On Evolution & Creation

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, Please Stop arguing with @ratiocinator. He appears to be the one person here who actually deals with this stuff, knows and understands the math and is patient enough to attempt explanations of the popular treatment of the subject.
His answer and it is the answer of the field is We don't know" There are a lot of what are unfortunately called theories, should be hypotheses, that may lead to greater understanding, but no evidence to choose between them yet. This is all brought about because while relativity has made incredible strides in helping us to understand the observable universe, the equations when carried to a certain point in the past devolve into a mathematical conundrum called a singularity which is basically a point that doesn't make sense and it has been realized that a theory of quantum gravity will be needed at this scale. There isn't one yet, they are working on it but until one is found that works all we have is what is colloquially called speculation.
Bloviating over your interpretations is not useful.

NO, with references. Selective citing references to justify an agenda simply does not work.

 

[ratiocinator]

Shuny, Please Stop arguing with @ratiocinator. He appears to be the one person here who actually deals with this stuff, knows and understands the math and is patient enough to attempt explanations of the popular treatment of the subject.
His answer and it is the answer of the field is We don't know" There are a lot of what are unfortunately called theories, should be hypotheses, that may lead to greater understanding, but no evidence to choose between them yet. This is all brought about because while relativity has made incredible strides in helping us to understand the observable universe, the equations when carried to a certain point in the past devolve into a mathematical conundrum called a singularity which is basically a point that doesn't make sense and it has been realized that a theory of quantum gravity will be needed at this scale. There isn't one yet, they are working on it but until one is found that works all we have is what is colloquially called speculation.
Bloviating over your interpretations is not useful.

Unfortunately, @shunyadragon has form for this. He once tried to tell three of us, who had all actually studied QM, that we didn't know what we were talking about:

Let's not talk about the Big Bang

So the mathematics went over your head? You accepted that it that it described the wavefunction and the "quantum scale" yet when it's pointed out that the mathematics used requires continuous space and time to make sense, it's "nothing of substance". Why you have then gone on paste a whole lot...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[ratiocinator]

You perpetually selectively citing references 'arguing from ignorance,' demanding thar science must 'know' which is Newtonian ridiculous in terms of theoretical physics.

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm trying to distinguish between what we can reasonably conclude from science (tested theories) from speculative hypotheses. You keep on presenting the speculative hypotheses as if they were tested theories. In fact your frankly bizarre use of terms like "Quantum World" and "Quantum Energy" suggest that you don't really understand the speculative hypotheses either.

We simply don't know how to unite QFT with GR yet. As a result, we don't know that happened where GR predicts a singularity, or if time is past-finite or not.

'Quantum gravity' could help unite quantum mechanics with general relativity at last

Yes, it could, but it hasn't yet.

 

[wellwisher]

The tools of science are as excellent and reliable as your religious based world view is bad,

This reflect your 'fallacy arguing from ignorance' with an anti-science religious agenda basing your argument on what you believe science does not know, which is the same religious based argument the the Discovery Institute uses.

Science does not have a problem you do.

I am my own man and think by myself because I had to learned this as a development scientist solving problems and creating new things. You do not seem to have a good handle on the concept of a conceptual foundation. This is key to assessing theory. You do not seem to notice, that nobody has ever found any first replicators, as fossil or anything, to show this assumption real and not just a pipe dream. That does not bother you? I thought proof was very important, especially for such a fundamental foundation premise of any theory.

The status quo also uses this unproven, first replicator assumption, as the unproven assumption for time=0, that then supports the entire theory of evolution. These fundamental or foundation premies are all based on faith; in what has not been seen. You do not seem to understand the difference between a valid science argument; with proof, and the charisma of faith, that is common to religion. I respect your faith. I am arguing against the Evolutionary religion, based on imaginary replicators, that lack proof. Black box math sort of allows this, but reason does not. Proof would be Better than just faith in empirical lab coats.

We could put God, in that same black box, and never open it, thereby avoiding all the necessary proof of God, like we do with the first replicator theory. Will the black box smoke screen make God, as true as the first replicators, of do both still have no science proof?

In modern cells, the DNA; replicators aspect, is packed as chromosomes and taken off line, during cell cycles. The DNA is offline. It is the protein grid, is what separates the two daughter cells. It make more sense to have the cell body work the replicators. Trying to populate a useful protein grid, starting with naked replicators, makes no sense, since the protein contain all the muscle needed to help the replicators. The replicators are the hard drive and not the CPU. The protein do all the processing, even on DNA and RNA; protein are the CPU. Protein first makes more sense since you have the muscle to work the replicators.

