Good video on creationist use of "information theory"

[Keith&Co.]

OK then, we are now talking about infinite regression. This argument isn't about "what makes things easier than impossible" (the answer, by the way, is Language). This argument seems more about, "you couldn't have accompished "X" unless "Y" was there... and Y without Z... etc, ad nausium.

This is why i put him on ignore.
Too much time has to be spent backing and filling and trying to nail down what he said and fixing his reframing what others said, ad nausium. Almost like he's trying to filibuster any discussion that doesn't simply agree with him.

 

[Underseer]

OK then, we are now talking about infinite regression. This argument isn't about "what makes things easier than impossible" (the answer, by the way, is Language). This argument seems more about, "you couldn't have accompished "X" unless "Y" was there... and Y without Z... etc, ad nausium.

This is why i put him on ignore.
Too much time has to be spent backing and filling and trying to nail down what he said and fixing his reframing what others said, ad nausium. Almost like he's trying to filibuster any discussion that doesn't simply agree with him.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think he is deliberately changing his definitions to be dishonest, but because he honestly doesn't know any better.

 

[WAB]

OK then, we are now talking about infinite regression. This argument isn't about "what makes things easier than impossible" (the answer, by the way, is Language). This argument seems more about, "you couldn't have accompished "X" unless "Y" was there... and Y without Z... etc, ad nausium.

This is why i put him on ignore.
Too much time has to be spent backing and filling and trying to nail down what he said and fixing his reframing what others said, ad nausium. Almost like he's trying to filibuster any discussion that doesn't simply agree with him.

Why ignore one of the best posters here? He's not doing what you claim he's doing, though I can easily see why someone would make that assumption. I assumed the very same thing about Kharakov several years ago when I couldn't stand him! I don't know if Kharakov remembers our early engagements, but they were not pretty, and I was most probably being obtuse and not reading his posts carefully enough.

I could go on, ad nauseam, but I hope no one else will be too easily inclined to put Kharakov on ignore. I put kennethamy on ignore once, when he and I were butting heads. I took him off after a mere few hours, because I realized that the philosophy forum was comparatively empty without his vast knowledge and insight.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why i put him on ignore.
Too much time has to be spent backing and filling and trying to nail down what he said and fixing his reframing what others said, ad nausium. Almost like he's trying to filibuster any discussion that doesn't simply agree with him.

I don't think that's fair. I don't think he is deliberately changing his definitions to be dishonest, but because he honestly doesn't know any better.

Untrue, Underseer.

 

[WAB]

You seem to be forgetting something.

Someone had to invent a goal-based sport before you could engage in these logical fallacies.

Think about that.

Of course! Which is precisely the point Kharakov is trying to make.

 

[WAB]

You seem to be forgetting something.

Someone had to invent a goal-based sport before you could engage in these logical fallacies.

Think about that.

No, no ,the behavior would exist and would be fallacious whether or not there's a humorous sports metaphor readily at hand to label the fallacy with. But like math, it's just something humans have invented, and found a way to use it to understand the universe.

Humans didn't just invent math out of the lint of their bellybuttons. To invent math, there had to be a lawful universe to provide a context in which mathematics could make sense. As you know as well as anyone else, of course.

 

[Kharakov]

OK then, we are now talking about infinite regression. This argument isn't about "what makes things easier than impossible" (the answer, by the way, is Language). This argument seems more about, "you couldn't have accompished "X" unless "Y" was there... and Y without Z... etc, ad nausium.

I just wanted to point out one very simple fact about reality. A lot of experimentation and effort goes into producing a good product, a product that is relatively simple to use- push a button and watch tv. The whole obsession with increases in complexity due to evolution and design misses a major point- increases in simplicity are also part of design and evolution. In fact, one would think far more goes into making an extremely complex system simple, than an extremely simple system complex.

Untermensche's mention, in another thread, of a complex snowflake arising from the extremely simple dihedral symmetry of crystalline water fits right into this. It's easy to form something complex from simple rules. It's generally much harder to form something simple to use from something extremely complex, while maintaining the structural complexity of the extremely complex entity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Humans didn't just invent math out of the lint of their bellybuttons. To invent math, there had to be a lawful universe to provide a context in which mathematics could make sense. As you know as well as anyone else, of course.

That's kinda funny, since humans make the laws, too. For the same reason we made math, to try to make sense of the universe.

