The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: narcberry on March 29, 2008, 10:56:09 PM
-
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.
Edit:
By greater I generally thought more complex, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B?"
-
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Your mother created you.
-
Evolution.
-
Evolution.
VIA Natural Selection
</thread>
-
Put down the doobie, Beno
-
Put down the doobie, Beno
No way, Sunday mornin' hangover cure.
-
The Universe. It was created from a singularity and look how complex it is.
-
The Universe. It was created from a singularity and look how complex it is.
If the Big Bang is so simple, why has no one been able to adequately describe it through string theory and such?
-
Because the conditions that prevailed at that time were so radical from the present, that our theories, which are built using todays experimental evidence, don't hold.
-
The Universe. It was created from a singularity and look how complex it is.
If the Big Bang is so simple, why has no one been able to adequately describe it through string theory and such?
It was a big explosion. No string theory is required.
-
The Universe. It was created from a singularity and look how complex it is.
If the Big Bang is so simple, why has no one been able to adequately describe it through string theory and such?
lololololololol
-
The Big Bang is a theory that is internally inconsistent and wildly inaccurate.
-
Please explain.
-
We're never going to really know what happens unless time is circular
-
More examples please.
-
You created this thread.
-
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.
Yes, tiny little proteins make RNA. The RNA is much greater than the protein yet it manufactures it. Nuclear weapons were made by people. The ability to destroy and entire section of Earth is much greater than a human in my opinion.
Civilization is greater than the people who created it. There are articles on the affect of many small parts making something greater, than all the parts, I can't remember what it's called, examples include, societies, flocks and such.
-
Artificial Life Programs
-
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.
Yes, tiny little proteins make RNA. The RNA is much greater than the protein yet it manufactures it. Nuclear weapons were made by people. The ability to destroy and entire section of Earth is much greater than a human in my opinion.
Civilization is greater than the people who created it. There are articles on the affect of many small parts making something greater, than all the parts, I can't remember what it's called, examples include, societies, flocks and such.
About the RNA, in what way is RNA "greater" than the protiens than the transcription factors, polymerases, and snRNPs (which are RNA themselves) which are supposed to be lesser than the RNA strand? One could argue that RNA is much simpler than a protien, which is made of a variety of amino acids, in a complex confirmation, while RNA being a relativly simple long molecule of four base pairs, ribose and phosphate. The mechanism for translation is complex, some thing about it are still not understood.
Maybe you mean the information stored on the RNA that is complex, somewhat analogous to a laser making simple pits on the surface of a disk that codes for some complex program. In another sense, the protiens themselves are being made by RNA (ribosomal, mRNA, tRNA, ect.) I would argue that the cell is making the RNA, which is more complex than RNA in whatever way you want to look at it.
In the second part, perhaps emergent properties is the word you are looking for?
-
By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."
I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.
-
By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."
I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.
What do you exactly mean by 'create'?
-
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.
Yes, tiny little proteins make RNA. The RNA is much greater than the protein yet it manufactures it. Nuclear weapons were made by people. The ability to destroy and entire section of Earth is much greater than a human in my opinion.
Civilization is greater than the people who created it. There are articles on the affect of many small parts making something greater, than all the parts, I can't remember what it's called, examples include, societies, flocks and such.
About the RNA, in what way is RNA "greater" than the protiens than the transcription factors, polymerases, and snRNPs (which are RNA themselves) which are supposed to be lesser than the RNA strand? One could argue that RNA is much simpler than a protien, which is made of a variety of amino acids, in a complex confirmation, while RNA being a relativly simple long molecule of four base pairs, ribose and phosphate. The mechanism for translation is complex, some thing about it are still not understood.
Maybe you mean the information stored on the RNA that is complex, somewhat analogous to a laser making simple pits on the surface of a disk that codes for some complex program. In another sense, the protiens themselves are being made by RNA (ribosomal, mRNA, tRNA, ect.) I would argue that the cell is making the RNA, which is more complex than RNA in whatever way you want to look at it.
In the second part, perhaps emergent properties is the word you are looking for?
Yup, emergent properties. And I agree with the part of the cell making the RNA. Oh well. Thanks.
-
Also, I made a hell of an Oblivion mod once. It took a week, and it didn't actually work, but still... Where was I going with this?
-
By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."
I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.
What do you exactly mean by 'create'?
open to interpretation.
-
If the Big Bang is so simple, why has no one been able to adequately describe it through string theory and such?
Because string theory is a load of bull, unlike the FE theory.
-
Well by the way string theory DOES adequately describe the Big Bang, actually at last 10^50 variations. Unlike FE, which simply states "it is because it is". Even the most inconsistent theory will take you farther than this.
But what the hell i strongly suspect that any member of this board including me would only be able to interpret the formulas of Big Bang or even String Theory.
On the part of complexity: Well look arround you, there are examples everywhere. A Single cell is undoubtedly more complex than a human. Turbulence is more complex than a bunch of air or water molecules in motion. A fractal is more complex than a mathematical formula although the formula "contains" every possible aspect of the fractal. A anthill is more complex than 1000 ants and a pile of dirt, it has a distinct social structure, complex architecture and is constantly changing and extending "itself", so to speak a life of its own. Yet this complexity isn't contained in a single ant's brain. Its the interaction between a lot of ants that counts. So yes, A simple insects can build a more complex anthill, a single cell can become a human, the rules of that govern the movement of air a butterfly and some bad luck CAN make life miserable for Floridians and a simple forumla can become a infinitely complex picture. Any more questions?
-
Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?
The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.
*BUMP*
-
I have it. Hundreds of ants that are infertile and unable to live on their own, make an ant colony capable of some group intelligence through pheromones, that is able to take down animals many times their size and protect themselves.
-
Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?
The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.
*BUMP*
Saint Raist only left to say that while a ant doesn't singlehandedly create an anthill, a seemingly chaotic bunch of them will achive this task, without the final result being programmed in every ants head. So a very complex structure was "created" by a few insects only following scent trails.