Water is the best way to go as the foundational CPU, since proteins are not active until packed by water. Then the protein can work the DNA. Water is the Swiss Army knife of nature having over 70 anomalous properties, for all occasions. Water is the most abundant solid material in the universe; ice. This makes star formation much easier. Ice is easy for gravity to attract, over a wider range of temperature, with water also containing the hydrogen needed for fusion.

The anomaly of water, expanding when it freezes, allowed life to sustain on earth. The floating ice will stay at the surface of water, and insulate the water below, from the cold, so life can wait until it gets warm. If ice sank, like most materials in nature, this would cause the oceans to rain down winter snow, and freeze over time. The heating cycles of summer, would never reach the deeper bottom snow and the ice/snow will pile up year after year, on the ocean floor and lakes floors, burying life. Water was designed to help life. Our bodies are 55-60% water. Below the fish can find pockets of 50F water; earth temperature, even in winter due to floating ice insulation; igloo effect.

 

[wellwisher]

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I'm trying to distinguish between what we can reasonably conclude from science (tested theories) from speculative hypotheses. You keep on presenting the speculative hypotheses as if they were tested theories. In fact your frankly bizarre use of terms like "Quantum World" and "Quantum Energy" suggest that you don't really understand the speculative hypotheses either.

We simply don't know how to unite QFT with GR yet. As a result, we don't know that happened where GR predicts a singularity, or if time is past-finite or not.


Yes, it could, but it hasn't yet.

This can be done with the simple theory of space-time and separated space and separated time. GR is about the range of space-time. The mass of objects and geometry creates the various GR effects, which together sustain space-time, and defines the curvature of space-time. If we use zero mass in GR, there is no space-time over any distance or geometry.

The quantum world can be explained as connected to separated space and separated time. This is proven by the Heisenberg Experiments. His experiments showed space and time; position and momentum, going in opposite directions. The more precise we try to get one, the other gets worse. Space and time are showing independence; QED. In the limit this model makes them separate. Heisenberg was dealing with things in space-time so he was getting a composite effect with matter and energy. I call this the Heisenberg Certainty Principle in honor of Heisenberg. This was not random but followed an inverse relationship, like a see saw.

Since separated space and time have way more options, space-time is the subset. It is the potential between the subset; space-time, with the larger set; separated space and time, that is the potential for the second law, that we see within our universe in space-time. This 2nd law path toward more complexity; universal moment of space-time, back to the more complex state of separated space and time.

Space-time is going back to separated space and time, from which it came. All you need to do, to create a new universe from nothing, is tether some separated space and time, and you get energy, from nothing, since there is no energy, if space and time are not tethered.

These simple variables can absorb the overly complex way you guys are trying to over do the simple.

 

[ratiocinator]

You do not seem to notice, that nobody has ever found any first replicators, as fossil or anything, to show this assumption real and not just a pipe dream. That does not bother you?

It would actually be astounding to find the first replicators as fossils, they may have been nothing more than RNA molecules.

I thought proof was very important, especially for such a fundamental foundation premise of any theory.

If you think science deals in proof, you know nothing about it.

The status quo also uses this unproven, first replicator assumption, as the unproven assumption for time=0, that then supports the entire theory of evolution.

This represents total ignorance of the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter to the theory, how life started, it only deals with what happens when you have replication with inheritance and variation.

You really do need to learn the basics before spouting such ignorant nonsense. The evidence for the theory of evolution is vast, to the point that it is way beyond reasonable doubt.

These fundamental or foundation premies are all based on faith; in what has not been seen. You do not seem to understand the difference between a valid science argument; with proof, and the charisma of faith, that is common to religion. I respect your faith. I am arguing against the Evolutionary religion, based on imaginary replicators, that lack proof.

You seem to struggle with basic logic too. The replicators that evolution deals are not imaginary, you are one of them. We can see evolution happening in real time, and we can see the evidence of it in present DNA (you still have the remains of a gene for making eggs, left over from your egg-laying ancestors). There is no faith or religion involved.

Black box math sort of allows this, but reason does not. Proof would be Better than just faith in empirical lab coats.