There are two trees in my backyard. Nature doesn't present them as two trees. They're dissimilar. From the universe's point of view, there's a life form and another life form. They're not the same species. They're not the same age, or the same size, or the same number of branches. Their root systems are different and branches fall off one every winter while the other loses branches during the winter freeze.
It takes the human mind to ignore a great deal of distinctions between the two organisms and say there are two trees.
We get that from our limited view of the universe, not from perceiving any great teachings the universe provides.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why ignore one of the best posters here?

You have an idiomatic use of the language, William.

He's not doing what you claim he's doing,

Okay.

 

[laruan]

enough said

 

[WAB]

Humans didn't just invent math out of the lint of their bellybuttons. To invent math, there had to be a lawful universe to provide a context in which mathematics could make sense. As you know as well as anyone else, of course.

That's kinda funny, since humans make the laws, too. For the same reason we made math, to try to make sense of the universe.

There are two trees in my backyard. Nature doesn't present them as two trees. They're dissimilar. From the universe's point of view, there's a life form and another life form. They're not the same species. They're not the same age, or the same size, or the same number of branches. Their root systems are different and branches fall off one every winter while the other loses branches during the winter freeze.
It takes the human mind to ignore a great deal of distinctions between the two organisms and say there are two trees.
We get that from our limited view of the universe, not from perceiving any great teachings the universe provides.

I agree with you 99% (rough estimate, not based on anything but my noodle). You won't find a more passionate champion of the human mind than me.

The one percent of what you say that I disagree with is that you don't think the universe teaches us things.

Obviously, the universe supplies anything and everything we could possibly think of with which to work out our lives and theories, and without the universe, there would be no 'we' to 'do' anything: None of this is controversial, or, at least I hope it isn't.

I realize the Intelligent Universe theory is controversial, and that mainstream science regards it as woo. I don't think the theory is all that wooey. Neither did Aristotle, Anselm, Spinoza, Hegel, or Carl Jung; and neither do certain well-credited (and much maligned) scientists and physicists of today. < I realize this is a hemi-semi-demi-appeal to authoritay!

But I really only mention a few big names to remind higher-education students five hundred years from now (presuming they'll be allowed to peruse ancient talk forum archives as part of their history research) that there were ancient thinkers who thought in a particular way that by then might be extinct. (< I suspect that would be just dandy to a great many posters hereabouts.)

I worry a lot about what higher-education students five hundred years from now will be taught (nevermind whether or not higher-education students will even exist five hundred years from now), and what they will have access to. If Wikipedia is already at work relegating certain people to the dustbin of Forgetfulness (their names printed in red, linked, leading to pages that no longer exist), then I can only shudder about how far things may go.

I say 'may' go, not 'will' go. I try to be optimistic if and when I can.

 

[Kharakov]

Why ignore one of the best posters here? He's not doing what you claim he's doing, though I can easily see why someone would make that assumption.

It's all right William. In the last post I made to Malintent, I had looked up the number of atoms in a grain of sand while writing out a response to him, tying back to my original post about simplicity which was a response to Keith and RHutchin's argument which focused upon complexity. Keith has said this in that post:

Rhutchin's convinced that science shows that the crow 'kind' had the potential for all the 42 crow species today. Kind of like a 2-ton block of granite contains a sculpture of Moses. You just chip away everything that's not a 1-ton sculpture of Moses, because mutations only reduce the DNA content. You can't gain complexity by taking things away.

So, while reading the thread about atoms in a grain of sand vs. number of stars in the universe, I noticed one particular signature (because of the flowchart in it). I had just reread Keith's post above, and saw this in thoughtful's sig:

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

And Keith is gone. Fittingly, he is gone in a way that is beautifully orchestrated, starting with his comment above, ending with him putting me on ignore and me finding that quote about perfection being attained when there is nothing left to take away.

I put kennethamy on ignore once, when he and I were butting heads. I took him off after a mere few hours, because I realized that the philosophy forum was comparatively empty without his vast knowledge and insight.

I really liked Kennethamy. I was sorry to hear he died a few years back, during a period of time I was not involved in any of the forums. Definitely someone that I felt was very intelligent, kind, understanding, and kind. I said kind twice, didn't I?
Ohh, and we argued a few times. A professor emeritus, taking time to speak with the rapscallions at the IIDB, which became FRDB, which became TFT. I remember when infidels.org didn't even require an account to log in- you could just make up a name and post whatever you wanted. Times have changed...