And the other examples remain to be discussed...
-
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/may05/selfrep.ws.html (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/may05/selfrep.ws.html)
Robots, with the ability to copy themselves exactly. This could scale up to something able to create a more complex design.
-
Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?
The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.
*BUMP*
I disagree. Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.
-
Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?
The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.
*BUMP*
I disagree. Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.
How so? It seems to me that no organism is capable of creating beyond their means....
-
How so? It seems to me that no organism is capable of creating beyond their means....
Dude for a second I was inclined to use that statement against you. Even if the means of organisms are limited by the laws of physics, in the face of a a coral reef being created by microorganisms one needs to expand his definition of limits.
-
Disagree. And ant doesn't make an anthill singlehandedly. And what exactly does an anthill make?
The only examples that go towards what I'm talking about that I know of are:
1) Evolution (which is at the heart of the question, so I'm actually more interested in other examples)
2) Computer programs that can recreate themselves. But they don't make anything greater, just simply themselves.
*BUMP*
I disagree. Artificial Life programs create greater than themselves.
AI is definitely presented that way, but we have yet to achieve any AI greater than ourselves, let alone able to generate greater AI than itself.
Learning algorithms are probably the closest we have, but they still are created by an entity greater than itself. While it may be getting "smarter", no learning algorithm has ever learned something we humans, as its creator, did not know.
More examples please.
-
for a consciousness (i.e. ant, dog, man) to create anything it must, ad ajecto be more complex or equally complex. The fact that you can create it means your understanding of that thing is more complex than the thing itself. You not only invision the entire structure, you also understand other things it means, the different contexts it exists in, etc.
The only way out of this that I can imagine is creating a self replicating and improving consciousness, AI. I'm not sure if that is even possible, but I suppose it would be the only other example, besides the obvious Natural Selection.
-
√(-1) = i
Left hand side is an expression in real numbers
Right hand side is an expression complex numbers.
You said there is a loose interpretation. Is this loose enough?
-
√(-1) = i
Left hand side is an expression in real numbers
Right hand side is an expression complex numbers.
You said there is a loose interpretation. Is this loose enough?
I'm okay with even looser interpretations. However, the complex number doesn't go on to create anything greater.
Still interesting.
-
We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.
Does that mean it is more complex than us?
-
We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.
Does that mean it is more complex than us?
I guess you could argue from a Platonic viewpoint that we didn't create any concepts, they all already exist....I'm not sure though. But It seems to be a stable argument.
-
I didn't actually think of that one, I thought that was where that one post was going at first.
-
This is a genuine narc thread.
-
We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.
Does that mean it is more complex than us?
Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.
-
We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.
Does that mean it is more complex than us?
Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.
Your argument is off the mark...The concept of a squared negative...irrational numbers, etc., can be far more complex than we can understand or grasp. I argued that those numbers and concepts already exist and are revealed by scientific experimentation or controlled observation...possibly anyway. Thats a legitimate argument...
-
We created the square root of negative one yet we do not understand it. It is beyond our grasp.
Does that mean it is more complex than us?
Arguable, but it's still off the mark. The square root of negative one creates nothing.
Your argument is off the mark...The concept of a squared negative...irrational numbers, etc., can be far more complex than we can understand or grasp. I argued that those numbers and concepts already exist and are revealed by scientific experimentation or controlled observation...possibly anyway. Thats a legitimate argument...
... might I suggest you read my post and my op.
It's not just about being more complex, but more complex AND able to create something more complex than itself.
-
Correction:
By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."
I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.
Sorry for newcomers to the thread. gonna edit OP.
-
Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.
-
Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.
That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.
-
This account was created by twelve beers.
Not sure which way that falls, however.
-
Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.
That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.
As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself. Your dismissal of this is silly.
-
Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.
That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.
As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself. Your dismissal of this is silly.
I'm dismissing it because it hasn't happened. This thread is about actual examples.
-
Directly referring to that question I would have to say the possibility of a self replicating computer that followed a form of natural selection evolution should be able to surpass the creator eventually. That would be under the assumption that mind can be created from matter...as well as the assumption of mind being the most complex form of matter.
That has been theorized for a long time, we have never seen even the simplest proof of this concept.
As I have said, artificial life creates greater artificial life than itself. Your dismissal of this is silly.
I'm dismissing it because it hasn't happened. This thread is about actual examples.
Except it has.
That is the whole point of genetic Artificial life programs. They randomly create code that eventually, through a process similar to evolution, create code that is greater than the original artificial life process.
You get very complex behaviors that arise out of meaningless random "code".
-
Please reference this. If this has happened, I apologize and it fits wonderfully here.
-
I've heard about this. Old concept though. An article was talking about using this, and it would make viruses obsolete because the code would self maintain.
-
Actual reference please.
I've heard of this far too many times. I have heard of this in actuality never.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html
learning algorithms...
Humans make an algorithm that betters itself. Does this algorithm go on to make other, better algorithms? Or is it even better than the human who made them?
-
Has anyone read Steve Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science"? I've read the first chapter and it seems apropos of this topic. He goes on and on for thousands of pages about simple structures that iterate into very complex patterns using simple algorithms.
What I find hardest about your subject, Narq, is the "greater complexity than" requirement. The difference between the creator and the created seems to be a sideways step that is not always indicative of "better than". I argue that a computer's mathematical ability is much greater than a human's, but humans have many other traits that are greater than a computer's, and computers create different and in some ways better computers (though we have to build them physically). So, which is "greater" is far too blurry.
Also, do we not create greater humans through education? Humans that create humans that create humans; such a relationship can be related to your "greater than" requirement because humans are not all the same.
It's all evolution through natural selection, as Beno and Athalus said. Evidence for evolution abounds.
-
Well said, it seems that this topic has come to its inevitable conclusion. I believe the move from simple to complex is the driving force behind our universe. Natural Selection driven evolution is a prime example. Your mention of human heredity is exactly right on. I just recently watched a presentation by Dawkins where he attempts to sum up the entire process of evolution with the word "heredity."
