Consciousness

[bilby]

The 1LoT tells us that nothing has a beginning.

It is a characteristic of closed systems.

AFTER they exist.

It says nothing about beginnings.

You are off in outer space.

We don't know whether it applies to the universe as a whole or not, but it applies to EVERYTHING else, so your claim "Everything that can be examined had a beginning. All matter had a beginning. Saying something that exists had a beginning makes sense" is moronic.

Once again, you state your assumptions as though they were evidence for your conclusions. Please give me an example of something - ANYTHING - other than the universe, that has a beginning. 1LoT says you can't do it. So the conclusion that everything has a beginning is only possible if you start with the assumption that the universe is a special case, and that the physical Law that applies to everything else, does not apply to the universe.

The universe has a beginning because everything has a beginning because the universe is everything and the universe has a beginning.

It's a perfect circle.


View attachment 13843

I don't know why you responded to just the first sentence of my post, particularly as the very next sentence (bolded above for your edification) deals with your objection; But here's the rest once again. It remains a complete rebuttal of your moronic objection.

 

[humbleman]

Problem:

While the universe appears of having a development, the crude reality is that the universe is in continued decay.

'decay' is not a concept that applies to universes; you are making a category error here.

The universe is presumably a closed system, and so its total entropy increases with time; but entropy is not decay, and increases in total entropy do not preclude large decreases in local entropy - so certain areas of the universe are becoming more ordered and/or more complex with time.

In cosmology getting colder causes slowing and slowing a the end of the day is decay.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

1 thermodynamics : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity

Entropy is the general trend of the universe toward death and disorder. —James R. Newman

b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

Elements in the universe are more simpler each time.

Again, simplicity is hard to understand as it applies to 'elements', but if you are discussing chemical elements, we can see that proton and neutron number is increasing over time, making elements more complex, not simpler.

Probably for you the simplicity of the process is hard to understand because your mind is filled with good for nothing theories.

Lets refresh your brain from point zero.

Forget the good for nothing theories and simply observe the universe:

The older stars produce and recycle heavy elements.

Newer stars don't produce but solely recycle heavy elements. Newer stars produce heavy metals and metals.

Planets won't produce neither recycle heavy elements neither heavy metals. Planets solely storage them.

The picture is clear. No theory to explain it but solely observation and taking data.

From heavier or more complex elements to simpler elements.

You can argue whatever you want in base on good for nothing theories but you can't bit physical reality as it is.

Living organisms were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

This is simply false. Living organisms were simpler (on average) and have (mostly) become more complex over time. The exceptions are organisms in very stable niches, which often become highly specialized in ways that could be considered 'simpler', although the word is not really meaningful in this context.

Unfortunately your education has been based on lies and fiction. You better go back to your schools and demand your money back.

When you count the less characteristics found in the actual equus with the ancient Hipparion, those characteristics lost in that species in biology -and in medicine when is about the human body- is called degeneration. Let me spell it for you: D E G E N E R A T I O N.

The T Rex with atrophied arms and lost of digits is degeneration. The primeval cells have been found to be more complex than the current cells in living organisms.

The degeneration of the species goes in complete accord with the decay of the elements in the universe. Remember, quantity is not synonymous of evolution, because superior quality, better status, are also included, like old phones which were big and simpler, today phones are smaller but more complex. and because this new status we can say that the device called telephone has "evolved".

Such is not the scenario with the elements iof the universe and less with living organisms.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/degeneration


2 a : progressive deterioration of physical characters from a level representing the norm of earlier generations or forms : regression of the morphology of a group or kind of organism toward a simpler less highly organized state

parasitism leads to degeneration

b : deterioration of a tissue or an organ in which its vitality is diminished or its structure impaired; especially : deterioration in which specialized cells are replaced by less specialized cells (as in fibrosis or in malignancies) or in which cells are functionally impaired (as by deposition of abnormal matter in the tissue)

Don't tell me that your theory says the contrary, because a solid dictionary definition has more value than thousands of good for nothing theories.

The rate of decay for us it appears slow because we are less than a solitary microbe populating an entire planet, the whole scenario is too much for us.

Speak for yourself.

Sure, for you the universe can get inside a nutshell... good grief.

Take the picture and think again about how the beginning should have been.

It doesn't matter a jot how the beginning should have been; all that matters is how it was. And that depends what you mean by 'beginning', and whether or not there even is one in the context of 'the universe'.

Beginnings are essentially a human construct; When we try to pin down the details of 'beginnings', we often find that reality is too complex to fit that neat boundary.

At the beginning the universe was more complex and today is more simpler. While your thoughts are backed up with good for nothing theories, on the other hand my statements are supported with evidence.

