Jump to content


The Origin Of Matter


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2008 - 12:59 PM

I don't think you can apply that. According to the laws pf physics we currently know, matter does not need a cause. It just exists.


1) I absolutely can apply that.

2) You've just admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scientifcally.


We can discuss the cause of the universe, but that is another matter.


That's what we are here to discuss... :)

I'm sorry, but that is demonstratable wrong. I can easily supply you with information that has a materialistic origin.


Please do. But rember that information has to be based on a code systtem, and has to be an abstract representation of something that is not present in the encoding material itself. Materialsistic has to be 100% materialistic, i.e. it can never have had any influence from a mental process, e.g. a computer program.

Terry

#2 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2008 - 01:20 PM

Nobody said anything about violating the conservation of energy.  Particles and their antiparticles pop into existence all of the time without violating energy conservation.  It’s a byproduct of quantum mechanics.  Processes like vacuum polarization have Lagrangians that are invariant under time translations so energy is still conserved.



Quantum mechanics do not have anything to do with the issue at hand Either the amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant or it is not. Everything we know tells us that its constant, which means there had to be a step in put from somethingn to nothing.

Name any cause/effect, and you must name its preceding cause in order to keep persuing the discussion phylisophically.


What information are we talking about?  A computer code for example has very low entropy when compared to any kind of information we find in nature such as a cell.  This is because a good program utilizes all parts of its code to carry out a specific function.  We don’t see that in DNA – only small parts of it has a function.


The information in DNA is a good example. The simple fact of the matter is that information does not have mass, therefore you cannot reduce it to materialistic properties. Life is based on infomation, and its consequently can never have had a materialistic origin.

How does understanding how the universe works lead to a belief in God?  So far every process we see in the universe has a natural explanation and a mountain of evidence to back it up.  The initial cause of the Big Bang is for now outside the reach of our intellect and perhaps outside of the reach of science – who knows.  However, using that as a basis for belief in God is belief from incredulity. 


Its not a argument from incredulity. You're wasting time by erecting that strawman argument, and you should consider this your last warning on that topic.

I'm saying that what we know about how the universe can/should lead us to the idea that a creator exists.

Morality requires a moral law giver. Matter cannot produce itself, and therefore requires someone to have produced it. Information is not a property of matter, therfore its makes sense that life had a mental origin.

That is rational thinking, not just saying I don't believe what your saying

Terry

#3 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 April 2008 - 09:56 PM

Quantum mechanics do not have anything to do with the issue at hand  Either the amount of matter/energy in the universe is constant or it is not.  Everything we  know tells us that its constant, which means there had to be a step in put from somethingn to nothing.

Quantum mechanics has everything to do with it! It is the study of matter in its most elementary form. Matter and energy are interchangable. In QM a free space vacuum has background energy even if devoid of matter. Because of the time-energy uncertainty principle from QM, vacuum fluctuations can take some of this energy background and produce matter. Energy is conserved.


Name any cause/effect, and you must name its preceding cause in order to keep persuing the discussion phylisophically.
The information in DNA is a good example.  The simple fact of the matter is that information does not have mass, therefore you cannot reduce it to materialistic properties.  Life is based on infomation, and its consequently can never have had a materialistic origin.


Again, what is information outside the context of substance? In other words, give an example of information that is not associated with matter or energy. In the context of information theory, information is quantified by entropy which is linked with the energy of a system. Information is not a fundamental property of a system rather it is a consequence of a system.

Its not a argument from incredulity.  You're wasting time by erecting that strawman argument, and you should consider this your last warning on that topic.

I'm saying that what we know about how the universe can/should lead us to the idea that a creator exists.

Strawman argument? I suppose if we throw that definition around very loosely we can call it that. If you believe that knowledge about the universe "can/should lead us to the idea that a creator exists" that is fine but that view is not objective.


Morality requires a moral law giver.  Matter cannot produce itself, and therefore requires someone to have produced it.  Information is not a property of matter, therfore its makes sense that life had a mental origin.

That is rational thinking, not just saying I don't believe what your saying


I am not sure what morality has to do with any of this. I am not sure what is meant by "Matter cannot produce itself". Energy produces matter and matter can become energy but matter does not produce itself and I never said that it did. Like I said before information in the context of information theory is not a fundamental property. There is no such thing as information detatched from the properties of a system.

