EXPLORING the Origin of Life and Conscience !

lawsinium · August 17, 2008

When we were young, we love to play with bubbles. We get a one foot long solid wire and started bending a loop at the end of the wire. We deep it in a mixture of soap and water, bring it up into the air, and just like a magic wand we can create wonderful colorful bubbles.

With this simple experience, scientists started to figure out how this phenomena works. They religiously followed the scientific methodology which was indoctrinated to them by the literature of science and because human beings are gullible (this is the second instinctive attributes of all life form’s genetic code next to copying or aping), they simply use their exclusive scientific digests or papers (a cult doctrines like the bible?) as their references. In their highly elaborated laboratory, scientists started the trial and error method. They tried their experiment, made a very attractive conclusion and formulated their findings. However, behind the scene, they do what I call "The tricks of their trade". After years of this painstaking laboratory work with peer discussion and debate, they figured out a solid theory, which was accepted, reproduced, and retested by the scientific community. The theory states that "We can not place a thin film of water clinging inside the wire loop without using soap or other detergents to hold the film". Everybody shouted "Eureka", clapped their hands and felt like they were new breed of geniuses! After so many years of public acceptance, this concept will just be disproved by a new theory - like all other old scientific theories. And the circle of scientific methodology begins all over again.

In science, when a new theory does not conform with scientific doctrines, it is automatically labeled as pseudoscience and not science at all. Zipher in psychology they call it Labeling. Did they forget what is the general meaning of the word science? Does society has the right to LABEL what is what and who is so? When a patent clerk declares a new theory, everyone will be thinking he is mad, but when a scientist declares a new concept , everyone praise him. Who we are to judge the human intelligence of others? Because society sets up certain standard norms and rules that individual must follow, do we need to adhere to these standards and be "punished" by seclusion if we think otherwise or super extraordinary? Is that fair? Maybe what these self-proclaimed genuises can do is try to test first this pseudoscience theory using their own scientific methodology and pass judgment afterwards when a concrete conclusive results are provided. I think this human behavior will be fair enough!

One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience. Fascinating! So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years. Red shift will just be natural when things evolve. No two things can occupy the same space at the same time and therefore will take more area or simlpy expand. Remember?

Well talking about Einstein, the patent clerk who was labeled by some as a genius, was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc². And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too - like those people who are proclaiming that they really understand quantum mechanics. Others believe, including me, that he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was just intellectually smart and that he knows the tricks of his trade. And simply because he spent a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7, most probably he did not need to follow the rigors of the scientific methodology. I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence especially for those who are quacking loudly who based their arguments from only shear reading scientific journals.

Hmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula. I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought a certain PhD has figured it out. And for those readers, who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong. Don't refer me to any books how it was derived, show the derivation here on this thread, so I will know if you really understand the formulation!

In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I have.

FORMULA >>STATEMENT

W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents

W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining

W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying

W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

So for the thinkers: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

Edited August 17, 2008 by lawsinium

Edtharan · August 17, 2008

I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula.

The do know, Einstein told them and wrote it down. The Theory that Einstein came up with was not just E=MC^2, that is the result of his theory (a prediction). The actual theory (the mathematics of it) are several pages long and without a good understanding of quite complex mathematical principles, you would not understand it yourself (which is why you have never been taught the exact theory, only the result of it). I don't fully understand the mathematics behind Einstein's theories, but I do know enough that they are very precise and can be tested (and are tested on a by second basis - in GPS units all over the world).

I understand the maths enough to know that E=MC^2 is a result (and it is actually a simplified result) of his theories.

So to you, it might seem like he just plucked the E=MC^2 out of thin air, but that is because you haven't read and understood the masses of documentation that he went through to arrive at that result.

With this simple experience, scientists started to figure out how this phenomena works.

Yes, this is the first part: Observation.

But this is where you start to make things up about what science actually is. See: Strawman.