 

[DBT]

You do not have an example of a completed real infinity.

There are none.

You appear to be contradicting the common meaning of the word ''Infinite'' - which I assume you are referring to.

Infinite in that sense - a concept describing something without any limit - is not a ''completed'' set of numbers or a fixed number. It is not a measurable quantity.

 

[bilby]

<snipped massive un-evidenced pile of nonsense>

... on the other hand my statements are supported with evidence.

No. Seriously, No. You don't appear to even grasp what 'evidence' is.

The older stars produce and recycle heavy elements.

Wrong. Population II stars produce Helium, and a tiny amount of light 'metals' - they don't contain any heavy elements, so they couldn't possibly "recycle" them, even if "recycle" meant something in this context - which I don't think it possibly can.

Newer stars don't produce but solely recycle heavy elements. Newer stars produce heavy metals and metals.

Wrong. Population I stars are still mostly H and He; They contain traces of heavier 'Metals', but they don't contain (much less produce or "recycle" heavy metals.

Planets won't produce neither recycle heavy elements neither heavy metals. Planets solely storage them.

The universe is made almost entirely of Hydrogen and Helium. It used to be made almost entirely of Hydrogen. So it has (I observe) become more complex.

What astrophysicists call 'Metals' is everything that isn't H or He; It makes up statistically almost none of the universe.

Planets are a minuscule part of reality - They make up about one part in a thousand (0.1%) of all matter - and they are almost entirely gas giants, made mostly from H, He and the lighter metals. Almost all of the 'Metals' are in stars. Planets are completely unimportant on a cosmic scale. Metals heavier than iron essentially don't exist at all - they are a rounding error in a cosmos measured to ten significant digits.

 

[Juma]

a solid dictionary definition has more value than thousands of good for nothing theories.

Definitions are necessary but add no new information. Empirical observation and theories ar where the information are found.
But being wrong on your facts, as you are, is the biggest no-no.

 

[untermensche]

..Infinite in that sense - a concept describing something without any limit - is not a ''completed'' set of numbers or a fixed number. It is not a measurable quantity.

We are on the same page so far.

Now all you have to do is think about the time in the past.

Which has all completed at every present moment.

And understand that a series of days (amount of time) that is never completed could not have completed before every present moment.

 

[untermensche]

I don't know why you responded to just the first sentence of my post, particularly as the very next sentence (bolded above for your edification) deals with your objection; But here's the rest once again. It remains a complete rebuttal of your moronic objection.

I don't know why you quoted me just to bore me with this.

If you have no ideas, step aside.

The First law of thermodynamics is a characteristic of closed systems.

AFTER they exist.

It says nothing about beginnings.

If you have any evidence the Big Bang was not a beginning present it. If you have some evidence of something before the Big Bang feel free to share.

Otherwise it is absurd to think it was not a beginning.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I don't know why you responded to just the first sentence of my post, particularly as the very next sentence (bolded above for your edification) deals with your objection; But here's the rest once again. It remains a complete rebuttal of your moronic objection.

I don't know why you quoted me just to bore me with this.

If you have no ideas, step aside.

The First law of thermodynamics is a characteristic of closed systems.

AFTER they exist.

It says nothing about beginnings.

If you have any evidence the Big Bang was not a beginning present it. If you have some evidence of something before the Big Bang feel free to share.

Otherwise it is absurd to think it was not a beginning.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

I'm not even saying it is right, merely an option, I posted a link to Einstein stating that he thought a universe that had existed for ever was a live one and all you did was start insulting Einstein.

Which is almost funny.

 

[humbleman]

No. Seriously, No. You don't appear to even grasp what 'evidence' is.

http://nci.org.au/research/seeking-heavy-metal-in-the-stars/

Old stars and planetary nebulae in the outer halo of the Milky Way galaxy date back to the early universe when few elements heavier than iron existed, revealing the process in its infancy. Younger stars in the dusty plane of the Milky Way galaxy speak of a more advanced state where many successive stellar generations have contributed to the metal abundances of the stars we see forming today. By comparing older and younger stars and nebulae, Dr Karakas and her colleagues can step back in time to reconstruct the processes by which almost half the elements in our world have formed.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...nusually-high-amounts-of-heavy-elements/58056

Some of the oldest stars in the Milky Way, in the outer reaches of our galaxy, contain abnormally high amounts of heavy elements like gold, platinum and uranium. Where these large amounts came from has been a mystery for researchers. Researchers at the Niels Bohr Institute have been studying these ancient stars for several years with giant telescopes in Chile in order to trace the origin of these heavy elements. With recent observations they have hypothesized how they could have been formed in the early history of the Milky Way.