 

[WAB]

You have an idiomatic use of the language, William.

id·i·o·mat·ic

/ˌidēəˈmatik/

adjective: idiomatic

1.

using, containing, or denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker. "distinctive idiomatic dialogue"

synonyms: vernacular, colloquial, everyday, conversational; More natural, grammatical, correct

"the president lacks an ear for idiomatic English"


2.

appropriate to the style of art or music associated with a particular period, individual, or group

"a short Bach piece containing lots of idiomatic motifs"


3.

idiotic, foolish, silly, self-important, egoist, egotistical, snotty-nosed, pathetic, occasionally drunken, tired, arrogant, egomaniacal (See: Walter Mitty), daydreamer, poet, lazy good-for-nothing layabout (See: Layabout Larry), Joe Lunchbox (See: Joe Timeclock, Suzy Homemaker, Average Joe); inclined to worry and paranoia, misfit (See: Square Peg, nerd, herman [See: Star Trek]), loser, L-7. (See: Peter Pan syndrome; Ayn Rand, randroid, John Galt, Comic Book, Movies.) (See Couch Potato, doughboy, cracker, thumbsucker, panty-waste, sissy) Cabron, cuckold, Lesbian-trapped-in-man's-body [See: lipstick lesbian, sadomasochism, sarcasm, humor, humour, see: LOL, lmao, rotflmao.]

"I'm getting tired of that idiomatic dickhead over there."




I'm thinking you meant number 1 or 2?

 

[WAB]

It's all right William. In the last post I made to Malintent, I had looked up the number of atoms in a grain of sand while writing out a response to him, tying back to my original post about simplicity which was a response to Keith and RHutchin's argument which focused upon complexity. Keith has said this in that post:

Rhutchin's convinced that science shows that the crow 'kind' had the potential for all the 42 crow species today. Kind of like a 2-ton block of granite contains a sculpture of Moses. You just chip away everything that's not a 1-ton sculpture of Moses, because mutations only reduce the DNA content. You can't gain complexity by taking things away.

So, while reading the thread about atoms in a grain of sand vs. number of stars in the universe, I noticed one particular signature (because of the flowchart in it). I had just reread Keith's post above, and saw this in thoughtful's sig:

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

And Keith is gone. Fittingly, he is gone in a way that is beautifully orchestrated, starting with his comment above, ending with him putting me on ignore and me finding that quote about perfection being attained when there is nothing left to take away.

I put kennethamy on ignore once, when he and I were butting heads. I took him off after a mere few hours, because I realized that the philosophy forum was comparatively empty without his vast knowledge and insight.

I really liked Kennethamy. I was sorry to hear he died a few years back, during a period of time I was not involved in any of the forums. Definitely someone that I felt was very intelligent, kind, understanding, and kind. I said kind twice, didn't I?
Ohh, and we argued a few times. A professor emeritus, taking time to speak with the rapscallions at the IIDB, which became FRDB, which became TFT. I remember when infidels.org didn't even require an account to log in- you could just make up a name and post whatever you wanted. Times have changed...

Kennethamy and I eventually came to terms and we had a brief but cordial exchange via PM, right before he passed, I believe. His patient and prolix interventions in those threads were often laced with brutal sarcasm and intimidating wit, but he was by and large doing a great service to the fledglings, rogues, and autodidacts (me) who were lucky enough to be there during his tenure.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The one percent of what you say that I disagree with is that you don't think the universe teaches us things.

Obviously, the universe supplies anything and everything we could possibly think of with which to work out our lives and theories, and without the universe, there would be no 'we' to 'do' anything: None of this is controversial, or, at least I hope it isn't.

So far so good. Except that we wrest information out of the universe. It doesn't teach us anything.
We can pan a stream for gold. We do not usually say that the stream 'gives' us gold. Except maybe poetically.
It is not our understanding that the stream wants us to have the gold. Except in some old Warner Brothers cartoons.

I realize the Intelligent Universe theory is controversial, and that mainstream science regards it as woo. I don't think the theory is all that wooey.

You want to argue labels or do you want to supply some reason to think it isn't woo?

But I really only mention a few big names to remind higher-education students five hundred years from now (presuming they'll be allowed to peruse ancient talk forum archives as part of their history research) that there were ancient thinkers who thought in a particular way that by then might be extinct. (< I suspect that would be just dandy to a great many posters hereabouts.)

So...do you want to talk to me or to posterity? I can come back later if you're busy with archivists of the future. The archivists who will have your writings, but not the writings of the people you're mentioning....