It appears to me that the defining process of the universe must be the move to complexity, building and eventual destruction.
-
I believe the move from simple to complex is the driving force behind our universe.
...
It appears to me that the defining process of the universe must be the move to complexity, building and eventual destruction.
Really? I would say the defining process would be the opposite.
-
I guess you're speaking of Entropy -- which is defined by the number of possible thermodynamic configurations of a system -- and the tendency for entropy to increase, known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
As far as I know, one can not apply thermodynamic processes to evolutionary processes.
-
The concept of entropy is included in my theory via eventual destruction. It appears to me that this is the eventual conclusion of all systems in our universe, but development seems also integral. It's definitely an elementary hypothesis, I think it primarily deals with the nature of 'things,' what is a thing and what is real.
This deals with the somewhat paradoxical notion that our atoms constantly die and are replaced, though our notion of self is maintained. Along the same lines is the issue of numbers as things, a table as a thing (beyond its constitute parts), love as a thing, the future as a thing, etc. Definitely a very deep philosophical question. So, I suppose I am hypothesizing that although individual components, perhaps the most real things (if there is in fact a hierarchy of real) are prone to entropy, the concept of the thing as a whole is prone to growing complexity to an eventual destruction.
This would follow with the Heideggarean notion of alethea (unconcealment) via poesis (bringing forth in the form of techne (highlighting and bringing forth 'natural' essences of a thing) and art, music, poetry, etc.) as well as the convoluted idea of technology (with the essence as Gestell (enframing), reducing all things to standing-reserve). In this philosophy, things are not created or destroyed, but uncovered and covered. The truth, and ultimate telos of life, is the ultimate alethea (translated in Latin as Veritas - Truth) of the essence of existence. Perhaps there is no true movement of things toward complexity, but a simple uncovering of pre-existing essences, covered for one reason or another.
I know that was really detailed, but Heidegger deserves a detailed account of his philosophy.
-
Offtopic guys.
I don't care how you interpret "greater", the major condition is:
A creates B creates C, where A < B < C.
Whatever you're interpretation of greater, the most important is that the above is true.
-
Offtopic guys.
I don't care how you interpret "greater", the major condition is:
A creates B creates C, where A < B < C.
Whatever you're interpretation of greater, the most important is that the above is true.
I was arguing that there is no such thing as create, only uncover. Alethea as the Truth, therefore there is no such thing as creation. Poesis, Physis and "Technology" are the three ways that the essence of things become unconcealed. It's really a spin on Plato's eidos, as well as the Aristotelian causes.
-
Offtopic guys.
I don't care how you interpret "greater", the major condition is:
A creates B creates C, where A < B < C.
Whatever you're interpretation of greater, the most important is that the above is true.
I was arguing that there is no such thing as create, only uncover. Alethea as the Truth, therefore there is no such thing as creation. Poesis, Physis and "Technology" are the three ways that the essence of things become unconcealed. It's really a spin on Plato's eidos, as well as the Aristotelian causes.
Honestly, Benocrates, you might as well argue in favor of the existence of God.
-
Beno: you're arguing what constitutes 'greater'.
Focus on A makes B makes C. Then focus on greater, it is the much looser restriction.
-
Beno: you're arguing what constitutes 'greater'.
Focus on A makes B makes C. Then focus on greater, it is the much looser restriction.
I'm arguing what's the definition of makes, I argue there is no creation in the sense we are talking about. It may not fit your definition, but I'm pretty sure we exhausted the discussion on that particular viewpoint. I'm presenting something alternate that when you think about it, actually makes a lot of sense.
-
Beno: you're arguing what constitutes 'greater'.
Focus on A makes B makes C. Then focus on greater, it is the much looser restriction.
I'm arguing what's the definition of makes, I argue there is no creation in the sense we are talking about. It may not fit your definition, but I'm pretty sure we exhausted the discussion on that particular viewpoint. I'm presenting something alternate that when you think about it, actually makes a lot of sense.
If nothing is created only uncovered, then replace the word creates with uncovers and carry on.
-
Beno: you're arguing what constitutes 'greater'.
Focus on A makes B makes C. Then focus on greater, it is the much looser restriction.
I'm arguing what's the definition of makes, I argue there is no creation in the sense we are talking about. It may not fit your definition, but I'm pretty sure we exhausted the discussion on that particular viewpoint. I'm presenting something alternate that when you think about it, actually makes a lot of sense.
Arguing in the platonic sense, meaning not physical. I'm speaking physical. I don't care about whatever opinion your philosophy teacher just gave you without any of your own resistance.
-
If the Truth of the world is uncovering, then there would be no sensible idea behind building complexity. You wouldn't be creating anything (for example an algorithm or artificial mind) only liberating it from its concealed state...so essentially the argument of something creating something greater makes no sense.
-
Beno: you're arguing what constitutes 'greater'.
Focus on A makes B makes C. Then focus on greater, it is the much looser restriction.
I'm arguing what's the definition of makes, I argue there is no creation in the sense we are talking about. It may not fit your definition, but I'm pretty sure we exhausted the discussion on that particular viewpoint. I'm presenting something alternate that when you think about it, actually makes a lot of sense.
Arguing in the platonic sense, meaning not physical. I'm speaking physical. I don't care about whatever opinion your philosophy teacher just gave you without any of your own resistance.
You don't have to be a dick, just because you haven't studied Heidegger doesn't mean nobody takes interest in this kind of philosophy. I attempt civil debate, and you throw in ignorance inspired comments...lame and childish. Be civil...
-
If the Truth of the world is uncovering, then there would be no sensible idea behind building complexity. You wouldn't be creating anything (for example an algorithm or artificial mind) only liberating it from its concealed state...so essentially the argument of something creating something greater makes no sense.
And in the true spirit of philosophy, you've altered an answerable question into a quest for unknowledge. "Love of wisdom" my ass, philosophers are always those living in circumstances that require no work, and afford all time and comforts to pontificate about ideas whose sole purpose is to perpetuate themselves by never bringing about any conclusion to anything.