Just because you have a misunderstanding about what science is, and you can find fault with that misunderstanding, does not mean that science is wrong. What it means is that your misunderstanding of science is wrong. :rolleyes:

If I was to misunderstand your theory, then show that my misunderstood idea was wrong, then have I proved your theory wrong? No. :doh: Neither is it with science. You have misunderstood what science is and you have a problem with that misunderstanding. This does not show that science is wrong, only that your misunderstanding is wrong. And on that we can both agree.

They religiously followed the scientific methodology which was indoctrinated to them by the literature of science and because human beings are gullible (this is the second instinctive attributes of all life form’s genetic code next to copying or aping), they simply use their exclusive scientific digests or papers (a cult doctrines like the bible?) as their references.

Please read this wikipedia article: ad hominem. You just keep doing this. It is also a strawman as the argument against science is also not actually an attack on science but on your misunderstanding of it.

In their highly elaborated laboratory, scientists started the trial and error method.

No. Trial and error is much slower than the scientific method.

Would it have been faster to create a new theory by trial and error, or by observing patterns and attempting to analyse it through logic and mathematics?

Analisys is a directed activity, where as trial and error is an undirected activity. The directed activity is far superior than an undirected one.

For example. You could try an navigate between two towns by trail an error (pick a random town, travel to is and see if it the town you are trying to get to), or you could use a more directed approach (analyse the situation by finding where the town is in relation to the one you are in, asking for direction from people who might have travelled through it or been near it, draw a map based on this information and then travel to the town), and if the map is wrong, you make modifications to it to fix those errors.

Actually you can see an analogy between the second approach to the travel and science. In science they first observe a phenomena (get the name of the town they are trying to get to), then they look for work that others have done that might be similar or related (asking for directions), and then developing a theory that related to the phenomena in question (draw a map), then use that map to find your way to the town (test the theory) and then if the theory is wrong, make modification to the map (adjust the theory or develop a new one based on further observations and testing of the theory).

So is science done by trial and error? No. It is a directed methodology, more akin to Map Making than randomly wandering around and hoping to find the town you are seeking.

Actually, the methodology that is science has some roots in the map making business. Sailors venturing to unknown waters would use what they know of the oceans, rumours, and such to make a guess about what lies there. They would then prepare for what they though was there and then sail out to it. They would then adjust their knowledge based on what they find.

This is how the Americas were discovered by Europeans.

Columbus had evidence that said that the world was round. He also had stories of other sailors that had ventured in that direction and returned. He came up with the theory that if one sailed west from Europe, then one would sail around the world and reach India.

He tested this theory by sailing west from Europe (and not by trail and error, he did not just aimlessly wander around the Atlantic ocean to see what was there). However, Observation disagreed with his theory somewhat. By sailing West, he did not reach India, but another continent that was unknown at the time (to Europeans). He then adjusted his theory to include this continent, but he still kept the heart of it which was that the world was round and that if you travelled West far enough you would reach the East (which was later tested and found to be true).

This is an example of a prototype scientific method and why it is more like Map Making. Map Makers don't just randomly wander the landscape and draw what the find, they make predictions about what is in the unknown areas of a map based on observations and stories about that area. They then don't just leave it at that (they used to and this is why old maps are labelled "Here be Dragons" in the locations that were unexplored as that was what they were told was there, and they didn't check), then check those areas by sending an expedition to those locations to find out what is actually there.

It is exactly the same with science.

It is not simple trial and error.

However, that said, sometimes trial and error is use when all else fails. Like when a completely new phenomena is discovered and there is nothing that we know that is related. But it is a very, minor exception.

However, behind the scene, they do what I call "The tricks of their trade". After years of this painstaking laboratory work with peer discussion and debate, they figured out a solid theory, which was accepted, reproduced, and retested by the scientific community.

So if they work for years developing a theory that explains the observations, makes prediction about that phenomena that matches with future experimentation and observation, is heavily scrutinised by people all over the world that can get success by showing that someone else's theory is wrong and produces consistent results (ie: That the theory properly describes what is going on in the Universe), then it must therefore be a "Trick".