 

[WAB]

So far so good. Except that we wrest information out of the universe. It doesn't teach us anything.
We can pan a stream for gold. We do not usually say that the stream 'gives' us gold. Except maybe poetically.

I disagree. I think the universe teaches us everything we can possibly know.

You want to argue labels or do you want to supply some reason to think it isn't woo?

First of all, I think woo is a lazy word, much like the word 'bullshit'. It's a word used to conveniently wave away anything one doesn't find agreeable. It's a word for lazy thinkers. It's easy and convenient, like mockery and satire. More often than not, mockery and satire are resorted to as an escape hatch for people who don't want to take the time or spend the energy to take on certain controversial topics fairly and comprehensively. But I've already gone over this road, and I expect the typical response, although I'd love to be surprised.

I'm not a scientist, or a physicist, so my reasons for why I don't think the Intelligent Universe theories are totally unfounded and dispensable are not scholarly reasons, just personal, subjective, emotional, even romantic reasons. My 'reasons' are these:

• I don't think scientists have more than a relatively infantile grasp of the universe, how it came to exist, what exactly it is, and how exactly it operates. By 'relatively' I mean on a cosmic, universal scale. ie, I'd wager there are intelligent beings out there who would laugh uproariously at mankind's announcements of how they 'understand' the universe. Consequently, to my thinking, those beings might very well be laughed at by beings still more advanced, etc.
• I have adopted a Spinozan view of the universe and God. ie, the universe IS God, and vice versa. Nature IS God, and vice versa. I could sit here and try to explain Spinoza's philosophy for you, but why should I have to? You can just as easily read him yourself, and for all I know you already have. I don't expect you to agree with Spinoza, or with me for agreeing with his system, naturally. However, I'd still try to clear up the usual misinterpretation of Spinoza's concept of God as equating with naturalism/materialism/atheism. Spinoza assigns intelligence to Nature, which naturalism doesn't. Spinoza is a strict determinist, in that he states that God has put things in perfect order and that there can be no internal or external (there being nothing external to God) influence or power able to alter that order. There are similarities between Spinoza and deism/pantheism, however, though there are also crucial distinctions.
• I have had personal experiences that inform me that there is something greater and beyond what science has been able to discover extant in the universe. I admit, though pretty much as a formality, that my experiences and intuitions can be the result of a mental disorder, even a specific brain dysfunction that relates to the amygdala. I gleaned this notion from Dr. Ramachandran and his studies with people who have experienced similar things to what I've experienced. NOTE: I do not necessarily buy, hook line and sinker, anything that I see or read. I would like to dissuade you and everyone else from making that assumption. It's an assumption that appears to be virtually automatic in certain people when they hear certain ideas brought to the table.

So...do you want to talk to me or to posterity? I can come back later if you're busy with archivists of the future. The archivists who will have your writings, but not the writings of the people you're mentioning....

Both.

I was talking mainly about people - students, let's say - reading archives, not the archivists.

Now, why would the readers - students, let's say - of the future not have the writings of the people I'm mentioning?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I disagree. I think the universe teaches us everything we can possibly know.

Everything that's available to learn is in the universe. Seeing that as an act of intent is another step.

First of all, I think woo is a lazy word, much like the word 'bullshit'.

So you want to argue labels. Okay.
Whatever.

It's a word used to conveniently wave away anything one doesn't find agreeable.

That's incorrect. It conveniently waves away anything offered without any good reason to think that it's factual. Especially something that's been offered many times, all without evidence, esp. if one begins to blame the listener for not accepting the 'woo' at face value.
The immediate response to an accusation of woo would be to provide supporting evidence, or logic to at least advance the discussion.
Not to say that calling it woo is bullying, or anything like that.

It's a word for lazy thinkers. It's easy and convenient, like mockery and satire.

Yay! Another lecture to people about how they should be posting.

More often than not, mockery and satire are resorted to as an escape hatch for people who don't want to take the time or spend the energy to take on certain controversial topics fairly and comprehensively. But I've already gone over this road, and I expect the typical response, although I'd love to be surprised.

You never actually posted a problem with mockery. I asked why woo should not be mocked. You said intelligent people shouldn't use it, shouldn't need to use it, this one guy used it but he could have spent his time better, and he was shamed by using it, other people eschewed it, you didn't like it... The Pythons were good at it but this one time they didn't do it.

Anything except for the reason mockery is actually bad.