We could put God, in that same black box, and never open it, thereby avoiding all the necessary proof of God, like we do with the first replicator theory. Will the black box smoke screen make God, as true as the first replicators, of do both still have no science proof?

In modern cells, the DNA; replicators aspect, is packed as chromosomes and taken off line, during cell cycles. The DNA is offline. It is the protein grid, is what separates the two daughter cells. It make more sense to have the cell body work the replicators. Trying to populate a useful protein grid, starting with naked replicators, makes no sense, since the protein contain all the muscle needed to help the replicators. The replicators are the hard drive and not the CPU. The protein do all the processing, even on DNA and RNA; protein are the CPU. Protein first makes more sense since you have the muscle to work the replicators.

Water is the best way to go as the foundational CPU, since proteins are not active until packed by water. Then the protein can work the DNA. Water is the Swiss Army knife of nature having over 70 anomalous properties, for all occasions. Water is the most abundant solid material in the universe; ice. This makes star formation much easier. Ice is easy for gravity to attract, over a wider range of temperature, with water also containing the hydrogen needed for fusion.

Just wondering if you just have a natural talent for generating this sort of word salad, or have you written a script or something, to generate it?

Maybe you're using AI? Just got this from ChatGPT:

Cosmic Adaptive Resonance suggests that species evolve not solely through natural selection, but by harmonizing with cosmic frequencies. According to this theory, each organism resonates with specific wavelengths emitted by celestial bodies, leading to accelerated adaptations in response to cosmic shifts. For instance, during a full moon, certain species might exhibit rapid color changes or heightened intelligence, as they "tune in" to the lunar energy. This concept posits that the evolutionary path of a species is intricately linked to astrological cycles, suggesting that planetary alignments can trigger sudden bursts of innovation and change within ecosystems, effectively blending biology and astrology into evolution.​

 

[ratiocinator]

This can be done with the simple theory of space-time and separated space and separated time. GR is about the range of space-time. The mass of objects and geometry creates the various GR effects, which together sustain space-time, and defines the curvature of space-time. If we use zero mass in GR, there is no space-time over any distance or geometry.

The quantum world can be explained as connected to separated space and separated time. This is proven by the Heisenberg Experiments. His experiments showed space and time; position and momentum, going in opposite directions. The more precise we try to get one, the other gets worse. Space and time are showing independence; QED. In the limit this model makes them separate. Heisenberg was dealing with things in space-time so he was getting a composite effect with matter and energy. I call this the Heisenberg Certainty Principle in honor of Heisenberg. This was not random but followed an inverse relationship, like a see saw.

Since separated space and time have way more options, space-time is the subset. It is the potential between the subset; space-time, with the larger set; separated space and time, that is the potential for the second law, that we see within our universe in space-time. This 2nd law path toward more complexity; universal moment of space-time, back to the more complex state of separated space and time.

Space-time is going back to separated space and time, from which it came. All you need to do, to create a new universe from nothing, is tether some separated space and time, and you get energy, from nothing, since there is no energy, if space and time are not tethered.

These simple variables can absorb the overly complex way you guys are trying to over do the simple.

Over to ChatGPT, again:

Introducing the "Quantum Dream Fabric" theory, which posits that space-time is not a continuous fabric but rather a patchwork of interconnected dreams generated by consciousness. According to this theory, each person's thoughts and aspirations contribute to the cosmic tapestry, shaping the very nature of reality. When individuals experience vivid dreams, they momentarily tap into alternate dimensions, influencing the flow of time and space around them.​

​

Proponents argue that moments of déjà vu occur when one’s consciousness briefly aligns with these parallel realities, creating a ripple effect that alters our perception of time. Additionally, they suggest that collective dreaming during significant events, such as a lunar eclipse, can lead to shifts in space-time, potentially opening gateways to new dimensions.​

Makes exactly as much sense as your post.

 

[shunyadragon]

NO, with references. Selective citing references to justify an agenda simply does not work.

The difference in calling it an hypothesis and theory is not relevant to whether it is valid or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am my own man and think by myself because I had to learned this as a development scientist solving problems and creating new things. You do not seem to have a good handle on the concept of a conceptual foundation. This is key to assessing theory. You do not seem to notice, that nobody has ever found any first replicators, as fossil or anything, to show this assumption real and not just a pipe dream. That does not bother you? I thought proof was very important, especially for such a fundamental foundation premise of any theory.

Terrible circular reason to self-justify a religious agenda without science.