In the thousands of years of recorded history, the entirety of philosophers and philosophies can be summed up with a single conclusion:
1. I exist.
If you continue to follow these "great thinkers" you will accomplish nothing. You are also abhorrently boring quoting ideas we've heard a million times as if you have some new mastery or contribution to them.
Stay on topic, it's really quite simple.
-
I really have nothing much to say to someone who insults my life's passion and work, it's sad you have to lash out. It is funny though, you have thousands of posts on this board, make topics about the ability of a creator to create more complexity....and then call me a sophist...
You clearly don't understand real philosophy, so I won't blame you for it. You probably would appreciate it much more if you studied it more frequently, and would gain much more respect than you give it now. Plato, Aristotle, Nietzche, Smith, Hobbes, etc. have had more of an impact on whatever society you live in than you will ever know.
You can insult something all you want, but it's clearly in anger and defense. I'll have to let it go, theres no point in arguing any more.
-
If the Truth of the world is uncovering, then there would be no sensible idea behind building complexity. You wouldn't be creating anything (for example an algorithm or artificial mind) only liberating it from its concealed state...so essentially the argument of something creating something greater makes no sense.
This sentence is a blatant philosophical derailing of this thread. Please get back to the original debate. This is not a "can things be created debate". We are running under the assumption they can be created. If you would like to discuss this, then make your own thread. So lets please stop stroking our penises that may or may not exist depending on which philosophy is in vogue right now.
-
I'm trying to take the topic in a new direction because there was nothing new that was coming from the simple definition. I don't really see a problem in redefinition, and that's what I was trying to do. I have no other kind of insights so I'll just leave the topic, fair enough.
-
The point is: (The bold are assumptions I don't care to debate.)
All problems are transposable.
If the possibility for evolution to exist, exists; other events of the same form would exist.
the problem of evolution is, at heart, continuous creation of greater from lesser.
Does such an event exist?
-
I'm trying to take the topic in a new direction because there was nothing new that was coming from the simple definition. I don't really see a problem in redefinition, and that's what I was trying to do. I have no other kind of insights so I'll just leave the topic, fair enough.
Yes but you were redefining it in the wrong way. The word create was fine. Everyone understood it. More complex was the problem. You were leading this from a debate on creating complexity to a debate on existence before creation.
-
Offtopic guys.
I don't care how you interpret "greater", the major condition is:
A creates B creates C, where A < B < C.
Whatever you're interpretation of greater, the most important is that the above is true.
If that is the case, and you believe in the big bang, this thread is over. That metric makes the whole argument meaningless. Something came from nothing. /thread.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
http://www.genetic-programming.com/humancompetitive.html
learning algorithms...
Humans make an algorithm that betters itself. Does this algorithm go on to make other, better algorithms? Or is it even better than the human who made them?
They aren't really learning algorithms though, they are genetic based.
Or I could start talking about video games for no reason.
-
There is only one theoretical instance where anything was created, the big bang.
Nothing has been created since then.
The point is: (The bold are assumptions I don't care to debate.)
All problems are transposable.
If the possibility for evolution to exist, exists; other events of the same form would exist.
the problem of evolution is, at heart, continuous creation of greater from lesser.
Does such an event exist?
Evolution is a process, not an event.
Evolution of the Universe (not entirely in order)
- The formation of hadrons from quark-gluon plasma.
- The formation of atomic nuclei from protons and neutrons.
- The formation of helium from hydrogen, and of higher elements from the lower.
- The formation of stars from light elements.
- The formation of galaxies.
- The formation of solar systems.
-
There is only one theoretical instance where anything was created, the big bang.
Nothing has been created since then.
The point is: (The bold are assumptions I don't care to debate.)
All problems are transposable.
If the possibility for evolution to exist, exists; other events of the same form would exist.
the problem of evolution is, at heart, continuous creation of greater from lesser.
Does such an event exist?
Evolution is a process, not an event.
Evolution of the Universe (not entirely in order)
- The formation of hadrons from quark-gluon plasma.
- The formation of atomic nuclei from protons and neutrons.
- The formation of helium from hydrogen, and of higher elements from the lower.
- The formation of stars from light elements.
- The formation of galaxies.
- The formation of solar systems.
-
Examples so far:
Bigbang (now does this process create anything greater?)
Evolution (intentionally excluded from debate)
...anything else?
-
The worlds smartest man is smarter than his father.
-
The worlds smartest man is smarter than his father.
Does that necessitate a smartest child?
-
The worlds smartest man is smarter than his father.
Does that necessitate a smartest child?
Smarter children have slower developing brains, so i would say not
-
Remember:
A < B < C
-
Honest question...
In regards to the existence of God and Intelligent design I offer a question:
Do we have any evidence of an object being created by something less complex than itself?
Complexity is pretty subjective so this conversation probably wont go anywhere, but still.
Edit:
By greater I generally thought more complex, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B?"
It was generally considered before Darwin's time that it took a creation must necessarily be as complex, or less complex than its creator. However, consider such processes as natural selection, and consider a simple algorithm that can generate high degrees of complexity.
-
We are deliberately not exploring Darwinism on this topic.
And others have suggested algorithms as well. If you are to do the same, please give more information and remember:
Remember:
A < B < C
-
Narc your threads would be far more enjoyable to read through if you revealed your ulterior motive from the outset rather than keeping it hidden and therefore re-positioning the goal posts with every response. As it happens, this thread, like so many, is an excercise in futility and frustration.
-
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
-
Narc your threads would be far more enjoyable to read through if you revealed your ulterior motive from the outset rather than keeping it hidden.
For you and some others, probably. But if I had, the thread would be instantly derailed.
Here is the heart:
The point is: (The bold are assumptions I don't care to debate.)
All problems are transposable.
If the possibility for evolution to exist, exists; other events of the same form would exist.
the problem of evolution is, at heart, continuous creation of greater from lesser.
Does such an event exist?