#4 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 April 2008 - 03:41 AM

Quantum mechanics has everything to do with it!  It is the study of matter in its most elementary form.  Matter  and energy are interchangable.  In QM a free space vacuum has background energy even if devoid of matter.  Because of the time-energy uncertainty principle from QM, vacuum fluctuations can take some of this energy background and produce matter.  Energy is conserved.



This brings up the question if a vacuum really exists. I'm under the impression that Cosmologists avoid the idea of an "Ether" because it does not fit the ideas very well, e.g. the Big Bang.

To me it seems to be committing intellectual suicide to say that a vacuum really contains nothing, while at the same time, we can characterize the impedance of a vacuum as 377 Ohms.

Using QM in this sense is just a shell game. Is the amount of energy/matter in the universe constant or not?

If someone has found a way to create energy, then they are keeping a very big secret!

Again, what is information outside the context of substance?  In other words, give an example of information that is not associated with matter or energy.  In the context of information theory, information is quantified by entropy which is linked with the energy of a system.  Information is not a fundamental property of a system rather it is a consequence of a system.


Information is recognized my many people as a fundamental property. Yes, we as humans need matter to store it, but that does not mean that is is a property of matter.

There is no known materialistic process or law that produces information. All known information has a mental origin.

If you think that information can be reduced to matter, then explain the difference in the information of you name type on a piece of paper, or your named chiseled on a boulder. There is no difference in information, but the matter is totally different.

There is no mathematical, chemical, or physical reduction between matter and energy. None.....


I am not sure what morality has to do with any of this.  I am not sure what is meant by "Matter cannot produce itself".  Energy produces matter and matter can become energy but matter does not produce itself and I never said that it did.  


Where did matter/energy come from? Whatever answer you come up with must also have had a cause, and so on and so forth.

Terry

#5 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 06:31 AM

This brings up the question if a vacuum really exists.  I'm under the impression that Cosmologists avoid the idea of an "Ether" because it does not fit the ideas very well, e.g. the Big Bang.


No, that is not the reason. The ether concept is in disfavor because it lacks evidence.

To me it seems to be committing intellectual suicide to say that a vacuum really contains nothing, while at the same time, we can characterize the impedance of a vacuum as 377 Ohms.


Not at all. An electronic engineer (such as I) can explain it, but it gets a tad complicated. Very simply put, the 377 Ohms express the ratio between the magnetic and electrical field in an electromagnetic wave when nothing (=a vacuum) interferes with it.

Using QM in this sense is just a shell game.  Is the amount of energy/matter in the universe constant or not?


To the best of our knowledge, the amount is constant, but not the ratio. Watch out for superheavy black holes, though.

Information is recognized my many people as a fundamental property.  Yes, we as humans need matter to store it, but that does not mean that is is a property of matter.


Mention a form of information that can exist without a materialistic medium.

There is no known materialistic process or law that produces information.  All known information has a mental origin.


No. There are many materialistic preocesses that produce information. I'll just name three: Tree rings, wind ripples in sand, DNA.

If you think that information can be reduced to matter, then explain the difference in the information of you name type on a piece of paper, or your named chiseled on a boulder.  There is no difference in information, but the matter is totally different.


The medium is different. This means that information can be stored in different mediums. Note however, that apart from the name, the entire information contents of the paper and the boulder are very different. Even the information about how the name was recorded is different.

Where did matter/energy come from?  Whatever answer you come up with must also have had a cause, and so on and so forth.


I don't know. Do you? If God made it, how was God made? The turtles dilemma is universal.

Hans

#6 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 06:49 AM

2) You've just admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scientifcally.


I have not admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scienifically. Only that we currently don't know how. I do accept the possibility that it cannot, however.

Please do.  But rember that information has to be based on a code systtem, and has to be an abstract representation of something that is not present in the encoding material itself.  Materialsistic has to be 100% materialistic, i.e. it can never have had any influence from a mental process, e.g. a computer program.


Wind ripples in sand

Medium: Sand
Information: Strenght, direction, and possibly duration of the wind
Code system: Width, shape, hight and direction of riples.

Tree rings

Medium: Living wood
Information: Seasonal change of growth conditions, age of tree (let's not touch on dating, here)
Code system: Alternating density, number of rings.

DNA

Medium: Nuclotide molecules
Information: History of mutations and other changes, how to build a life form (to pit it a bit crudely)
Code system: Nucleotide sequences - the works; some author as published an entire work about why DNA is a language.