If it is a trick, then it is a trick that the Universe itself is in on. It is a universal conspiracy in the literal sense, that the Universe and every single particle in it is conspiring against you. Umm... :confused: :doh:

Does society has the right to LABEL what is what and who is so?

Society does not do this (in the scientific sense). Science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship ruled over by Reality. Reality states what is and is not so, science just describes it. :doh:

When a patent clerk declares a new theory, everyone will be thinking he is mad, but when a scientist declares a new concept , everyone praise him.

If the patent clerk follows the scientific method, then other scientists will not think him mad, they will think he is a scientist. But if the scientist does not follow the scientific method, then he will not be though of as a scientist. the definition of a scientist is: One who uses the scientific method of inquiry.

Who we are to judge the human intelligence of others?

It does not matter if someone is as dumb as a post, or has an IQ of 2,000,000. If they don't follow the scientific method, they are not doing science. If they can't back up their claims through evidence, their claims can't be reproduced or tested, then they are not doing science.

If I made a claim that I had found the last unicorn in the Universe, but than it died and so I cremated it and scattered its ashes. Then how can you believe me. You might just have faith that I am telling the truth, but for someone who uses science, they would demand evidence. They don't just accept something because someone, no matter how smart (or how dumb), or how famous they are for other scientific work is, they accept things based on whether or not you can actually show that it is real (well it is more that they can't prove that your claim is not real).

Because society sets up certain standard norms and rules that individual must follow, do we need to adhere to these standards and be "punished" by seclusion if we think otherwise or super extraordinary?

If I went into a game of soccer claiming that I knew the rules of soccer, but then started playing by the rules of rugby, should I be punished (sent off or told to play by the rules of the game that is being played?).

Such it is with many of these psudo-scientists. they claim to be doing science (playing soccer), but they don't abide by the rules of science and instead by their own misunderstood concepts of science or just down right ignorance of them (they are playing rugby).

If I make a claim that I am selling land, but don't actually have land to sell, should I not be punished? If someone makes a claim about their actions, should then not be held accountable for those actions?

If someone claims that they are doing science, then should they not be held accountable to the rules governing scientists?

People are not excluded from since because they think differently, but because they don't follow the rules. these rules (the scientific method) was put in place to eliminate theories that don't describe reality. So if someone is labelled a psudo-scientist, or is excluded from the scientific community, it is not because they think differently, it is because they are making a incorrect (at best, fraudulent at worst) claim about their actions.

Maybe what these self-proclaimed genuises can do is try to test first this pseudoscience theory using their own scientific methodology and pass judgment afterwards when a concrete conclusive results are provided.

they did and because they failed to describe reality, they are therefore labelled as psudo-science. :rolleyes:

One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience.

ok so if a theory can't

1) Say anything about reality

2) Make claims that are shown not to occur in reality

3) Is not based on reality

Then it must be psudo-science. I'd agree with that.

Science is about describing reality.

If someone makes a claim that they are doing science, but what they are doing has nothing whatsoever to do with reality, then I would say they are not doing science (and if they knowing do it this way, they are committing fraud). :doh:

So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years.

No. There would be other effects that would be the result of your theory that could be tested. The big Bang theory can't be directly tested as we can't go back in time to the big bang (and if we did then we would be obliterated). However, if the big bang is true, then certain effects will have occurred and these can be tested. In fact, they have been tested, are being tested and will continue to be tested. Based on all the tests so far, it seems that the big bang really did happen as we have no evidence that contradicts it (there is evidence that although doesn't contradict it could describe other methods of the universe's beginning, but any of these have evidence that contradict them). The reason that the Big Bang is the most likely one is that as new evidence is discovered, there is little (the least) or no changes needed to it to account for these new observations, where as the other theories need more and more changes to account for the new observations.

So, if your theory can make predictions as to what we should observe, today, if it is true, then we can test those to test your theory.

Are you willing to attempt this? If you are, why not try it. Make predictions using your theory that we should be able to observe today that would contradict the big bang theory and would not be contradicted by your theory. Give it a shot.