The status quo also uses this unproven, first replicator assumption, as the unproven assumption for time=0, that then supports the entire theory of evolution. These fundamental or foundation premies are all based on faith; in what has not been seen. You do not seem to understand the difference between a valid science argument; with proof, and the charisma of faith, that is common to religion. I respect your faith. I am arguing against the Evolutionary religion, based on imaginary replicators, that lack proof. Black box math sort of allows this, but reason does not. Proof would be Better than just faith in empirical lab coats.

More self justified nonsense.

We could put God, in that same black box, and never open it, thereby avoiding all the necessary proof of God, like we do with the first replicator theory. Will the black box smoke screen make God, as true as the first replicators, of do both still have no science proof?

Again no concept of proof in science. The above confirms the priority of your religious agenda over science

 

[ratiocinator]

The difference in calling it an hypothesis and theory is not relevant to whether it is valid or not.

Oh, dear.

Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method

What Is a Hypothesis?​

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables. A hypothesis is a fresh, unchallenged idea that a scientist proposes prior to conducting research. The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a tentative explanation for an occurrence, an explanation that scientists can either support or disprove through experimentation.​

​

What Is a Theory?​

A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments, meaning theories are unlikely to change. While the word “theory” is commonly used outside the scientific world to describe a simple hunch, scientists use the term to describe a broadly accepted explanation for an occurrence.​

 

[Balthazzar]

Creation and Evolution are the same thing are they not? As the artist is creating his work is it not evolving and as it is evolving is it not also being created? However both are the result of Emanation ( Thought ) and Manifestation. Manifestation being the end result of both the creative and evolutionary process. Creation and Evolution are physical in nature but Emanation is Metaphysical and Manifestation is Spiritual. Only the Spiritual can permeate, pervade and perdure all things. The Holy Spirit is cohort to The Generative Word and moves and acts under the Power of said Generative Word. The body of Christ is The Generative Word and the Blood of Christ is the Holy Spirit. God is an uncaused cause that is both Essence (Love) and Existence (Life). Love is Metaphysical and Life is Spiritual and their physical aspects are what we experience although the "True" physical is both Metaphysical and Spiritual in nature.

The experience of experiencing existence and the many processes occurring as we journey our experience consciously is the experience of being. Who's creating? Is it God, us, or is it simply experience experiencing itself as the standard of existing as it is? We're consciously experiencing change, which you define as creation and/or the evolutionary and developmental processes occurring is the universe. Is the manifestation end result or is the end result yet to be experienced and ongoing? Maybe there is no end result and "experience" is the standard for the consciously aware and our entire lifespan merely a temporal and brief moment frozen in time, as if life itself a still frame image of an infinite existence as the universe, and each passing lifetime providing a series of images, documenting creation and the evolution of everything existing as itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh, dear.

Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method

What Is a Hypothesis?​

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables. A hypothesis is a fresh, unchallenged idea that a scientist proposes prior to conducting research. The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a tentative explanation for an occurrence, an explanation that scientists can either support or disprove through experimentation.​

​

What Is a Theory?​

A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments, meaning theories are unlikely to change. While the word “theory” is commonly used outside the scientific world to describe a simple hunch, scientists use the term to describe a broadly accepted explanation for an occurrence.​

What is a theory or what is a hypothesis does determine whether the theory or hypothesis is valid or not.

You should not better.

 

[ratiocinator]

What is a theory or what is a hypothesis does determine whether the theory or hypothesis is valid or not.

What do you even mean by "valid" here? A theory is something we can have a high degree of confidence in because it has been tested by experiment and/or observation. General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory are such theories.

Hypotheses have not been tested by experiment or observation, so are basically educated guesses. They may be valid mathematically, but that doesn't mean that they are good models of reality. We can't know that before we test them. None of the ideas about quantum gravity have been tested, so we can't know, which, if any, of the current proposals are good models of reality.

That is why we can't say what happened when GR predicts a singularity at the BB, or whether time is past-infinite or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you even mean by "valid" here? A theory is something we can have a high degree of confidence in because it has been tested by experiment and/or observation. General Relativity, and Quantum Field Theory are such theories.

Hypotheses have not been tested by experiment or observation, so are basically educated guesses. They may be valid mathematically, but that doesn't mean that they are good models of reality. We can't know that before we test them. None of the ideas about quantum gravity have been tested, so we can't know, which, if any, of the current proposals are good models of reality.

