Humble placemarker
Posted on 02/15/2003 4:18:25 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Funny you should ask, balrog666. Just earlier today, I read a post from you that I almost replied to. I could go track it down; but the above statement recalls the gist well enough for present purposes.
For what it's worth (if anything at all), to my way of thinking, it has become fashionable to divvy up human knowledge into distinct, impermeable specialities or sub-categories, such that different knowledge disciplines -- such as physics and philosophy -- must forever be segregated into mutually exclusive realms of human intellectual endeavor, such that at no point are they allowed to come into contact with each other.
To which I would only suggest: Perhaps human will wishes to keep separate what Nature herself these days is telling us must be cross-correlated in order for human beings to make further progress in both respective disciplines -- that is to say, in both science and philosophy. QM is screaming for a "context," to anyone who has the ears to hear it. And so is cosmology, which of all the philosophical disciplines is most dependent on the truthful report of the physical sciences.
I do not understand the present "animosity" that folks of the one school or other, have for "the other side." That, to me, is a dead end -- in terms of real human progress. IMHO, both sides would do far better, in terms of the advance of the total body of human knowledge, if they could figure out a way to peaceably collaborate.
I expect that, ideally, both sides need to maintain their respective methods and tools: They need to stay distinct from each other at this level. It's because they have different methods and tools, and have different objects of inquiry, that the sum total of their several insights and achievements is what constitutes, in the end, the fullest purchase on truthful human knowledge that mankind can get at any particular time in history.
The "Human Project," it seems to me, would be far better served by collaboration and mutual criticism, than to have either side "run amok," without the natural check -- and source of insight -- of the other. JMHO, FWIW. Thanks for the ping, balrog666.
Except, as I said, if the BB is true, then time itself has not always existed! So something did indeed exist for as long as there was time available within which it could have existed.
No. "Always" is a temporal term. It means "for all time". The big bang until the present encapsulates ALL time. Therefore, if the big bang theory is true, and time is finite, then the universe (including time, which is an integral part of the universe) has ALWAYS existed.
It's significant because we are dealing with processing.
In electronics, it is VASTLY easier to build a circuit that differentiates between Ground/0 volts for the binary "0" and +5 volts for the binary "1" than it is to build a circuit that processes a "0", a "1", a "2", and a "3". Telling a circuit about "on and off" is one level of complexity, but differentiating between various voltage levels in between on and off is a much more challenging proposition.
Since not everyone is an electrical engineer, this above point might not seem easy to comprehend, however. Perhaps it would be more readily understandable to point out that it would take a more complicated light switch to process "off", "dim", "bright", and "full power" than to simply switch between on or off. That's the scope of the difference between Base 2 and Base 4.
But I don't want to get too engrossed in pointing out the order of magnitude difference between those two bases. Far too few people on this thread will even understand such nuances, and the importance as related to this topic is merely limited to illustrating that "an even more complex thing" has also not been shown to occur naturally.
In other words, it is MORE important to spend our time on the key point that so far no Base 2 (binary) program has ever been shown to have been formed...pause...EXCEPT with the aid of intelligent intervention (e.g. Man writing software, for one example). There simply isn't much need to go to the next level of explaining that no Base 4 program has ever been shown to have been formed, except with intelligent intervention; at least not until the earlier Base 2 point is well understood and accepted broadly.
But, your last claim above, that moving from Base 2 to Base 4 is simply a matter of a "filtering process" is in error.
A "filtering process" is a way that you ELIMINATE items in play.
Think about that fact for a moment.
Now, how can you eliminate Base 4 integers from a Base 2 system?!
You can't! Base 4 items don't EXIST inside a Base 2 system. You can't simply filter them out!
A Base 2 system has two integers: 0 and 1. Filter those two integers all day long (or all infinity long) and you'll still NEVER make the integers 2 and 3 appear.
It simply doesn't work that way. Your ordinary on/off light switch doesn't suddenly start accurately processing various stages of dimness and brightness simply because you flipped the switch between on and off long enough!
So no, going from Base 2 to Base 4 is NOT a filtering process.
Moreover, we've ONLY seen examples of Intelligent Intervention create Base 2 programs.
If even the simpler Base 2 algorythms can't be created by random natural processes, then how much credibility should we give the concept that the more complex Base 4 programs could suddenly form without intelligent intervention?