I can fill up messages with tens -if not hundreds- of links showing you that the order of elements is from heavy elements- heavy metals- elements, trend.

You just can't evade this reality, which is not based on ideas or common sense alone but with observation.

In the links you might find the theoretic explanations given by the authors of the articles, mentioning fantasies like black holes and evolution, etc. Those are just "stuff" added to the observation.

The point here is the observation itself: the -heavy element-heavy metal- elements- trend that exists in the universe.

The elements are in a definitive process of decay, from more complex to more simpler: decay.

Same as well with living organism on earth, these were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

Our awareness must have been more complex and now must be more simpler, even when our knowledge based in what we learn today appears having evolved, our capacity of learning might have decreased.

I will explain.

It requires same or more capability of reasoning for the invention of language than the invention of a spaceship.

You give for granted how easy if learning the use of computers, but in the 70's you really was in need for learning how to use a computer, the reading of two books the size of two old directory phone books. It was very complicated for many.

The confusion today, when is thought that our brains have "evolved" is that today learning has better techniques for faster learning of things, but this won't make the human brain in better status than the brain of the ancestors. It solely will bring more easy way to learn, that's all.

What it has evolved is technology, which is reached thru lots of trial and error, and we continue doing so.

In other words, you provide the same five centuries ago technological environment to any student, and this student won't reach any invention with robots and nothing similar. What new students reach in their inventions is thanks to the new information and technology reached up until today. The human brain itself has not evolved.

Got it Now?

You don't like to recognize this crude reality?

Then, keep discussing writing more of your nonsense.

 

[Subsymbolic]

So that's confirmation of Bilby's point about evidence then. I love the selective quotation, it always removes any doubt about sincerity.

As for computers getting easier to use, write that claim in binary and I'll be more impressed.

 

[untermensche]

Same as well with living organism on earth, these were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

Not true at all.

Degeneration has no meaning in genetics.

There are mutations and transcription errors and many other things but no degeneration.

I don't think simplicity is a trend but simplicity does not imply degeneration.

 

[humbleman]

So that's confirmation of Bilby's point about evidence then. I love the selective quotation, it always removes any doubt about sincerity.

As for computers getting easier to use, write that claim in binary and I'll be more impressed.

You have paid attention to the nuts explanations of black holes and assumptions of how are formed in the links and in other sites mentioning about elements in stars.

What I pointed in the links is the status without trying to explain their origin. Just who owns what. Evidence alone. Evidence without explanations.

You go to the beach and enjoy the sand, the water, the Sun light... you enjoy the evidence, the environment which portraits the beach.

But, you won't enjoy it when in your mind you only see the imaginary big bang from a microscopic particle expanding and forming galaxies and so forth. Imaginations which someone has called them a "theory of science".

Between the paragraphs of the given links, heavier elements were before simpler elements, before metals. Check as many links around as you can, pay no attention to the theoretic explanation, just check which one came first, which one was second.

On the other hand, check if any link says the contrary, not in base of calculations and computer simulations but observation alone. Review in any journal of science if web links are not enough for you.

About the use of computers and how hard is working with them.

With a knowledge from the 70s try to use a modern computer like the Oakforest-PACS.

Even today, a common Windows 11 user with the most sophisticated software included, without training taking care of a Cori or a Sequoia. One sole person. Hmm...

Our brains have not evolved.

Watch the movie "The Gods Must be Crazy" (first one) It is comedy, very good movie. The main character is a member of the Bushmen, which are small tribes in Africa who are no more than close family members, they have their own language.

The man didn't go to school, neither to Oberlin College in Ohio to learn acting. However, this man learned not only acting but even driving cars and more in a short period of time. No ancestors who acquired knowledge about any subject taught in schools, nothing indicating that this man could learn fast whatever it was taught to him. He was practically with the same -if not better- capacity of learning as any student coming for a university where acting and arts are taught.

No difference.

No matter if former generations reached great or non knowledge. Such is not passed to new generations but solely by repeated and continued teaching to the new members, but the brains are not better prepared because such teachings in order to pass automatically by conception and birth alone a greater capacity of learning to the offspring.

The greater you reached in knowledge won't increase the capability of acquiring knowledge in your children. The brain won't evolve.

That is my point.

 

[humbleman]

Same as well with living organism on earth, these were more complex and are now more simpler: degeneration.

Not true at all.

Degeneration has no meaning in genetics.

There are mutations and transcription errors and many other things but no degeneration.