So far, I have seen no examples. I do not believe in evolution, as an origin of species, and this is the reason I do not. We cannot even create working simulations in simple spaces that are the same problem. The physical law is entropy, evolution is at odds with that.
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
Then why do people believe in evolution?
-
Evolution needs to overcome entrophy to take place. It needs to consume energy to become more complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
-
Appreciated, but offtopic.
We are interested in examples here, as none have been provided that meet the criteria.
-
The universe.
-
A < A < A ?
I'm confused.
-
No, you are a troll.
-
If there is no designer, if the universe just is, then your inequalities mean nothing.
-
Still no examples...
-
Examples of what?
-
No, you are a troll.
QFT. Stop feeding narc, he is evil incarnate.
-
He's not a troll, he's just trying to make heathens see the Light. :o
The process of education in humans, as I said long ago, is an example of A > B > C. Have we not, as a species, learned and understood more and more from one generation to the next? One could simply look at the historical base of any field of study and see that our knowledge is increasing and we are teaching the next generation to further increase their knowledge, or to be greater.
Gauss > Pythagoras > Euclid
-
Then why do people believe in evolution?
What does evolution have to do with it?
-
Evolution needs to overcome entrophy to take place. It needs to consume energy to become more complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
omg too bad we don't have a giant ball of hydrogen so massive it creates fusion and warms the planet, giving us energy..... oh never mind. we do.
-
Then why do people believe in evolution?
What does evolution have to do with it?
-
Evolution needs to overcome entrophy to take place. It needs to consume energy to become more complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
omg too bad we don't have a giant ball of hydrogen so massive it creates fusion and warms the planet, giving us energy..... oh never mind. we do.
Way to completly miss the point of my statement.
-
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
What if you created an algorithm that could give rise to a form of AI?
Evolution needs to overcome entrophy to take place. It needs to consume energy to become more complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life
The general tendency of the universe is towards entropy, yes. However, you can have isolated pockets of growing order (such as within Earth's biosphere) with a larger trend towards disorder.
-
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
What if you created an algorithm that could give rise to a form of AI?
I don't believe that to be possible. In fact to me it's a ridiculous notion. But time will tell.
-
I also still don't see what evolution has to do with any of this. Evolution is a process of refinement via random mutation it is not an example of creator and creation.
-
The "creator" would be random chance. So I'd say the creation is a bit better.
-
The "creator" would be random chance. So I'd say the creation is a bit better.
If you speak of a creation on the genetic level (a mutation), than you could say whatever the cause of a mutation should be (often radiation) could be the creator. But evolution is based on the principle of natural selection, that individuals with favorable genetic traits will tend survive, so in that sense you can say nature creates new species. By nature, of course, I mean one or more specific agent(s) of selection, which could be anything from a predatory species to an entire eviornment or ecosystem.
-
So how would one determing the complexity or greatness of things such as "random chance" or "nature"?
-
So how would one determing the complexity or greatness of things such as "random chance" or "nature"?
Well lets see, lets generalize that the agent of selection happens to be the ecosystem, which the species is invariable a part of, I think you can confidently say it is more complex than that species which is only a part of the ecosystem.
-
I don't think the two can be compared in that way, that's just my feeling on it and why I think that an abstract concept such as random chance or nature cannot be given a quality such as complexity or greatness in this context.
-
The "creator" would be random chance. So I'd say the creation is a bit better.
If you speak of a creation on the genetic level (a mutation), than you could say whatever the cause of a mutation should be (often radiation) could be the creator. But evolution is based on the principle of natural selection, that individuals with favorable genetic traits will tend survive, so in that sense you can say nature creates new species. By nature, of course, I mean one or more specific agent(s) of selection, which could be anything from a predatory species to an entire eviornment or ecosystem.
Radiation caused genetic mutations billions of years ago? Weird.
Mutations are random switches or duplications or deletions of nucleotides in a DNA sequence. These mutations cause mistakes in the amino acid chains that the DNA sequence codes for proteins, which causes the synthesis of different proteins. The proteins give an organism its characteristics, if a protein is changed and the change it causes is desirable, that organism will survive to reproduce. It goes on from there, don't feel like explaining anymore.
-
Another point is how you define greatness. I know the OP lays it down as greater is more complex but the most successful organisms on this planet are also some of the most basic. Are they not great for being the most successful? Is the whole point of life not to reproduce? That may be a debate on its own but even if it's not the whole point it's certainly one the more important targets for any living thing.
Things such as bacterium do it very well, much better than complex organisms. In fact they do almost everything that other animals do except they do it more efficiently. So evolution is not neccessarily making things better only better for a particular environment.
I still don't see evolution incorporating any kind of creator or creation either. Random events triggering diversity based on environment is what I see.
-
I still don't see evolution incorporating any kind of creator or creation either. Random events triggering diversity based on environment is what I see.
Thats what I was trying to say, I'm just not very good at expressing my thoughts.
-
You don't have to when you look me in the eyes that way.
-
Ok then.
-
The "creator" would be random chance. So I'd say the creation is a bit better.
If you speak of a creation on the genetic level (a mutation), than you could say whatever the cause of a mutation should be (often radiation) could be the creator. But evolution is based on the principle of natural selection, that individuals with favorable genetic traits will tend survive, so in that sense you can say nature creates new species. By nature, of course, I mean one or more specific agent(s) of selection, which could be anything from a predatory species to an entire eviornment or ecosystem.
Radiation caused genetic mutations billions of years ago? Weird.
Mutations are random switches or duplications or deletions of nucleotides in a DNA sequence. These mutations cause mistakes in the amino acid chains that the DNA sequence codes for proteins, which causes the synthesis of different proteins. The proteins give an organism its characteristics, if a protein is changed and the change it causes is desirable, that organism will survive to reproduce. It goes on from there, don't feel like explaining anymore.
