Where does order come from in evolution?

a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

Tornados and organic systems both exist through natural processes. Neither of them needs a creator to exist. Your post does not disprove this statement of fact.

When I talk about tornados as dissipative systems, I'm talking about entropy.

A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is operating out of, and often far from, thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges energy and matter. A tornado may be thought of as a dissipative system. Dissipative systems stand in contrast to conservative systems.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is why I talk about Shannon entropy, microstates, macrostates and the reduction of uncertainty. When you read the rest of my post in this context, you can see why a brain can't occur naturally let alone an entire universe.

You said:

This is an irrelevant argument phrased to call on the reader's sense of logic using an unproven and unreliable source.

Again, this has nothing to do with the thread and if you don't understand these things, I will answer your questions. I thought people would be more familiar with this subject but I see I was wrong.

When I talk about what's more likely, a deck of cards spontaneuosly forming a full house or a human mind forming a full house?

I go onto explain that when you deal a bunch of 5 card hands, there will be some that are dealt a full house vs. a human mind that has full knowledge of the deck of cards who can take the deck of cards and and form a full house every time he lays down the cards. This is why after that I go into Boltzmann brains and Maxwell's demon and I talk about the reduction of uncertainty.

If there's something you don't understand, just ask me.

You said:

Not really. Organic systems are prioritised for efficiency - in almost all cases they couldn't exist without this efficiency. Efficiency is not the priority of design, however. If nature were to produce a car it would travel 1000 miles per cupful of fuel and would maintain and repair itself. Needless to say, a car like this does not exist.

Again, watch the video on Maxwell's demon and the video on Boltzmann brains. The whole point here is that there's low entropy states that become become so unlikely that you need eons for them to happen or an intelligent Mind with perfect knowledge can put the systems in these low entropy states and reduce uncertainty instead of waiting for the state to pop into existence a trillion years from now.

Also:

How is calling illogical theories crackpot theories defaming anyone. Have you read your own posts? The things you say defame other posters and defame a God you claim you don't believe in. You said:

Creationists are stupid people who believe everyone else is as stupid as they are.

Only other stupid people can't see it, and that is precisely what coop and other creationist hypocrites are relying on.

I'm defaming someone???????

You then get upset because I said this:

This is why this scripture is so profound and is the Word of God.

Yes, I stand by this and it's worth repeating:

This is why this scripture is so profound and is the Word of God.

Again, watch the video on Maxwell's demon and the video on Boltzmann brains. The whole point here is that there's low entropy states that become become so unlikely that you need eons for them to happen or an intelligent Mind with perfect knowledge can put the systems in these low entropy states and reduce uncertainty instead of waiting for the state to pop into existence a trillion years from now.

I say let it happen naturally. Wizards are notoriously vain and reckless creatures.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Sadly for you, statistics aren't on your side.



You're better off believing the moon is made of green cheese than believing a universe can exist without God.

Here's another one.

Why do all electrons share the same mass and charge?

I received a telephone call one day at the graduate college at Princeton from Professor Wheeler, in which he said, "Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass" "Why?" "Because, they are all the same electron!"

Electrons being the same makes no sense. This is because we know electrons aren't "particles" in the material sense, they're excitations of underlying quantum fields.

So why don't we see different values of the electron? Why don't we see a random distribution of values of the electron?

If I rolled a pair of dice, and 7 kept coming up, you would say an intelligent mind must have fixed the dice.

It's the same with the electron. An intelligent Mind fined tuned the universe so only the excitation of the quantum field that has the same mass and charge make it into our universe. There's a reason for this but that's going deeper into the rabbit hole.

a reply to: neoholographic

Sadly for you, statistics aren't on your side.

Apparently they are, because here I be.

Electrons being the same makes no sense. This is because we know electrons aren't "particles" in the material sense, they're excitations of underlying quantum fields.

Cool story but electrons don't care what you think. You're assigning motives and backstories to particle behavior because you see anthropomorphic psychology in their cause and effect. That's what the kids call fan fiction.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Nope, I'm seeing electrons with the same mass and charge and using common sense.

Electrons are excitations of quantum fields, so why don't we see a random distribution of electrons mass and charge? Why do all electrons keep coming up 7 so to speak in our universe?

What would be the benefit to our universe to have all electrons the same mass and charge?

a reply to: neoholographic

The electrons who came up 7 were the ones who sustained cohesion. Not common sense, merely natural selection.

The fact that subatomic physics is so flabbergasting to an apex species like our society and the esteemed scholars among our ranks, tells me much about our so called intelligence. We are just beginning to grasp these fundamental relationships and even now we cannot resist admiring our own ego in the rotation of the celestial bodies or the dance of quarks and photons.

Stop projecting our need for validation on the building blocks of nature as though the universe has an obligation to us.

a reply to: neoholographic

I didn't know that about electrons. Interesting. Why do you think this is the case?

originally posted by: neoholographic

Electrons being the same makes no sense. This is because we know electrons aren't "particles" in the material sense, they're excitations of underlying quantum fields.

I really don't get what you are implying here. It's not just electrons, but All quantum "particles" are not particles in the physical sense. According the quantum mechanics, they are ALL excitations of quantum fields and not physical balls of stuff. And each type of particle has its own characteristics that makes it indistinguishable from other particles of that same type.

That is true for all known fundamental "particles" like each type of lepton (which electrons are one type), each boson (like photons), and each type of quark.