ROTFL! The Big Bang theory is equivalent to the Inquisition! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA...[Beavus:] Very good. And of course if the big bang theory is true, then something has always existed.
[JennyP:] Except, as I said, if the BB is true, then time itself has not always existed! So something did indeed exist for as long as there was time available within which it could have existed.
[unspun:] You refuse to consider what might be outside your scope of knowledge.
That is what the Inquisitors did.
Oh, god, that was good. I think I'll go make dinner now. Heh, heh, ... heh...
It is inherent in your belief that for something to expand, it must be expanding into something else.
While initial acceptance...at minimum.
The point is simply that there are things that would seem to be universal laws because of our common experience but that we know are not only through experiment. It isn't the substance of my post, only a reminder to give context to what followed.
I didn't say our universe was infinite... In fact, I suggested that ours might not be the only universe. The void might encompass multiple universes. It is also possible that the separation between these universes is so great that no one can be observed from another (i.e. the light-years of separation between universal envelopes is much greater than the age of the universes).
Universe literally means "the whole", or all that exists. Your speculation of "multiple universes", in that context, is meaningless. Whatever you imagine exists, how ever strange the form, or however compartmentalized, is part of THE universe.
Furthermore, you are saying that there is space "between" universes. Space is a component of the universe as well. You can't make the universe something less than it is--everything.
Sorry if I misunderstood you before. I thought that you were supposing, as you might say "a universe encompassing our universe" into which the big bang is infinitely expanding. Again, because "universe" is "everything", such a statement is equivalent to saying that the universe is infinite.
It can't encompass everything at any given time though, can it, or there wouldn't be anything to expand with respect to.
In fact, it leaves at least two metaphysical holes big enough to drive a galaxy through--the issue of cause, and the issue of demarcation, i.e. what lies beyond the finitude of our universe.
These statements are particularly frustrating as they are precisely what my post addressed. Now you state them again as though I never replied. The big bang theory does explain it for the reasons I gave. I won't repeat it here, but I do wish you would address the substance of my post.
In electronics, it is VASTLY easier to build a circuit that differentiates between Ground/0 volts for the binary "0" and +5 volts for the binary "1" than it is to build a circuit that processes a "0", a "1", a "2", and a "3". Telling a circuit about "on and off" is one level of complexity, but differentiating between various voltage levels in between on and off is a much more challenging proposition.Since not everyone is an electrical engineer, this above point might not seem easy to comprehend, however. Perhaps it would be more readily understandable to point out that it would take a more complicated light switch to process "off", "dim", "bright", and "full power" than to simply switch between on or off. That's the scope of the difference between Base 2 and Base 4.
Please read my post 300 again. (If only because it took so long to type in. :-) The DNA/RNA letters are binary words - four bit, base two words. Three bits of the word are represented by the three hydrogen bonds, and the fourth bit comes from a purine always linking with a pyrimidine. It's base 2 at bottom.
As long as we both agree that it can never make sense to say that time did not always exist. It's not physics, it's the definition of "always".
As long as we both agree that it can never make sense to say that time did not always exist. It's not physics, it's the definition of "always".
Yes, I realize that the letters A, C, G, and T actually represent sequences (of nucleotides), nevertheless, there they are: the 0, 1, 2, and 3 of the DNA world.
But your point is well taken. There is a legitimate way to conceptually view even DNA instruction sets as being Base 2 at the lowest level.
So with that admitted, what does the preponderance of current scientific evidence point to for the creation of Base 2 programs, intelligent intervention -or- unaided, natural processes creating our software?
Captain11, if you wish to discuss philosophy - the real experts here are betty boop, cornelis, Phaedrus, beckett and diotima.
My interest is a little bit of everything, heavy on the math, physics, information systems and especially, the Word. But if you want to discuss null, void, empty, Ayn Sof – I’m your girl! Ayn Sof is the Hebrew word for God at creation, infinite and yet nothing.
Whereas I’m “on board” with the Einstein observation that space and time do not pre-exist but rather are qualities of the extension of field (space/time is created as the universe(s) expand - inflationary model) --- I do see the inception issue you raise and answer that the "void" you perceive is God, Ayn Sof
My view of origins is on this thread. Please feel free to post yours there, if you’d like. Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.