Absolutely, for instance, strong radiation such as UV or simmilar can cause a thiamine-thiamine dimer to form (between two adjacent thiamine base pairs), making a section of genetic code unreadable, or a DNA Polymerase may excise that section of code from the genome. Radiation causes a multitude of different DNA damages. Addition of DNA could be cause by things other than rad though, for instance a lysogenic virus can be the vector of mutation, or coud be a mistake in the transcription process (usually a missense mutation, rarely nonsense), then come large scale chromosomal abberations such as fusions or deletions of whole parts.
Certain chemicals cause rearrangement in genetic codes, even high temperature can damage DNA. But radiation does happen to be a leading cause of DNA damage (UV). In fact, the body has polymerases that regularly repair or replace code damaged by radiation. Some people who cannot be in the presense of UV light lack a functioning version of this enzyme.
I am a biochem student so I should know a little about some of this stuff...
Edit: IN case anyone is interested, the name of this condition is xeroderma pigmentosum, and these people are very succeptable to skin cancer if they don't wear protective clothing outside (Because of their lack of the functioning excision/repair enzyme).
-
The process of education in humans, as I said long ago, is an example of A > B > C. Have we not, as a species, learned and understood more and more from one generation to the next? One could simply look at the historical base of any field of study and see that our knowledge is increasing and we are teaching the next generation to further increase their knowledge, or to be greater.
Gauss > Pythagoras > Euclid
I like it, good work. We have one example of A < B < C, education.
Those of you talking about evolution are offtopic.
More examples please.
-
There are no examples it is impossible
/thread
-
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
I'm guessing you are referring to the above quote. I think you are wrong in the specific case where the creation is self-aware and thus able to improve and develop itself; in effect, increase in complexity.
One can define creation as "the educational development of a person", the designer as "the teacher", and complexity as some measure of knowledge or understanding of our world, then I think it is a fairly obvious example. Not true in all cases, but in some.
-
Apocalypse of the Six Faced Gods
When the heavens fall upon the earth
Man’s leaders will mutter
Man’s leaders will splutter
For the rain reign of embers
The gods did cause
Man’s wisdom had faded
His eye degraded
For the land was sided six
Earth, fire, water a mix
Man ranted, shouted, bickered and whined
The land was round the land was mine
But the gods saw the truth
And called upon man’s youth
But were fools, arrogant and childish
Believing the world to be dish
Gods burn them one and all
When the embers fall
So the gods descended
Maimed burned and rended
Rocks of flame fell from the sky
So that mans folly would die
But one child did stand alone
Discard his mobile phone
He would be no longer deceive
He was the first one the believe
The gods spared him and his brothers
And their wives, now mothers
Who would teach the cube to every cradle
And to every sane man able
Seek the truth and be spared
For apocalypse be prepared
The cube is truth the cube is true
-
There are no examples it is impossible
/thread
Then evolution is impossible.
-
And to answer the question. No creation can ever be more complex than the designer no matter what your definition of creation is. It's so blatantly obvious, a five-year-old could probably answer this thread.
I'm guessing you are referring to the above quote. I think you are wrong in the specific case where the creation is self-aware and thus able to improve and develop itself; in effect, increase in complexity.
One can define creation as "the educational development of a person", the designer as "the teacher", and complexity as some measure of knowledge or understanding of our world, then I think it is a fairly obvious example. Not true in all cases, but in some.
Well I wouldn't define creation in that way, hence my opinion on the subject.
-
There are no examples it is impossible
/thread
Then evolution is impossible.
Fallacy.
Evolution is not an example of creator and creation.
-
You misunderstand this whole thread then...
-
Narc, are you going to start splitting evolution into macro and micro soon?
-
Macroevolution is what I'm talking about, er rather trying to not talk about.
Microevolution is another topic since it doesn't necessitate a < b < c, just that a != b != c.
-
You misunderstand this whole thread then...
So let's drop with all these misunderstandings. I'm guessing by this point you have yourself gathered enough evidence (or the lack thereof) to quit trying to lead us around on a chain and post a conclusion?
-
You misunderstand this whole thread then...
lol, you're a douche
-
You misunderstand this whole thread then...
When people recognise your fallacious arguments (as is always the case) it means they understand exactly what the point is.
-
Without the designer, there is no creation?...
-
Without the designer, there is no creation?...
correct, i.e. evolution=not a creation.
-
Macroevolution is what I'm talking about, er rather trying to not talk about.
Microevolution is another topic since it doesn't necessitate a < b < c, just that a != b != c.
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the script for this thread was as follows:
1. Conclude privately, before-hand, that evolution would be an example of a > b > c
2. Ask if a > b > c is possible knowing full well it's not.
3. When nobody can give an example of a > b > c claim this as proof that evolution is not possible.
It's a classic fallacious argument style used mostly by theists and creationists. It's a ploy used by pseudo intellects in order to fool the fickle and the ignorant. You have no power here Narc.
But like I said I may be wrong. Maybe, just maybe, this is an honest thread, but I'd like you to prove it by revealing all your intentions.
-
Evolution does not produce greater. It produces different. A person is no greater that a table leg, just different. End thread.
-
I think I serve a few more uses than a table leg.
-
I think I serve a few more uses than a table leg.
Such as...
-
I think I serve a few more uses than a table leg.
How good are you at holding up tables, first of all?
-
I think I serve a few more uses than a table leg.
How good are you at holding up tables, first of all?
Fairly ok. Also I do laundry and clean dishes.
-
I have a table leg that does that whilst juggling sharks.
-
I juggle 3 cacti and 4 dolphins and half of a porpoise.
-
They're full-grown great whites, half starved and massive. Also, they have heat vision.
-
So are the cacti.
-
Cactus have no eyes.
-
Shows what you know.
-
!
-
;D Time fo my showa, then maybe back here before bed!
-
;D Time fo my showa, then maybe back here before bed!
Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ, this isn't Myspace. It's not a blog. There is no "/blogspot/blog/cgi?" in the URL, is there? You little rats have nothing better to do, I know, so you should learn something else to do with the internet, like masturbating. Google it if you don't know how.
