swansont

You again fail to distinguish whether something happened with how it happened. If you deny that it happened, that’s the act that limits research. If you acknowledge that it did happen, only then can you investigate how it happened. There’s no gotcha if you know what you’re talking about. Can you explain how, especially without defining what information is?

Or you could, you know, NOT DO IT AT ALL, since it’s off-topic. I refer you to the cartoon iNow recently posted. You’re using “information” as a hand-wave, and it doesn’t actually change anything. But here you admit that life didn’t exist at the time of the big bang, so it arose later. Thus, abiogenesis happened. How can you demonstrate that? What is your evidence that anything was guided? Energy is a property, not a substance. Energy can’t carry information. It’s whatever has that energy. You’ve just described chemical reactions, and the laws that govern them As you’ve done before, you’re asserting something without a solid definition, in this case of information, and trying to construct a nebulous argument based on it. You might as well call it magic. The notion that the laws of physics were put in place at the time of the big bang brings nothing new to the conversation, despite your attempts to sensationalize it.

You have to be more specific, and accurate, in your descriptions. You mean a which-path experiment, which is also not compatible with a hologram if the photon only travels one path. There would be no interference if you know the path. No interference, no hologram.

The reason for this is that you have recorded the phase difference of the two beams. In a double-slit, the phase difference at a given point is fixed. The two situations don’t seem to be compatible.

Since you followed this with a quote from Exodus, you lose all benefit of the doubt that you’re not trolling. As you sow, so shall you reap. How ‘bout them cherries you’re picking.

So I have to provide evidence, but you don’t? I don’t even know what a “non-physical state” is supposed to mean And this doesn’t actually address the issue that you require that life existed at the moment of the big bang (of which, again, no evidence has been provided)

And this supports the notion that Luc is not understanding/misrepresenting the situation; evidence as @Gees requested

You say evidence (which is what science relies on, and not proof) but if there’s no abiogenesis, then life must have always existed. So tell me, what kind of evidence supports that notion - that life existed before the universe was cool enough to even form neutral atoms, and only hydrogen, helium and lithium were around? Because that’s a binary situation. Either life always existed, or it started at some point. (the latter is the occurrence of abiogenesis) You seem to be saying there’s a third option. What is it?

Put another way - we’ve seen this behavior long before ChatGPT came along. Blaming stuff on bots is kinda lazy. The only other options here are: life always existed, or life was the result of magic/mysticism. Otherwise, life had to originate at some point, and that’s abiogenesis. Since science’s domain does not cover magic/mysticism, and that avenue was expressly rejected by the author, and also that we can pretty safely rule out life existing on the proto-earth, it’s what we’re left with. IOW, abiogenesis must be accepted. What’s not yet been shown are the mechanisms and steps of that process.

Such as?

From a MAGA perspective, probably, since they seem to have a “if you’re not for us you’re against us” attitude. But not from traditional policy perspective from those on the left. And I don’t think it’s to their amazement. They see Trump pretty much for who he is.

And when you do physical activity, most of the energy expended is generating (waste) heat.

In general, not for me to say. But “love thy neighbor” is religion and not politics unless Matt Gaetz is involved. Plus all the scripture In no way similar? It didn’t involve owning people, and making them do labor of various sorts? It didn’t involve buying people from other countries?

! Moderator Note Split, because the discussion has shifted away from politics and toward religion (though because of merged respinnses, some other stuff has been dragged along)

! Moderator Note You’ve already been advised that this is a discussion board. It’s not your blog. Please make sure your next thread fosters discussion

So you agree democratic policies are better aligned with Christianity?

Doesn’t look like they inquired about whether or not the AI was trained by stealing copyrighted material

AI is the latest stock bubble.

And what does this have to do with the topic under discussion?

That’s like saying “it matters because it matters” -you haven’t given a reason why that’s important. I was comparing results and you’re discussing motivation. Democrats have policies that help the poor. Republicans have policies that help the rich, and hurt the poor. You’ll see that at no point did I discuss motivation. Only that one of those policy sets is aligned with Christian values, and the other is not. As I said elsewhere, Christianity does not have a monopoly on e.g. “help the poor” That’s an attitude you’d find in other religions, and among decent people who have empathy but are not religious. Whether it’s actually derived from Christian teachings is irrelevant to my argument. Whether it’s important to you is also irrelevant to my argument. If you have some other argument to make, go ahead and make it - but make somewhere other than in response to this.

Your proposal is short on details.

I don’t see what that’s necessary. It’s a distinction without a difference, and it’s not like Christianity has a monopoly on this. The bottom line is that Republicans have neither.

Oh, yeah, I guess I’m assuming that it’s not nationalism promoted by guys named Christian, by, y’know, the description of it. I’m tempted to say “Could you be more of an obtuse ass?” but I’m afraid you’d take as a challenge. If you’re not interested in engaging in a good-faith discussion, one option is to just not post.

If religion weren’t an element it wouldn’t be called Christian nationalism. I mean, it’s right there in the name, and quite prominent in the ideology. And yet we’ve seen where Trump-appointed judges have ruled against his screeds. That’s criminal law. As I pointed out already, he’s been stymied quite often in civil matters.

A common expression in atomic physics is “one atom good, two atoms bad”