lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Fibonacci Algorithm = God?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 02-06-2008, 08:55 PM   #41
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Quote:
Huh? "Einstein's conclusions are about the universe are much more valid than Hawkings'" How do you get that?
Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.

Quote:
I don't know how this is related to the section of my post that you quoted.
What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.

Quote:
Gee, with that reasoning, then it would seem that Creation is impossible. If the universe being here means that there *must* have been a singularity and there *must* have been a big bang, then we don't need any folk stories about a magic sky daddy making everything as we see it 6,000 years ago (not to mentional all the required mental gymnastics necessary to explain modern cosmological observations, etc).
I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages.
Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.

Quote:
Except your brainstorming doesn't even come close to describing what brane cosmology suggests. Kudos that you're thinking about these things, however I don't think you'll get far just making stuff up. I can brainstorm that the night sky is big woolly blanket and the stars are pinpoints of light that breakthrough from a giant flashlight being held by a colossal Maytag salesman standing on the other side, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.
I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly...

Quote:
Best of luck with that.
We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.

Quote:
Space-time is the product of the big bang. Time, as we are capable of understanding it at this juncture, did not exist before hand. The singularity existed on the Planck scale, therefore "time" had no relevance. Don't take my word for it, pick up Elegant Universe or Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (I recommend the latter) and read up on it yourself. Subject matter is a little steep, but Greene puts a lot of work into making it a relatively light read.
Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...
I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though...

[/quote]Sure it will. The scientific method is in no way, shape, or form dependent upon pre-big bang anything. It's a process that is used to investigate what we can observe. [/quote] So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed? how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete.

Quote:
Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created
that was a possibility i suggested. Now I think that God must have created the singularity, He isn't the signularity... duh. *embarrassed look on face*

Quote:
I'm sure that all the quantum physicists that have worked so hard on this subject and have built careers based on 100 years of research will be quite disappointed to hear that you've decided to pull the plug on their party.
Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for.

........................

Now I'm going to go watch TV... Someone else please take over my position in this thread for the rest of the night.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2008, 09:25 PM   #42
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.
Please say you're about to watch a biography on Einstein.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2008, 09:42 PM   #43
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Einstein pretty much 'founded', or 'advanced' advanced math and physics. Sure Hawkings is smart too, but Einstein was there first.
So Hawking's work was somehow invalid? I'm don't understand your argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
What does it matter? i was trying to make another point in my arguement.
Usually when someone quotes a post and then types some stuff beneath it, the part they type is somehow related to the part they quote. When they aren't related it's kinda sorta confusing for the people trying to follow along. My 2 cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
I don't blame you for brignign up the timeframe problem with the Bible and creation... This is a very common misconception, due to a translation error in the bible. The Bible mentions 'days' in creation, as this is translated from greek and hebrew. Day is the dominant meaning of the greek and hebrew words that were trnaslated, but the real translation shoudl be 'Age'. So it really shoudl say 'God vcreated the heavnes and the Earth in 7 Ages.
And "age" equals? While you're breaking down Genesis for me, please explain what a "kind" is too. Thanks in advance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Many people misinterpret the creation timeframe because of this mistranslation that occurs in every Bible, in every book of Genesis, and it still hasn't been fixed in a new bible version, which i would consider to be ignorance of the non-scientific Christians/Catholics/etc, etc. Overall, i believe that the Earth and th euniverse are billions and trillions of years old, and that God created the universe in 7 ages, the lengths of each age being unspecific, but in conclusion agreeign with the universe-is-very-old fact.
Oh, so this explanation is arbitrary? Ok then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
I don't disagree with this. After wiki-ing it, I agree with brane cosmology soemwhat. I still think that God soemhow would have to be outside of time though... Interesting to think about... Since apparently in brane Cosmology the dimensions go on forever, each dimension inside another dimension, like a big box that goes on forever on the outside and many smaller boxes inside of smaller boxes in the big box, if i interpreted the concept correctly...
Sure, but if we're going to go there, we can't do so in half-measures. If the christian god gets to exist outside of time, then so does allah, yahweh, zeus, hera, ra, osiris, odin, thor, the flying spaghetti monster, invisbile pink unicorns...and singularities. Surely you can see that once we open that door, the room fills up pretty fast. If we decide that we're going to monitor who's allowed in and who isn't, it probably behooves us to use reason rather than superstitious wishful thinking to determine our criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
We'll just have to see what happens I guess. I'm not going to argue about that, as i have no evidence the universe won't be destroyed or will be destroyed in any way. I'm fine with waiting to see what happens.
Yep, jury is still out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Hmm... Not that hard to grasp... I think i got the basic jist of this Planck Scale thing from wiki...
I wonder if we could measure God's power with the Planck Scale... This Planck Scale does seem to explain a lot though... I don't undertstand what Gravity and Energy have to do with time though...
Measure god's power with unit of measure used to determine size? Not sure I follow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
So you're sayign the scientific method can test and prove what happened before time existed?
No, I'm saying that your assertion that the scientific method is somehow dependent upon "time" before the big bang would seem to show a complete lack of understanding regarding what the scientific method is or what it does or how it works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
how can it test and prove anything when there was technically nothing there when there was no time? Right now i don't really want to say anything else as this is starting to go beyond my understanding... I'm goign to need to read up soem more on stuff liek this before I can complete my arguement, so consider this post incomplete.
Looking forward to your follow up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
Well we haven't discovered and answered everything yet, but there's been times in the past where very famous scientists have had their theories proven wrong. Sure I havent't really proven anything wrong, but if I or someone else proves something wrong that they researched very hard for a very long time, too bad. All that matter sis that the correct theory had been found, and the false, flawed theory had been disproved, makign our understanding of the universe better. I highly boubt this will happen though, and I don't intend to ruin a hard working qunatum physicist's life's work. After all I have a lot to thank them for.
I believe your statements was something to the effect of, "it doesn't really matter because quantum physics isn't important anyway". I was merely pointing out that because it might not seem that important to you, it doesn't mean that it isn't important.