-
I can do what I want. I just wanted to let him know why I would not be continuing our conversation about juggling. :'(
-
;D Time fo my showa, then maybe back here before bed!
Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ, this isn't Myspace. It's not a blog. There is no "/blogspot/blog/cgi?" in the URL, is there? You little rats have nothing better to do, I know, so you should learn something else to do with the internet, like masturbating. Google it if you don't know how.
lol, nice internet wrath.
-
Chill Toothy, its ok, no need to get angry. Remember, Jesus loves you.
-
Friday 23rd May 2008.
I was in a quiet mood today. The weather is nice though. It's kind of mild with a gentle breeze and not too much sun in your eyes because of the light cloud cover. I think it's going to rain heavily over the weekend though.
Work was alright. Nothing new I suppose. I did learn how to use the laminating machine though which was very exciting! There wasn't much on for lunch, ended up having curly fries and chicken. They weren't bad actually, might have that again next time they're serving it!
-
June 22, 2006
I hate my life. I couldn't get my hair to do that flippy thing like that guy in that one band can do. But i get to see my favorite band in concert tomorrow. Green Day. They are so awesome. Ties are sweet. Sometimes I think that the people reading this are the only people that care whether I live or die.....
-
April 26th 1992
There was a riot in the streets, tell me where were you? You were sitting at home watching your t.v, while I was participating in some anarchy.
-
KHAN!!!!!
-
Green Day sold out. Their old stuff is a mix of hard and college rock, and American Idiot is mainstream bullshit on the scale of Fallout Boy.
-
june 22
owe hae guys. thiz is mai livejournal and i thowt i tells yoo about myself
led zeppelin be bestest band evez. mai favs sawng bai them iz stairwai 2 heaven. i alzo lyk kween (bohomeian rhapsody r tha bestest sawng evs) & pink floyd (wee dun needs noah educasion be thay're bestest sawng).
system uv down r de bestest band today. dancin ins tehz desert en wen angels diez am awesoem songs.
carlos mencia iz da bestest comedian evez + i cannnot wate tew see him oan dancin wif th' stars. joe rogan r jealous asshole. dave chapelle been funnie ii. i wonder ware him went.
i enjoi amerikan idol (i audision wenever itz gets 2 miy sitty), nascar (watchin itz rite nao), myspace (i has over 9000 frenz onna thar a i'm bettr thn joo cuz itz)& readin youtube comments.
catcher n thee rye be mah favs book.
anime rulez.
x-box be bestest vidio gaym system roun. luckily, mai parents ar buyin mee ps3 en an wii.
i yam an expert spawncamper + killer.
i wuv playin wow an yugioh.
pokemon is 4 gay lil kids.
kingdom hearts 2 is miy favs gaym ins tha final fantasy series. i love de gameplay & tehz plot is juss plane amazin. kingdom hearts 2 wuz da real deal. ur jus 2 mush ov dipshit tew no hao too plays itz rite. it was 1 off th' greatest experiences i've ever hads. just b/c you're too lo oan tjhe socio-ecomonik ladder to afford graet games shouldnt mene you shud speek liek an dipshit abt gaym you've nvr played. motherfuckers.
japan is the best country n the wrld. unlike amerikkka, they hav spiky ramen. en conciderin dat i'm a foreigner, they'll treat mi lyk an idol + tend to mah will wyl i wach raw anime kuz dubs are efel. iffn i can't livs ins japan, then i'll liv n europe. both are bettr than taht shithole amerikkka bcuz amerikans r fat an stupid.
cartoons are phoar lil kids and baldin giyz livin in thier moms basment. anime is fo grownup peopel liek mee!
naruto, inu yasha and bleach are my favorite animes.
-
Green Day sold out. Their old stuff is a mix of hard and college rock, and American Idiot is mainstream bullshit on the scale of Fallout Boy.
good boy. you get a cookie for catching it. ;)
-
Stupid bloggers. I guess I was asking for that...
-
Green Day sold out. Their old stuff is a mix of hard and college rock, and American Idiot is mainstream bullshit on the scale of Fallout Boy.
good boy. you get a cookie for catching it. ;)
Another victory for FE due to Captain Obvious!
-
June 22, 2006
I hate my life. I couldn't get my hair to do that flippy thing like that guy in that one band can do. But i get to see my favorite band in concert tomorrow. Green Day. They are so awesome. Ties are sweet. Sometimes I think that the people reading this are the only people that care whether I live or die.....
I'm lovin' it
Yes, that is a serious comment, just in McDonald's theme.
-
Dear Diary:
Mood: Apathetic.
My life is spiraling downward.
I couldn't get enough money to go to the
Blood Red Romance and Suffocate me dry concert.
It sucks 'cause they play some of my favorite songs
like "Stab My Heart Because I Love You" and
"Rip Apart My Soul" and of course,
"Stabby Rip Stab Stab".
And it doesn't help that I couldn't
get my hair to do that flippy thing either.
Like that guy from that band can do.
Some days ugh...
-
I want to hear Narc's entry on his real motives behind this thread.
-
Dear Diary:
Mood: Apathetic.
My life is spiraling downward.
I couldn't get enough money to go to the
Blood Red Romance and Suffocate me dry concert.
It sucks 'cause they play some of my favorite songs
like "Stab My Heart Because I Love You" and
"Rip Apart My Soul" and of course,
"Stabby Rip Stab Stab".
And it doesn't help that I couldn't
get my hair to do that flippy thing either.
Like that guy from that band can do.
Some days ugh...
please be my mom.....
-
I want to hear Narc's entry on his real motives behind this thread.
I want evolution to be proved (im)possible with examples of the same problem.
-
I want to hear Narc's entry on his real motives behind this thread.
Because the troll is hungry. Don't feed him, let him starve!
-
I want to hear Narc's entry on his real motives behind this thread.
I want evolution to be proved (im)possible with examples of the same problem.
In evolution, nothing greater is only created. Only different. I winz the thread nao?
-
I want to hear Narc's entry on his real motives behind this thread.