And as I mentioned, each type of known particle -- not just the electron -- has their own exact and distinct characteristics that they share with all other particles of that type. That is to say that one photon is indistinguishable from another photon. One up quark is indistinguishable from another up quark. And yes, one electron is indistinguishable from another electron.

Even each proton (that are made of quarks) are totally identical to all other protons. Sames goes for neutrons.

And yes, quantum mechanics says all of these "particles" (not just the electron) are excitations of fields and not what we think of as balls of stuff.

a reply to: neoholographic

Nope, I'm seeing electrons with the same mass and charge and using common sense.

You see everything through the corrupted eyes of a cultist. You've never had an objective opinion. Your conclusions are always drawn on falsehoods and not science.
Science is objective. You are not.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

You see everything through the corrupted eyes of a cultist.

Let me translate:

I can't refute what you're saying so I have to call you a cultist to avert attention from the fact I can't refute what's being said

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Nope, I'm seeing electrons with the same mass and charge and using common sense.

You see everything through the corrupted eyes of a cultist. You've never had an objective opinion. Your conclusions are always drawn on falsehoods and not science.
Science is objective. You are not.

Reverse your entire post and it could very well apply to many on 'the other side'.
I absolutely agree that science is objective.
The problem is, people are not and scientist are people.
Many times the science can be interpreted in more than one way. This leads to Peer Review.
Yet, Peer Review has huge problems as can be seen in the two links below (only 2 of MANY).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com...

You've never had an objective opinion.

This is the problem with many atheist 'scientist' and evolutionist as well.
They approach the science with the mindset, "there is NO GOD". Therefore, how can they have a true objective opinion?
This applies to many in this thread. If you are objective and honest, you will be able to see it.
As long as humans are interpreting the science, you will not have unbiased results.
Quad

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

I didn't know that about electrons. Interesting. Why do you think this is the case?

Yes it's very interesting.

Think about it. What we call "particles" aren't like particles of salt or of sand, they're excitations of the quantum field. Here's some quotes on this:

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg “

[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist', and atomic events do not occur with certainty at definite times and in definite ways, but rather show 'tendencies to occur'. -Fritjof Capra

A careful analysis of the process of observation in atomic physics has shown that the subatomic particles have no meaning as isolated entities, but can only be understood as interconnections between the preparation of an experiment and the subsequent measurement. -Erwin Schrodinger

So think of an ocean filled with waves. You will see all kinds of different waves. The wind is causing excitations of the water would gives you a random distribution of waves.

Now, if you looked out in the ocean and you saw an ocean filled with the exact same waves, your first thought would be, who's doing this? What intelligently built technology is doing this?

This is because logic tells us that random excitations of the water should give us random waves not all of the same waves.

It's the same with electrons. In fact, scientist are telling us that there's all of these different universes that have different laws of physics and different intitial conditions. They say this to try and explain the fine tuned universe. So you need a bunch of universes ot 10^500 false vacua.

Again, logic and reason tell you this is because of intelligent design. This is why Werner Heisenberg said this:

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg

It's just like if you would grab a deck of cards and as you turn the cards over, you see they're all King's. You wouldn't say, random natural forces must of put all kings in this deck over a long period of time. That wouldn't make any sense. You would say, who put all King's in this deck of cards. You would logically conclude that intelligence made all of the cards in the deck the same.

Let me repeat that:

It's just like if you would grab a deck of cards and as you turn the cards over, you see they're all King's. You wouldn't say, random natural forces must of put all kings in this deck over a long period of time. That wouldn't make any sense. You would say, who put all King's in this deck of cards. You would logically conclude that intelligence made all of the cards in the deck the same.

So, in our universe, the Intelligent Mind of God made it so all electrons would have the same mass and charge. Think about that. Out of all of the possible excitations of the quantum field, only this one electron with this value is in our universe. This isn't just electrons.

Here's more:

People have individual identities, but electrons and other elementary particles do not. Instead, they have different temporary states they can be in and the potential states they could be in at any moment are the same as any other particle of the same type. Nothing else serves to distinguish them.

The truth is, all subatomic particles of a particular kind are identical with each other. That is, all electrons are the same as each other, all protons are the same as each other, all neutrons are the same. ... Each type of atom has a different number of protons, electrons, and neutrons.

medium.com...

Again, logic and reason should say what intelligence made it this way just like we would say, what intelligence fixed the dice to roll all 7's or who fixed the deck of cards to be all King's. The materialist says, random forces did it and that makes no sense.

I can get into why this would be great for Intelligent Design but that's another much longer thread.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I am not an atheist.

a reply to: neoholographic

Typical cultist reaction to the facts.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

I am not an atheist.

Never said YOU were.

This is the problem with many atheist 'scientist' and evolutionist as well.
They approach the science with the mindset, "there is NO GOD". Therefore, how can they have a true objective opinion?
This applies to many in this thread. If you are objective and honest, you will be able to see it.

I don't believe evolutionist are atheist (very few on here at least). They have their very own form of faith, a creator and religion.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Most scientists don't start their own religions. Not sure where you get that opinion.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

Most scientists don't start their own religions. Not sure where you get that opinion.

I did not say they did.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You implied all of the above.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Quadrivium

You implied all of the above.

Only if you're not thinking objectively.
You want to be offended therefore you intemperate my words (the evidence) how you see fit.
Thank you for proving my point.

a reply to: Quadrivium

As long as humans are interpreting the science, you will not have unbiased results.

You don't understand how science works. It's the data that speaks to the truth. The scientist doesn't make them up or "interpret" the numbers. The numbers are the numbers and they are real. In science, as long as the data can be duplicated and confirmed, then it's real.