Hans

#7 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:08 AM

The background vacuum energy and ether are different beasts. Ether traditionally was a means to explain how electromagnetic waves propagate and it was discredited by Michelson and Morley with the use of their interferometer.

Using QM in this sense is just a shell game.  Is the amount of energy/matter in the universe constant or not?

If someone has found a way to create energy, then they are keeping a very big secret!

We are not creating energy - the energy is there. We are changing the form of the energy to matter. Enegy is conserved in the processes I mentioned. The energy matter ration is constant.

Information is recognized my many people as a fundamental property.  Yes, we as humans need matter to store it, but that does not mean that is is a property of matter.

There is no known materialistic process or law that produces information.  All known information has a mental origin.

So when I observe a pulsar it is not conveying information? Does it have a mental source? Information theory doesn't share your definitions of information. You are defining information to have a mental sourse because low entropy information like a computer code has a mental source and then you are applying it to high entropy information in nature and claiming that it must also have a mental source - this is a semantic argument andit is not true.

If you think that information can be reduced to matter, then explain the difference in the information of you name type on a piece of paper, or your named chiseled on a boulder.  There is no difference in information, but the matter is totally different.

All information that is recorded is done so by manipulating matter - the paper and the rock are baryonic matter - they are both composed of atoms which are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. They are not that different.

There is no mathematical, chemical, or physical reduction between matter and energy.  None.....
Where did matter/energy come from?  Whatever answer you come up with must also have had a cause, and so on and so forth.

Can you clarify what you mean by "reduction between matter and energy" please. There is one thing you have to realize about the conservation of energy. It comes about because of time invariance via Noether's theorem. Energy and space time are linked so before the big bang we can't really say anything about energy, space, or time. I will admit that I have no idea how the universe began however not having knowledge does not lead to any explanation be it vacuum genesis or god.

#8 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:35 AM

Wind ripples in sand

Medium: Sand
Information: Strenght, direction, and possibly duration of the wind
Code system: Width, shape, hight and direction of riples.

Tree rings

Medium: Living wood
Information: Seasonal change of growth conditions, age of tree (let's not touch on dating, here)
Code system: Alternating density, number of rings.

DNA

Medium: Nuclotide molecules
Information: History of mutations and other changes, how to build a life form (to pit it a bit crudely)
Code system: Nucleotide sequences - the works; some author as published an entire work about why DNA is a language.

Hans

View Post


Tree rings and Sand do not contain information because there is no code system. There is "historical data" there, but that is not information.

Information must be an abstract representation of something else, and it its never the thing itself. A code system must have syntax and semantics, which those examples clearly fail.

DNA certainly contains a code system, but its origin is unknown from the materialist point of view.

A major difference between the genetic code and the other two examples you gave is that there is no strict relationship between the genetic code and its information to any causal physical effect, where as the other two were directly known(that's why you able to list them). In fact at least some of what we know about chemistry says it should not happen, e.g. chirality....

IOW, tree rings and waveletts in sand are predicatable based on known physical processes, but the origin of genetic code is a total mystery to science.

Terry

#9 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 April 2008 - 09:09 AM

Tree rings and Sand do not contain information because there is no code system.  There is "historical data" there, but that is not information.

Information must be an abstract representation of something else, and it its never the thing itself.  A code system must have syntax and semantics, which those examples clearly fail.

DNA certainly contains a code system, but its origin is unknown from the materialist point of view.

A major difference between the genetic code and the other two examples you gave is that there is no strict relationship between the genetic code and its information to any causal physical effect, where as the other two were directly known(that's why you able to list them).  In fact at least some of what we know about chemistry says it should not happen, e.g. chirality....

IOW, tree rings and waveletts in sand are predicatable based on known physical processes, but the origin of genetic code is a total mystery to science.

Terry

View Post

The term code is used loosely to describe DNA - after all most of it is junk. Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything? Who would design such a code?

#10 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:54 PM

Tree rings and Sand do not contain information because there is no code system.  There is "historical data" there, but that is not information.


I'm sorry, but you can't just decide that the term 'information' only applies to the things you prefer. A code system can be as simple as 1 and 0. You can claim that a code system must be a decided code system, but then your argument becomes circular: You will have defined 'information' as something created by a mind.

Information must be an abstract representation of something else, and it its never the thing itself.  A code system must have syntax and semantics, which those examples clearly fail.


