterial anaerobes that conduct photosynthesis without sunlight near deep sea hydro thermal vents if anyone's interested. You could also give me extra ideas even though I've already started. I contacted the professor that put the lab discovering them on the National Science Database at UC Berkeley. He gave me a couple a pointers. All I have to do is procure it for my Summer research class(It's High School, so the budget is iffy but the teacher got a grant)

And to Will, that's pretty cool. A friend of mine won a State Science fair doing a project on nematodes.

#143 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I'm doing a project on bacterial anaerobes that conduct photosynthesis without sunlight near deep sea hydro thermal vents if anyone's interested.

Does the photosynthesis work using infrared radiation from the heat given off from the vents?

#144 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

Mysterious radio bursts come from outside our galaxy

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/07/mysterious-radio-bursts-come-from-outside-our-galaxy/

Astronomers using a radiotelescope to perform a survey of a broad patch of the sky have spotted a set of unusual events that last for just a handful of milliseconds. The events don't repeat and aren't accompanied by anything obvious at optical X-ray wavelengths. A careful examination of their properties, however, gives reason to believe that they are likely to occur at great distances from our galaxy, suggesting they are the product of cataclysmic occurrences. Based on the four events detected during their survey of a single patch of the sky, the astronomers suggest that thousands of them may be visible from Earth each day—provided we know where to look.

#145 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (24010 posts) - - Show Bio

You gotta love science =P

Online
#146 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

Want to know what makes up a kilogram? How about what the roundest thing on Earth is?

Watch this.

#147 Posted by nick_hero22 (6812 posts) - - Show Bio

Did someone mention the charlatan William Lane Craig because I have a video of a debate where Shelly Kagan (Professor of Ethics at Yale) destroys WLC's brand of apologetics and exposes him for the fraud that he is.

#148 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

Did someone mention the charlatan William Lane Craig because I have a video of a debate where Shelly Kagan (Professor of Ethics at Yale) destroys WLC's brand of apologetics and exposes him for the fraud that he is.

Yeah I mentioned WLC early in the thread. I've seen many videos of his arguments and they never seem to hold much water. He just likes to talk about "objective morality" and stuff like that. And then at the end he always makes the leap from "a god must exist" to "therefore the Christian God exists". I really fail to understand how people can listen to him and think that he's making valid points. It's all a bunch of philosophical double-speak, unsubstantiated claims, and bad logic.

#149 Posted by DocStrange (152 posts) - - Show Bio

Why does it always seem to get back to god and the bible? Isn't the point of this thread to be scientific? You can't reason with fAith and belief.

#150 Posted by WillPayton (9346 posts) - - Show Bio

@docstrange said:

Why does it always seem to get back to god and the bible? Isn't the point of this thread to be scientific? You can't reason with fAith and belief.

Because many people still believe that ancient creation myths are actually true. So when you try to inform them about things like Evolution or the Big Bang or other things that contradict those stories, they feel personally threatened since you have just suggested that what they have been told since childhood and believe to be true is actually just fiction. Rather than accept the facts and adjust their beliefs accordingly, the first instinct of many people is to deny whatever contradicts they existing views.

.

In other news, scientists have found a blue Jupiter-sized planet where it's possible that it rains glass. Yeah, you heard me right... it might rain small pieces of glass! Temperature is around 2,000° F and has winds of 4,500 mph.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/space-blue-planet/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

.