That is why we can't say what happened when GR predicts a singularity at the BB, or whether time is past-infinite or not.

disagree. I provided references the referred to Quantum Gravity Theory and the following refers to a Quantum World as I do, You seem to indicate that a proposal of Theory must be resolved and finally falsified without question. LOL

Quantum Gravity: The Quest for the Pixelation of Space — Caltech Magazine

What is quantum gravity? The idea that space is made of discrete pockets like pixels. Caltech researchers are inventing new kinds of experiments to probe this question.

magazine.caltech.edu

Sand dunes seen from afar seem smooth and unwrinkled, like silk sheets spread across the desert. But a closer inspection reveals much more. As you approach the dune, Attach files, you may notice ripples in the sand. Touch the surface and you would find individual grains. The same is true for digital images: zoom far enough into an apparently perfect portrait and you will discover the distinct pixels that make the picture.

The universe itself may be similarly pixelated. Scientists such as Rana Adhikari, professor of physics at Caltech, think the space we live in may not be perfectly smooth but rather made of incredibly small discrete units. “A spacetime pixel is so small that if you were to enlarge things so that it becomes the size of a grain of sand, then atoms would be as large as galaxies,” he says.

Adhikari and scientists around the world are on the hunt for this pixelation because it is a prediction of quantum gravity, one of the deepest physics mysteries of our time. Quantum gravity refers to a set of theories, including string theory, that seeks to unify the macroscopic world of gravity, governed by general relativity, with the microscopic world of quantum physics. At the core of the mystery is the question of whether gravity, and the spacetime it inhabits, can be “quantized,” or broken down into individual components, a hallmark of the quantum world.

 

[ratiocinator]

I provided references the referred to Quantum Gravity Theory and the following refers to a Quantum World as I do,

You keep linking to proposals for theories of quantum gravity, i.e. hypotheses, that have not been tested.

You seem to indicate that a proposal of Theory must be proven. LOL

I said nothing about proof. Theories, like General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory have been subjected to multiple experimental and observational tests, and have been shown to make accurate predictions. That is evidence that they are good models of reality.

None of the proposals for quantum gravity have been subjected to any experimental and observational tests. There are also several different proposals, which cannot possibly all be right, so we have to be honest enough to say we don't know yet. It's like the various proposals for abiogenesis in that respect.

As for "quantum world" you seem to refer to it as if it was some sort of separate 'place' or something, rather than the characteristics of a theory.

From the page you linked to:

Because of the incredibly small scales in question, some scientists have deemed finding evidence of quantum gravity in the foreseeable future to be an impossible task. Although researchers have come up with ideas for how they might find clues to its existence—around black holes; in the early universe; or even using LIGO, the National Science Foundation-funded observatories that detect gravitational waves—no one has yet turned up any hints of quantum gravity in nature.​

 

[icant]

The lunar lander didn't have a space suit, why didn't it float away?

It weighed a lot more than man, and was heavier than the air around it.
Enjoy.

 

[icant]

Which appears to be because you know next to nothing about the science.

Well I know you don't know what if anything existed there which makes it a BIG problem whether I know anything else about it or not.

Enjoy

 

[shunyadragon]

It weighed a lot more than man, and was heavier than the air around it.
Enjoy.

No air

 

[shunyadragon]

Well I know you don't know what if anything existed there which makes it a BIG problem whether I know anything else about it or not.

Enjoy

Sounds like you are believing in Hinduism, or the more obvious you are using circular reasoning to justify your intentional ignorance of science.

 

[Pogo]

Over to ChatGPT, again:

Introducing the "Quantum Dream Fabric" theory, which posits that space-time is not a continuous fabric but rather a patchwork of interconnected dreams generated by consciousness. According to this theory, each person's thoughts and aspirations contribute to the cosmic tapestry, shaping the very nature of reality. When individuals experience vivid dreams, they momentarily tap into alternate dimensions, influencing the flow of time and space around them.​

​

Proponents argue that moments of déjà vu occur when one’s consciousness briefly aligns with these parallel realities, creating a ripple effect that alters our perception of time. Additionally, they suggest that collective dreaming during significant events, such as a lunar eclipse, can lead to shifts in space-time, potentially opening gateways to new dimensions.​

Makes exactly as much sense as your post.

Chat GPT reads a lot of garbage and it's intelligence works the same regardless of its source.

AI has not developed critical thinking yet only pattern recognition.