The tree rings and sand ripples ARE an abstract representation, in that they contain nothing of the thing they represent.

Your definition of what a code system must contain is entirely arbitrary.

DNA certainly contains a code system, but its origin is unknown from the materialist point of view.


Aye, it is unknown, but assumed to be materialistic.

A major difference between the genetic code and the other two examples you gave is that there is no strict relationship between the genetic code and its information to any causal physical effect, where as the other two were directly known(that's why you able to list them).


So it is not a valid example if I know the cause? So the day we find a materialistic cause for DNA, you will no longer consider it a valid code system??

IOW, tree rings and waveletts in sand are predicatable based on known physical processes, but the origin of genetic code is a total mystery to science

.

Circular argumentation.

Hans

#11 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:58 PM

The term code is used loosely to describe DNA - after all most of it is junk.  Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything?  Who would design such a code?

View Post


To be fair, I don't think we can use a criterion of efficiency. Art is very much a product of the mind, yet you cannot say it is 100% efficient.

Hans

Oh, and:

Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything?


ADA? B) French? :P

Hans

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:15 PM

The term code is used loosely to describe DNA - after all most of it is junk.  Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything?  Who would design such a code?

View Post


Others are likely to provide a better response. I choose not to argue about your antiquated "junk DNA" paradigm. Even if it were valid, your argument is not.

Computer programs execute one-step-at-a-time. A snapshot observation will yield a result of far lower than one % "doing anything". Has DNA been observed long enough to conclude "only 10% does anything"?

Even so, there are programs which contain fixed data. This data "does nothing". It's never executed. But it serves a pretty important purpose if one knows what's going on. Indeed, a good deal of information is contained in unchanging ROM as well. There's a very good reason to ensure it never "does" anything.

The data in any book I've ever read never "does" anything. How useless books should become if this data becomes active! Perhaps this is a better example.

#13 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:31 PM

I have not admitted that the origin of the universe cannot be determined scienifically. Only that we currently don't know how. I do accept the possibility that it cannot, however.
Wind ripples in sand

Medium: Sand
Information: Strenght, direction, and possibly duration of the wind
Code system: Width, shape, hight and direction of riples.

Tree rings

Medium: Living wood
Information: Seasonal change of growth conditions, age of tree (let's not touch on dating, here)
Code system: Alternating density, number of rings.

DNA

Medium: Nuclotide molecules
Information: History of mutations and other changes, how to build a life form (to pit it a bit crudely)
Code system: Nucleotide sequences - the works; some author as published an entire work about why DNA is a language.

Hans

View Post

Don't have a lot of time. Two of your examples are results/manifestations of pre-existing information.

The patterns in sand are clever - I'm impressed if you thought of this. But they fail because they rely upon assumptions. The initial condition of the sand must be assumed, as must the type of fluid. A flat initial position will result in a different reading than one which is uneven. A thinner atmosphere will have less effect on the sand - sand on Mars or Venus would respond differently. Actually, different gravity should play a role also.

Chores are waiting for me, so I must go. I hope I've written well enough for this to be understood.

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 02:53 PM

The term code is used loosely to describe DNA - after all most of it is junk.


The genetic code is a code system just like any other known code system. The genetic code has every characteristic that one would expect to find if someone was looking for a code system created by another person, e.g. heiroglyphics, its just chemical in nature.

Can you name one code that has a mental origin where only 10% of it actually does anything?  Who would design such a code?


You should be careful not to confuse the code itself, i.e. syntax, sematics, etc...., with the current state of DNA of living beings, they are 2 different things.

The code itself is not wastefull at all. Dr. Werner Gitt has demonstrated that its optimal from an engineering standpoint, which raises another question. How did an optmized code evolve with no evidence? Are you aware that genetic code "supposedly" appeared 2.5~4 Billion years ago fully developed? There is no evidence that the code evolved at all, it just appears fully optimized.

If your attempting to make an issue of what man thinks about DNA and the inormation stored in it, then I would say that's a pretty arrogant attitude to have since no one has any idea of how to create a living being from chiral chemicals. We haven't evern figured out how to get the pure homochiral environement needed to create DNA. Mankind would never have figured out how to create life on his own, we are just not that smart.