Take care.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2008, 10:03 PM   #44
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
Please point out where I did so.
Indeed. And I have repeatedly say that I did not support that notion.
This is what I read where I got the idea that you supported it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
That was the whole point of my post: The universe we live in is a possibility among infinite others,
If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
What is "outside our universe"? You made it very clear that other universes coexisting with ours is unfounded.
I don't know what happened prior to the Big Bang, other than the singularity. How the singularity came into being will be debated a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
How can you prove that something existed prior to the Big Bang? There exists no previous states to the creation of our universe.
I can't, other than I think God had a hand in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
That is assuming that something existed prior to the Big bang, which sounds like circular logic to me.
Other than the singularity, I don't know if anything did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
I don't know about Einstein, but Hawking did certainly not state that. In Hawking's own words: "Asking what was before the Big bang is meaningless; like asking what lies North of the North pole".
He's certainly done a lot of work on cosmology, including the Penrose-Hawking singularity theory which addresses singularities, including the one required for the Big Bang

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igos
Clearly then, Hawking stated that there was nothing no "before" the Big bang.
In that sense, time could not be "created" as creation requires a previous state in which the creation doesn't exist and then it does.
I can live with that definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
@Jae: Since multiple universes are allowable within string theory and would be subject to the laws of physics, multi-verse hypothesis, by definition, isn't "metaphysical". I hope that helps.
String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time. That may change in the future. From wikipedia entry on string theory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
Although historically string theory is an outgrowth of physics, some contend that string theory should (strictly speaking) be classified as something other than science. For a scientific theory to be valid it must be verified empirically, i.e. through experiment or observation. Few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed.[20] With the construction of the Large Hadron Collider in CERN some scientists hope to produce relevant data, though it is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require much higher energies to probe directly. Moreover, string theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of equally possible solutions.[21] Thus it has been claimed by some scientists that string theory may not be falsifiable and may have no predictive power.[22][23][24][25]

String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. The energy scales at which it would be possible to see the stringy nature of particles is much greater than that experimentally accessible. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and naturally incorporates all the gross features of the Standard Model, such as non-abelian gauge groups and chiral fermions. Because string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists[26] have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory; it is not falsifiable in the sense of Popper.
Arcesious--the Hebrew for 'day' in Genesis can be translated as a literal 24 hour day or as an indeterminate amount of time, similar to how we use 'day' in the phrase "In my grandfather's day...."


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-06-2008, 10:34 PM   #45
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
String theory is a mathematical concept and doesn't meet the criteria we require for something to be called science, thus it falls under metaphysics at this time.
Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly. To somehow suggest that something isn't "science", or "scientific" or part of the "scientific process" just because it is still a hypothesis though would be incorrect.

As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
That may change in the future.
Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again.

Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 03:06 PM   #46
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,916
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Since science is a process (more or less), I'm not sure I understand your conclusion. Going out on a limb, I'm guessing you mean to say something more along the lines of, "Since string theory (lower case "t") is a hypothesis, it should not be generally accepted the way that a bona fide scientific Theory (upper case "T") should". This is absolutely correct and I would agree with it wholeheartedly.
This is what I meant, yes. Thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
As to the 2nd part of your point: "meta" = beyond; "physics" = a science that deals with matter and energy and their interactions. String theory doesn't fit this definition, as I pointed out earlier. We're still talking about the natural universe(s) and the rules that operate within it (them). No part of string theory that I'm familiar with has violated this. Again, just because something is a hypothesis does not mean that it is not part of science.
I was working more with this definition of metaphysics:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
met·a·phys·ics /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks]
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.
At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is. Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category. There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Indeed it might. Unfortunately, human beings currently lack the technological sophistication to be able to test our models at the scale required. We've been there before and I'm sure that we'll be there again.
With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Please see books I recommended earlier if you would like delve deeper than a wiki regarding the subject. Considering your background, I suspect that you would probably understand the concepts better than most.
And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged.
Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 04:43 PM   #47
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
This is what I meant, yes. Thanks.
My pleasure. Glad to hear that we're on the same page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
I was working more with this definition of metaphysics:
If the current hypothesis had no basis in observation, I might be inclined to agree, however since we do have a framework built firmly in science, I cannot concede that it is metaphysics (in any sense). Scientific hypothesis? Absolutely. Lay usage "theory"? Absolutely. Metaphysics? Not even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
At this point, since there's no scientific proof for string theory in cosmology, I think it's as much a philosophical stance as the idea of 'God as creator' is.
Again, I acknowledge that we currently lack the technological sophistication to test any of the models and/or predictions, but that does not mean that the hypothesis (plural?) aren't scientific. I don't think the comparison to "god as creator" is accurate or equitable considering that "explanation" it isn't scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Apples and radial tires, as it were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Mathematicians are using this complex set of equations to try to explain cosmology, which is why I think it ends up in the metaphysical realm. If that changes in the future and string theory is able to be supported scientifically, I'll be happy to place it into the science category.
It is supported scientifically. It's just not currently testable. Again, building hypothesis is still part of the scientific process. Just because something hasn't been established at a generally accepted scientific Theory does not mean that it belongs in the same category as astrology and palm reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
There are a lot of mathematical theories and equations that might in the future have application in science, but I can't call them science until I see that application actually happen. I'm happy to call them mathematical theories until then. My cut-off point for what is/isn't science may be stricter than yours, however.
I suspect it comes down to how we define "science". It would appear that you only consider generally accepted Theories as science, whereas I consider the entire process of scientific discovery science. Knowing your stance on these things, I'm not going to take up anymore of your time explaining the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
With the way science has developed explosively in the last 100 years or so (no cosmological pun intended), I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen, though I don't know if that'll happen in my lifetime.
Greene talks at length about potential experiments that could conceivably take place in the not-too-distant future in later chapters of Fabric of the Cosmos. I think it would be great to see a breakthrough in my lifetime, but considering that it took approximately 350 years to get from the apple falling out of the tree to E=MC^2, I think I shouldn't get my hopes up.

...especially considering that the second string revolution was only about a decade ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
And it'll likely be more interesting than Atlas Shrugged.
Wiki's not my favorite source, but it's a convenient starting point for a lot of things. The sources that that entry quotes will be far more useful than the entry itself--there's some interesting things there.
Just to show what a fun loving guy he is, Greene uses Simpson's characters in a lot of his explanations. He is also considerate enough to warn you when you're about to enter a section which might cause your eyes to glaze over and recommends page numbers for those that want to jump ahead (skipping all the mumbo-jumbo).

Last edited by Achilles; 02-07-2008 at 06:00 PM. Reason: clarifying points and grammar
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 07:16 PM   #48
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

So, what are the limits of science then?


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 07:36 PM   #49
Det. Bart Lasiter
obama.png
 
Det. Bart Lasiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: `(•.°)~
Posts: 7,997
Current Game: all
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
I'll admit I've been defeated in this thread purely because of the possibility theory and because it's now over my head. All I've got to say now is:

So, what are the limits of science then?
If you're referring to science in general, then there aren't any. If you're referring to right now, I don't quite know.



"No, Mama. You can bet your sweet ass and half a titty whoever put that hit on you already got the cops in their back pocket." ~Black Dynamite
Det. Bart Lasiter is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 08:17 PM   #50
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
So, what are the limits of science then?
Conceivably, there aren't any. This question is akin to asking "What are the limits of learning then?".
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 10:52 PM   #51
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Scienceis limited to what can be tested. If it can be tested and proven by an equation, it is science. But that which has an equation but requires the probability system should be considered 'loose science', as it is neither provable nor unprovable. In my opionion, the probability sysem shoudln't be part of sceince, since it pretty much doesns't ever prove any theory, as the oddas aren't tested evidence, ony an estimation that is based on theory that may not even be true. So basing claims that thoeies are true in aurguments with the probability system as proof in it's core purely proves nothing, no matter what the odds are. We need a few good new theories if anything is going to be absolutely positiviely proven in these debates. Or we can learn to let go of the probability system.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 11:34 PM   #52
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Nothing in science is certain - at least not in the sense that tautologies are certain. Science is just a way of doing things, and using probabilities in it has worked quite well so far. It is a matter of "good enough to explain the phenomena", not some kind of absolute truth. You can still use Newton's law of gravity in many situations and it would be perfectly acceptable to do so, even though there are more accurate theories available. It just depends on what you're trying to do with it. I see no reason why science can't use probability as it uses any other mathematical tool.