I don't think simplicity is a trend but simplicity does not imply degeneration.

https://www.easy-dna.com/genetic-predisposition-dna-testing/macular-degeneration/

Heredity is a non-modifiable factor that causes AMD. As high as 10-20% of the cases with AMD have at least one first-degree family member with vision loss. Several genes have been identified after years of research

About simplicity. The most characteristics you lose, the most vulnerable you are in front of the environment.

Chemicals spread in a continent cause people births with atrophied legs, no feet. Your body is now more simpler, less characteristics. You are exposed to more danger in front of the environment.

The theory of evolution is false. The more characteristics you lose the most harmful for the species.

You better start being more conscious about it.

 

[DBT]

..Infinite in that sense - a concept describing something without any limit - is not a ''completed'' set of numbers or a fixed number. It is not a measurable quantity.

We are on the same page so far.

Now all you have to do is think about the time in the past.

Which has all completed at every present moment.

And understand that a series of days (amount of time) that is never completed could not have completed before every present moment.

Why do keep saying ''completed?' What completion? Nothing stays the same, nothing remains complete and unchanging. What we see is a process of change. Matter/energy taking many patterns and forms, some persisting for long periods of time, stars, galaxies, etc, others appearing and disappearing quickly, virtual particles, collisions, cloud formations and so on....probably the only constant being change itself. The universe itself may be a manifestation of a larger process, a process that had no beginning and is therefore eternal. The other option is something out of nothing, perhaps a quantum fluctuation...but that itself is something.

 

[untermensche]

https://www.easy-dna.com/genetic-predisposition-dna-testing/macular-degeneration/

Heredity is a non-modifiable factor that causes AMD. As high as 10-20% of the cases with AMD have at least one first-degree family member with vision loss. Several genes have been identified after years of research

About simplicity. The most characteristics you lose, the most vulnerable you are in front of the environment.

Chemicals spread in a continent cause people births with atrophied legs, no feet. Your body is now more simpler, less characteristics. You are exposed to more danger in front of the environment.

The theory of evolution is false. The more characteristics you lose the most harmful for the species.

You better start being more conscious about it.

I see, because macular degeneration has "degeneration" in it you think it is some kind of genetic degeneration.

It is not a description of genetic degeneration. It is an age related degeneration of cells.

There is no such thing as genetic degeneration.

 

[untermensche]

..Infinite in that sense - a concept describing something without any limit - is not a ''completed'' set of numbers or a fixed number. It is not a measurable quantity.

We are on the same page so far.

Now all you have to do is think about the time in the past.

Which has all completed at every present moment.

And understand that a series of days (amount of time) that is never completed could not have completed before every present moment.

Why do keep saying ''completed?' What completion? Nothing stays the same, nothing remains complete and unchanging. What we see is a process of change. Matter/energy taking many patterns and forms, some persisting for long periods of time, stars, galaxies, etc, others appearing and disappearing quickly, virtual particles, collisions, cloud formations and so on....probably the only constant being change itself. The universe itself may be a manifestation of a larger process, a process that had no beginning and is therefore eternal. The other option is something out of nothing, perhaps a quantum fluctuation...but that itself is something.

I have expressed a simple way to look at a completed real infinity.

Writing out all the fractions between zero and one would be a completed real infinity.

Having infinite time end, finish, be done, as all the time in the past ends at every present moment, would be a competed real infinity.

Neither are possible.

 

[Hermit]

If I were of the opinion that the hare could never catch up to the turtle, let alone overtake it, or that the motion of an arrow shot from a bow is an illusion, and if I were looking for someone to argue my case with the persistence of a terrier, I know exactly whom to ask.

 

[untermensche]

If I were of the opinion that the hare could never catch up to the turtle, let alone overtake it, or that the motion of an arrow shot from a bow is an illusion, and if I were looking for someone to argue my case with the persistence of a terrier, I know exactly whom to ask.

For terriers you need to be more explicit.

What you have done is voice some kind of displeasure but have provided nothing to comment on.

You have displeasure.

That is clear.

Do you think it is possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is it possible to merely imagine they are all there?

 

[Hermit]

If I were of the opinion that the hare could never catch up to the turtle, let alone overtake it, or that the motion of an arrow shot from a bow is an illusion, and if I were looking for someone to argue my case with the persistence of a terrier, I know exactly whom to ask.

For terriers you need to be more explicit.

What you have done is voice some kind of displeasure but have provided nothing to comment on.

You have displeasure.

That is clear.

Do you think it is possible to write out all the fractions between zero and one?

Is it possible to merely imagine they are all there?

Thanks for providing more evidence - as if more evidence were needed - that my choice would have been the best.

 

[untermensche]

You have expressed nothing, no content, zero, but you are smiling.

So I suppose that is good.