Sisyphus

So you're not going to answer the question? Please define "information," as you are using it. Otherwise your primary claim is literally meaningless. re: duplication, if you accept that information can be copied, and that the copies can be altered independently, then you have already accepted that the total amount of information can increase. Pick 4 random letters. ABCD. Copy them. ABCDABCD. Allow them to freely "mutate." EFGHIJKL. How is EFGHIJKL not more information than ABCD? But then, maybe I'm misinterpreting, since you haven't yet actually said what you mean by "information."

Congratulations!

It doesn't matter whether it's rolling or dropping freely. You're still just extracting energy from the decrease in height, i.e. the gravitational potential energy. The maximum useful energy you can get from this process is exactly equal to the minimum energy you would need to lift that weight up through the same height, back to its starting position. In practice, there will always be losses, and the weight will never return to its original height.

It doesn't sound like jibber jabber to me. In fact, it seems downright illustrated by the fact that you haven't answered the question of how you're defining "information" in the context of evolution. It even offers four potential definitions, with cited examples of each. That's not an apt analogy, though. More like copying the paper, and letting each be altered independently. Obviously you've increased the total amount of information. Do explain. "How it's supposed to happen" is the simply random mutation filtered by natural selection, surely. And not that I'm familiar with Dr. Gitt's work, but from a cursory search it seems the consensus is that he's a quack. Not that that in itself proves him wrong, but it does make an unexplained argument from authority even less convincing. The claim is referenced. How is there no evidence to back it up?

What sort of influence do you have in mind?

Sullivan, since your disagreement seems to come down to whether there is ever an increase in "information," it might save some time if you tell us how you are using the term. Specifically, how do you respond to the talkorigins page addressing this argument: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

No, I mean literally meaningless. Not "velocity is relative and dependent on reference frame," but "velocity is a nonsense word."

That wouldn't mean that everything is moving. In fact, that would make the word "moving" meaningless.

Neither of those statements is accurate.

This isn't true. The universe does not have a center.

That makes them related. It doesn't make them the same thing. You can't reduce distance to duration or vice versa with dimensional analysis. So no, you can't convert between meters and seconds. You can convert between meters and light-seconds.

Is what fabricated? If I make thousands of vague, metaphorical predictions, I guarantee at least some of them will be able to be interpretted after the fact as resembling historical events, especially if people are willing to get creative with translation.

Everything explained.

Re-opening closed threads is against the rules. Thread closed.

No, there is nothing to it. The History Channel has not been legitimate for several years now.

Fine idea. Hmm. The link is "blogging to the bank dot us" I'm obviously not going to click on it, so that's all I have to go on. Well, Blogging to the bank is a fraud. Blogging to the bank is a scam. Blogging to the bank will ruin your life. Blogging to the bank is history's greatest monster.

You're not questioning the reasoning. You're questioning different reasoning, i.e. a classic straw man argument. It's as if you're saying, "Roses are red, therefore gravity obeys an inverse square law? When did we abandon reason?" The reasons for the conclusions of QM are not analogous to the reasons in your analogy.

How do you get that from "popular support?" Of course they never had universal support. But they had enough support to get into power legally, and to amend their constitution to give them more and more - and eventually unlimited - power. But it all happened totally legally. Not that they didn't forcibly quash opposition - of course they did. After they granted themselves the legal power to do so. Democratic institutions always have the power to vote themselves out of existence.

It's not a matter of not being perfect. It's a matter of not being useful. You say: Now, it is logical to assume that every car exists in a quantum flux, and only materializes when it has an accident. as if to mock the reasoning, but nobody would think that if not for phenomena that have no analogy in the car insurance business. Like, for example, self-interference.

I don't have a problem, no. You're the one trying to push the auto insurance company as an apt analogy.

You don't see the problem with the double slit experiment? A single electron passes through both slits at once as a wave. Can a car do something analogous?

How about this. Imagine two asteroids freely floating in deep space, connected by a spring. Push on one of them. It doesn't matter with what. Call it a rocket named the U.S.S. Elevator Floor. The rocket pushes on one asteroid, which then pushes on the other. As long as the rocket is accelerating the one, the spring is compressed. The forward asteroid has intertia that is resisting the accelerating from the rear asteroid pushing it. Now imagine there is a rocket attached to each asteroid, such that they can be accelerated equally. As this happens, there is no stress on the spring, right? This is the same as how gravity works.

The Nazis didn't have to sneak into power. They were voted in with a broad mandate of popular support.

The blood is going up. If it wasn't, it would be pooling at the bottom of the elevator shaft while your exsanguinated corpse continued inside the rising elevator. You can't look at your whole body as one entity. Look at one blood cell. It is rising. Why? Because the blood cell below it is pushing on it? Why? Because the one below that is pushing on that? Etc., down to the floor of the elevator. Yet each one also has inertia to be overcome, so there is going to be drag as each part pushes the next. This is true in any object, but it's going to happen more in your fluid blood than in your relatively rigid bones, muscles, etc.

You don't feel acceleration, you feel stresses within your body. You don't feel anything in freefall, despite your acceleration, because gravity is acting on every part of you at once in the same way. Standing on the ground, gravity is still acting on every part of you, but there is force being applied to the bottom of your feet, which leads to a compressive stress through your body. (Gravity pulls each atom downwards, but each atom is prevented from accelerating by the obstruction of the atom below it. Etc.)