Terry

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 03:14 PM

I'm sorry, but you can't just decide that the term 'information' only applies to the things you prefer. A code system can be as simple as 1 and 0. You can claim that a code system must be a decided code system, but then your argument becomes circular: You will have defined 'information' as something created by a mind.


You are very funny.. :) You don't like me defining what information is, but then you seek to do it yourself... :)

The reason Information must be clearly defined is because we are discussing the origin of life. Life is based on the genetic code, and the genetic code lies in the domain of information concepts that fit all known code systems.

Dr. Gitt has shown what that charateristics of that type of Information is, and he has demonstrated how the genetic code has the same characteristics as that found by any other known code system.

The tree rings and sand ripples ARE an abstract representation, in that they contain nothing of the thing they represent.


What can be created from them that is not a direct representation of their cause?

The information for insulin is stored in DNA, but insulin has no cause in created that abstraction in the genetic code.

Can you really not see the difference?

The genetic code has nothing to do with tree rings and sand wavelets, and discussing them is a waste of time, and stated in the Forum FAW as unacceptable:

Arguments deemed unacceptable for this forum include spurious claims such as "tree rings and redshifts prove that information can originate naturalistically", "ripples in the sand represent information", etc. Such arguments do nothing to establish the kind of information required by evolution to produce all life over time from a common ancestor.


Form Faq

In fact there is also Fred Williams' very good definition of what we will discuss on this Forum as information.

What is information? – The kind of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics.

Your obfuscation is pretty convincing evidence that you don't have a leg to stand on. What you don't you address the issue of the origin of coded information instead of obfuscating over things that are not related to the origins issue?


So it is not a valid example if I know the cause?


In this case no, because you are trying to establish history as information, and they are not the same thing.

So the day we find a materialistic cause for DNA, you will no longer consider it a valid code system??


That day will never come. The Laws of Nature regarding information, the type of which the genetic code is, requires a mental origin. If it does come then of course I will admit it, but why don't you do the same now? I.e. admit that the genetic code is from a scientific point of view is a "miracle".

Terry

#16 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 28 April 2008 - 12:27 AM

You are very funny.. :) You don't like me defining what information is, but then you seek to do it yourself... :)


No, that was not my point. My point is that any definition is arbitrary. We can basically make any definition we like and it will fit some subset of codes.

The reason Information must be clearly defined is because we are discussing the origin of life.  Life is based on the genetic code, and the genetic code lies in the domain of information concepts that fit all known code systems.

Dr. Gitt has shown what that charateristics of that type of Information is, and he has demonstrated how the genetic code has the same characteristics as that found by any other known code system.


Dr. Gitt has made yet another arbitrary definiton of code.

What can be created from them that is not a direct representation of their cause?

The information for insulin is stored in DNA, but insulin has no cause in created that abstraction in the genetic code.

Can you really not see the difference?


I can see the difference, but it is still an arbitrary distinction: You decide that it differentiates the systems, but it can also be seen as just different levels of sophistication.

The genetic code has nothing to do with tree rings and sand wavelets, and discussing them is a waste of time, and stated in the Forum FAW as unacceptable:
Form Faq

In fact there is also Fred Williams' very good definition of what we will discuss on this Forum as information.


As forum owner Fred has the right to define the meaning of the term 'information' within this forum, but it is still an arbitrary definition.

What is information? – The kind of information we should debate on this forum should be of the type that is sufficient to communicate enough data to build some object, such as a car, a computer, or in the case of the origins debate, an organism. To that end, I hereby offer coded information as the type of information to debate on this forum. By coded information I mean any type of information that is a language, as described by symbols, syntax, and semantics.


OK, we can use that definition for this debate. Just as long as you remember that it is just one of many valid definitions.

Your obfuscation is pretty convincing evidence that you don't have a leg to stand on.  What you don't you address the issue of the origin of coded information instead of obfuscating over things that are not related to the origins issue?


Fine, let's discuss the origin of coded information, according to your definition. So, what is your point?

In this case no, because you are trying to establish history as information, and they are not the same thing.


Not according to your definition (which would give you serious problems, were I to nitpick it, but, let's not go there).

That day will never come.  The Laws of Nature regarding information, the type of which the genetic code is, requires a mental origin.  If it does come then of course I will admit it, but why don't you do the same now?  I.e. admit that the genetic code is from a scientific point of view is a "miracle".


I have no need to admit it, because it isn't.

If you think about it, you will discover that your argument is circular:

The essence of your claim is this:

1st premise: All languages/codes have a mental origin.