Because the troll is hungry. Don't feed him, let him starve!
Always, ALWAYS, feed the trolls.
-
I'm not defeating the troll. I'm correcting it's grammar. It's like holding the treat in front of its nose and then pulling away.
-
june 22
i falez hard
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20088.msg399419#msg399419
-
By greater I generally thought more complex. I stated the question with the idea, "can A create a B such that B is both greater than A and create a C that is greater than B."
I'm aware that that is not what I asked, but that is what I am wondering.
It happens in the computing industry all the time.
-
Example please.
-
Man created heavy metal, an entity transcending all mortality, reaching glorious heights that the Gods themselves can only envy!
-
God created man, and man created Transformers.
-
God created man, and man created Transformers.
Lies, Transformers came from another planet ::)
-
In search of a giant cube that turns technology into tranformers.
-
Precisely.
-
Oh not this fucking shitty thread again. Die.
-
i falez hard
-
I found an article in the Canadian Free Press, on the "logical proof" for God. It basically gives a laymens eye view of the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological theories.
I couldn't get through it all, just skimmed it for any insight...finding none. Thought someone would want to check it out, either to point out it's err or somehow attempt a defense...so basically just trolls defending and reasonable posters saying fuck it.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3426 (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3426)
-
Oh I just couldn't carry on reading that. I'll point out a couple of things I thought were wrong.
1) Anyone who believes in evolution is an athiest (I assume he thinks that because he only talks of atheists when talking of people who believe in evolution):
False. Why couldn't the creator have initiated the birth of the Universe and then let his/her creation run it's course? It is perfectly possible (more logical in fact) to believe in a creator AND evolution of the universe and life on Earth at the same time.
2)The evolution of the Universe and life on planets is comparible to skyscrapers (or any of the other complex structures he names) spontaneously self-assembling:
False. A common fallacy (ironic as his opening paragraph attacks the "fallacies" of atheists.) used by creationists who either don't understand evolution or who prey on most people's lack of understanding. The stars, planets and life on Earth did not spontaneously come about. They came about because of the conditions. Stars and planets had to form and life on this planet had to evolve because the conditions were met. If the conditions are not met it doesn't happen. It also happens very slowly and involves many small changes. Here's an analogy just off the top of my head: The recent Mars Lander found polygonal patterns on the ground as a result of the contractions of the land due to the changing in temperatures of sub-surface ice. Is he suggesting that due to the neat hexagonal patterns produced that only a creator could have made them? Maybe, just maybe, it was just the conditions that meant those patterns had to be formed.
-
All offtopic, we're still looking for evidence of:
A creates a B creates a C such that A < B < C
-
All offtopic, we're still looking for evidence of:
A creates a B creates a C such that A < B < C
No we're not, your thread died on page one. Off topic is the only way to keep it going otherwise let it die.
-
All offtopic, we're still looking for evidence of:
A creates a B creates a C such that A < B < C
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/FusionintheSun.svg/424px-FusionintheSun.svg.png)
Each fusion step produces greater energy than the previous.
-
Huzzah for good example!
-
Yay, an actual example. I'd debate it, but it's the best example we have...
-
Hence my "huzzah."
-
Hence my "huzzah."
You're so defensive...
-
All offtopic, we're still looking for evidence of:
A creates a B creates a C such that A < B < C
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/FusionintheSun.svg/424px-FusionintheSun.svg.png)
Each fusion step produces greater energy than the previous.
But is energy created?
I think it is a loss of mass, so each step is a less than.
-
And A is presented as A/2 not A. But still, more examples please.
-
narc do you suffer from mental retardation?
-
All offtopic, we're still looking for evidence of:
A creates a B creates a C such that A < B < C
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/FusionintheSun.svg/424px-FusionintheSun.svg.png)
Each fusion step produces greater energy than the previous.
But is energy created?
I think it is a loss of mass, so each step is a less than.
I'd say the creation of Gamma Radiation is evidence of energy production. And it's a net gain. Yes, SOME matter is lost in the form of the positron and the neutrino, but the overall result is a gain in mass. I am sure that the 2 Protons + 2 Neutrons are heavier than their predecessors. Keep in mind that as well, were not even including the respective e-'s here, and that could add or subtract to the real result. But based on the model provided, I think it's the best example as well.
-
Untrue, what you just said violates conservation of mass (and hence conservation of energy). There is actually a net loss of mass in this reaction, the combined mass of the protons and neutrons that will make up the helium nucleus is greater than the mass after fusion. This difference in combined masses is the mass decrement of this fusion reaction, and it is equivalent to the amount of energy created.
Now most sources I have found put this mass loss at .00239 amu per He nucleus formed, and the conversion from amu to MeV is equal to:
931.4932 MeV per amu (this measured is derived from the relationship of mass to energy: E=mc^2)
Since .00239 amu were converted, 2.23 MeV of energy should be produced (as gamma rays) per He nucleus formed).
-
Physics 101 guys...
Potential energy is still energy.
In order to release this energy, more energy is required into the simple system. The energy released is less than the total potential energy. So actually, there is a net energy loss.
If you enlarge the system to include the energy required to fuse the atoms, you now have a system of the same total energy before, after, and during each stage.
To stay ontopic, this is an example of A, B, and C as reactions not as systems. And in that the problem is that:
And A is presented as A/2 not A. But still, more examples please.
This is true of B as well.
-
i falez hard
YTMND-fag hath spoken!
-
i falez hard
hurr durr u go to a websiet
-
Because the conditions that prevailed at that time were so radical from the present, that our theories, which are built using todays experimental evidence, don't hold.
This is wrong in the sense that he is using the word "time".
-
I'm still interested in more examples.
-
What happened to you being banned?
-
I have banproof armor.
-
I have banproof armor.
(he kissed enough asses that he found the right spot)
-
Because the conditions that prevailed at that time were so radical from the present, that our theories, which are built using todays experimental evidence, don't hold.
This is wrong in the sense that he is using the word "time".