"The mathematician Pascal admires the beauty of a theorem in number theory; it's as though he were admiring a beautiful natural phenomenon. Its marvellous, he says, what wonderful properties numbers have. It's as though he were admiring the regularities in a kind of crystal." - Wittgenstein

As for the Fibonacci sequence, I find little amazing about how nature "uses" this feature of maths. Similarly, I also find little amazing about how nature "uses" the mathematical law of gravity. It seems strange even to think of it in the way the OP suggests. Admiring a crystal, indeed...perhaps we should instead wonder: why do we give numbers the properties they possess?


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 11:44 PM   #53
Arcesious
Trolololololololololololo
 
Arcesious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NE
Posts: 1,876
Current Game: Mass Effect
Everything proven in science is certain. But theories aren't. Just because we like to believe certain theories won't prove them true. Probability will only prove the hypothesis of the thoery- and the hypothesis isn't meant to prove anything, unless if someobdy suddenly amended the scientific method in a very wierd way, which is what it seems with how you people present your evidence... That's why it's still a theory, because the observations aren't complete. Even though we give the thoery a conclusion, the observations and results aren't complete. Therefore the theory is unproven and probability system won't prove anything exept to create a hypothesis for the theory.


Please feed the trolls. XD
Arcesious is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-07-2008, 11:51 PM   #54
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Try this. Suppose you said that your parents love you. Why would you say that? Because they do things for you, hug you, say they love you, etc? But now you're saying: I can't know for sure, because none of the things they have done proves that they love me... But what do you mean by proof if you won't accept ANYTHING as proof? Clearly, you're not interested in any kind of proof that I know of.

Please explain what you mean by proof.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 02-08-2008, 06:44 AM   #55
Ray Jones
[armleglegarmhead]
 
Ray Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: digital
Posts: 8,256
10 year veteran! LF Jester Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious
I see how I am wrong about stars. I rest my case about that. Obviously stars formed by chemical reaction, and the friction made heat. Solid matter wouldn’t be directly compatible with gases, but the metallic cores would be melted to a liquid state, liquid and gas being very miscible, hence the way a star would form. Sorry for the ignorance about stars...
Actually, stars form due to gravity, not chemical reactions. The heat is produced through the fusion of atomic nuclei, not friction. And it happens the other way around -- gas-liquid-solid-star-boom:


There are *huge* clouds of matter out there in space. And in these clouds there are spots which happen to get dense over time, more and more, at some points these denser spots get so much mass that the gas becomes fluid and later solid.

Cloud with stars forming:


Due to the increasing mass more and more gas is attracted and eventually a critical mass is reached and causes the atoms within the giant rotating sphere of gas to collapse under indescribable pressure of itself - et violet - core fusion -> the birth of a star.

Thanks to Hubble it looks like this:


or like this:

"This composite image, made with two cameras aboard NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, shows a pair of 12 light-year-long jets of gas blasted into space from a young system of three stars. The jet is seen in visible light, and its dusty disk and stars are seen in infrared light. These stars are located near a huge torus, or donut, of gas and dust from which they formed. This torus is tilted edge-on and can be seen as a dark bar near the bottom of the picture.

Apparently, a gravitational brawl among the stars occurred a few thousand years ago and kicked out one member (on the left edge of the bright blob above the disk). As a result, the two other stars were joined together as a tight binary pair and flew off in the opposite direction, and appear as a red blob below the disk. "


If there is balance between its mass and energy the fusion is producing, in other words if there's balance between expanding and contracting forces, the star will not stop "burning" until that balance goes downhill (because the star whether had blown out so much matter that it will explode or produced so many heavy elements that it will collapse), or if it was big enough until every single core has been fused to iron eventually. All other elements are formed during the death of a star, in novae and supernovae, or some later through nuclear fission.

Death of a star:


In fact, without stars our Periodic System of Elements would (if at all) show only a handful elements at best, most probably Hydrogen or Helium which were supposedly created during the Big Bang.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Please Google "singularity" before proceeding further with this train of thought. Unless of course you really do want to posit that "god" was a ball of energy less than a Planck-length in size that was more or less destroyed 13.7 billion years ago when the universe was created.
"God is everything and everywhere. We all are made of god."

That even supports this. No?



Last edited by Ray Jones; 02-08-2008 at 08:07 AM.
Ray Jones is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > Fibonacci Algorithm = God?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:08 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.