2nd premise: DNA is a language/code.

Ergo: DNA has a mental origin.

However, it can be seen that till you actually prove that DNA has a mental origin, your second premise falsifies the first.

Hans

#17 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:48 PM

I have no need to admit it, because it isn't.

If you think about it, you will discover that your argument is circular:


My argument is not circular. Circular is something along the lines of:

1) These sediments are 65 millions years old because we find certain fossils there
2) How do you know the fossils are 65 million years old
3) Because it would take 65 million years for evolution to taken place since then
4) How do you know evolution has taken place since then
5) See #1.


The essence of your claim is this:

1st premise: All languages/codes have a mental origin.

2nd premise: DNA is a language/code.

Ergo: DNA has a mental origin.


Well, its not that simple....

The question is the origin of the gentic code.

1) All code systems with known origins have mental origins. Its a Law of Nature.

2) There is no known materialistic process that produces code systems.

3) Code sysems, and the information stored in them for future use is not a propery of matter, i.e. meaning is immaterial(you've admitted that yourself).

Consequently, its a logical conclusion to accept that DNA had a mental origin. We don't know, but to claim it had a materialistic origin is a violation of the Laws of Nature regarding information, and if anything must be proven its that, not the converse!

However, it can be seen that till you actually prove that DNA has a mental origin, your second premise falsifies the first.


Its not ncessary to prove the negative anymore than it is to prove that perpetual motion machine does not exist. It cannot be proven that a perpetual motion machine does not exist, but every experiment ever performed tells us that energy must be conserved, and thus we accept the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Every failed attempt to create a perpetual motion machine led us to that conclusion.

The same is true here. There are no known processes that even remotely indicate that a code system could originate out of a 100% materialistic process. Any such ideas are 100% FANSTASY. Can you name any expermiment in the past that created a code system where none existed before?

Terry

#18 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 29 April 2008 - 12:18 AM

Well, its not that simple....

The question is the origin of the gentic code.

1) All code systems with known origins have mental origins.  Its a Law of Nature.

2) There is no known materialistic process that produces code systems.


Interesting. You deny the circularity of your argument, then demonstrate it even more clearly than I did.

Iti s not a law of nature that a code system must have a mental origin. The only support for your #1 and #2 claims is that you have chosen a definition that nearly only includes code systems of known mental origin, but even that does not prove your point, because we don't know the origin (at least not for sure) of DNA.

3) Code sysems, and the information stored in them for future use is not a propery of matter, i.e. meaning is immaterial(you've admitted that yourself).


Not quite. It is fully dependent on matter, but its level of abstracion means that it can be represented by more than one configuration of matter. Unfortunately for your argument, that includes my other examples of code systems, which you refused to include in your definition.

Consequently, its a logical conclusion to accept that DNA had a mental origin.  We don't know, but to claim it had a materialistic origin is a violation of the Laws of Nature regarding information, and if anything must be proven its that, not the converse!


Incorrect. You have included DNA in your definition of code systems, and you have failed to prove that it has mental origin. Your argumentation fails, sorry.

Any such ideas are 100% FANSTASY.  Can you name any expermiment in the past that created a code system where none existed before?


That is a rather disingenious requirement since you would immidiately reject it on the grounds that the experiment has a mental origin.

... Otherwise, I would have no problem designing such an experiment.

And, as I have pointed out, there exist systems of non-mental origin that will fit a definition for code systems that is every bit as valid as the one you use.

... Which leads us to the core problem of this discussion, IMHO: You cannot conduct a scientific proof, based on arbitrary definitions, and any definition of 'code systems' must be arbitrary.

Hans

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 November 2008 - 06:17 PM

The essence of your claim is this:

1st premise: All languages/codes have a mental origin.

2nd premise: DNA is a language/code.

Ergo: DNA has a mental origin.

However, it can be seen that till you actually prove that DNA has a mental origin, your second premise falsifies the first.

Hans

View Post


Let's assume for the moment that all codes/languages have a mental origin.

Everything with a mind has a brain.

All known brains capable of writing codes are possessed by humans.

#20 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 11 November 2008 - 06:27 PM

To address the topic in the thread title, which theory is simpler?

The universe popped into existence pretty much in the configuration as we see it now 6000 odd years ago.

Or

As the observable universe is expanding, it should have been denser and hotter in the past.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users