I don't think scientists have more than a relatively infantile grasp of the universe, how it came to exist, what exactly it is, and how exactly it operates. By 'relatively' I mean on a cosmic, universal scale. ie, I'd wager there are intelligent beings out there who would laugh uproariously at mankind's announcements of how they 'understand' the universe. Consequently, to my thinking, those beings might very well be laughed at by beings still more advanced, etc.

Okay. That's a reason to take any scientist's opinion with a grain of salt. But it doesn't really help your case any. If anything, we would take it with two grains of salt, if you don't even have the evidence of an infantile theory to offer.

I have adopted a Spinozan view of the universe and God. ie, the universe IS God, and vice versa. Nature IS God, and vice versa.

Okay.... The reason you think that the universe is intelligent is that you've chosen to adopt the view that the universe is intelligent. That's not really a reason for people who have not adopted that stance, to adopt that stance, you realize?

I have had personal experiences that inform me that there is something greater and beyond what science has been able to discover extant in the universe.

Ookay, don't take this wrong. But voices in your head are not going to make evidence in my head. I'm not dismissing your experience with the stereotypical 'voices in his head' line. This would be the same if you were crazy, or highly imaginative, or actually receiving transmissions from the universe's intelligence. I don't hear the voices and i don't have any way to know if you're crazy, imaginative or a Prophet.

Now, why would the readers - students, let's say - of the future not have the writings of the people I'm mentioning?

I don't know. You're the one thinking you have to post information on something as ephemeral as an internet forum to make sure information gets passed on for 250 generations....

 

[WAB]

Keith, thanks for the discussion, but I don't think I'll pursue it.

Your need to be condescending and belittling is something I don't feel like wasting my time on any further.

Be well, be happy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Your need to be condescending and belittling is something I don't feel like wasting my time on any further. b

MY need?

Wow.

Loretta, I believe in ghosts. I grew up with at least one in my house. It's subjective evidence, but no skeptic has managed to fully explain all of my experiences.

However.

Knowing that most atheists are skeptical about ghosts, i do not accuse them of being closed-minded just because they don't accept the evidence that's only available to me.
I don't try to belittle every scientist for not being 'open' to evidence i can't replicate in a lab, or even introduce in a face-to-face conversation.
I don't pretend that just because 'they' were wrong about one or more theories, it makes the ghost theory any more plausible.
I don't demand that ghosts, as a subject, be treated with respect just because more people believe in ghosts than actually understand the laws of thermondynamics.
I don't try to tell others not to use 'woo' with respect to ghosts, mostly because, frankly, that's where the word comes from. The guy in the sheet going 'WooOOOOooooo.'
I don't try to convince others that calling ghosts 'supernatural' is a lazy way to deny our need for substantial research into the events following a natural death and a natural passing into a natural, if misunderstood state.

You find me condescending, sure.
But if that's a problem, examine the mote in your eye, first.

 

[Malintent]

Yeah! That's all I was saying. That the ease of what we do today is due to tremendous effort and care. That's all. Now, whether I take this in a direction that you will disagree with is going to have to wait until after my run. It's already hot as fuck outside, and I want to get a short 5 mile run in before it gets too hot.


Darpanet and Telenet (not telnet). I remember it. Luckily for me, I lived in a university town in the 80s.

OK then, we are now talking about infinite regression. This argument isn't about "what makes things easier than impossible" (the answer, by the way, is Language). This argument seems more about, "you couldn't have accompished "X" unless "Y" was there... and Y without Z... etc, ad nausium.

This was the last on-topic post, prior to the derailment on poster's intentions and such.

The question remains (posed by Kharakov), if a system that is simple, but elegant, MUST be thoughtfully planned for and designed ("designed" implies intelligent work invoving planning). I say it does not (implication being that a designer of the universe is not necessary to explain "complexity"). Kharakov says that they all do. Specific examples were given for simple things that were elegant and did not require complexity. Kharakov says that all things require a "first thing" to make it so, and therefore nothing can be "simple yet elegent".

so now, I will provide a natural example. The snowflake (or any crystal, really). Simple, symetric crystaline formation of a single compound reacting to temperature and pressure variations.

What planning and design was needed to produce the complex diversity of the snowflake?

 

[Underseer]

It doesn't matter in the end. Positing a designer to explain complexity (even if we ignore the argument from ignorance inherent in this argument) doesn't actually explain the complexity. Instead, it does just the opposite by inserting something even more complex and unknowable into our considerations, moving the answer one step back. It might be as emotionally satisfying as an answer, but it is not in any sense an answer, but a deepening of the mystery.