At worse you will learn something, at best you might just win a Nobel Prize. :cool:

Others believe, including me, that he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was just intellectually smart and that he knows the tricks of his trade. And simply because he spent a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7, most probably he did not need to follow the rigors of the scientific methodology.

Part of the practical side of the scientific method is that you document your working (remember math classes where you are told to show your working).

Well Einstein did this. He documented his application of the scientific method in arriving at his theory that produced that E=MC^2. There is actual physical pieces of paper that show he actually used the actual scientific method. This attempt at an ad hominem is completely and utterly wrong. Reality says otherwise.

I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence especially for those who are quacking loudly who based their arguments from only shear reading scientific journals.

As I said earlier, Science does not care how smart you are. If you don't follow the scientific method: You are not doing science. :doh:

If you don't follow the rules of soccer, the you are not playing soccer. :rolleyes:

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass
E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

What you ahve done is assume that because something ahs the same units, that it is describing the same thing. C^2 is not an acceleration, but a simplification.

The proper formula is:

E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2

Notice that you can derive E=MC^2 from this under certain situations. This is why E=MC^2 is a simplification.

You have assumed that because C^2 looks like the description of acceleration, the they are the same thing, but when you look at what it really is in the full formula you can see that C^2 is not an acceleration, therefore your substitution of C in the formula is incorrect, which makes you theory incorrect.

Your math is wrong. :-(

Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)?

No. According to your formulas: "W = M x V²", For W=MAD you would need the orriginal formual to be: W = M x V^2 x D, which it isn't. :doh:

lawsinium · August 18, 2008

Analogies do not fall AT ALL under science. They can provide some parallelism or overstatement but it does not mean that it is true and is scientifically accepted (Remember Mr. Strawman!). In my case, I totally do not accept them.

BTW, maybe we are confused also by how formulas or equations evolved that we forget that the unit of measurement is a TOOL that will exactly prove that an equation is correct. I would suggest that please do your homework first and find out what was the first, second and third formula that was created by man. Try to analyze them and you will find out that they are the basis of all the formulas that we have today - from electrical, electronics, mechanics, relativity, frequency, optics to name a few. And try to go deeper how calculus was created, you might be surprised that it is the same common dog with just a different collar.

In science, it can not exist without mathematics. But in mathematics, we do not need science in order to exist. All concepts about creationism have been either based on religious beliefs or scientific ideologies. My theory is based on isodimensional morphical figures that always provide the same results – a mathematical factuality. It is like dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, the end result is always a pi. Pi which is equal to 3.1415+ is always constant and is the basic fact of life for all circles.

In a different light, if you post any related critics or opinions, please do not tell me to read the book of a certain author, or go to the website to just prove your claims. Please explain them thoroughly why do you think that my theory is wrong and what evidence do you have to back up your claims or my claims.

Thank you!

Edtharan · August 18, 2008

Analogies do not fall AT ALL under science.

I am not saying those analogies are science, but instead I was trying to explain to you what science is.

Your biggest mistake here is that you do not know what science is and so you have made up your own version of it and are then using that version of it to argue against science.

There it is. No analogies or anything

Oh, and those web sites I linked to were only Wikipeida and were only so that you could learn about logical fallacies (that is incorrect logic and arguments). Your biggest problem is that you don't understand what science is, but your most common mistake is that you keep using logical fallacies when trying to deliver a logical argument.

In fact, you misunderstanding of science has lead you into a logical fallacy as you created a Strawman Argument against science by creating your own version of science that is very different to what science actually is.

I would suggest that please do your homework first and find out what was the first, second and third formula that was created by man.

Mathematics goes back thousands of years (in fact the origin is not actually known). So the first, second and third formulas created by man are lost to history. :doh:

So what exactly do you mean by the first, second and third formulas created by man?

In science, it can not exist without mathematics. But in mathematics, we do not need science in order to exist.

Yes, science uses mathematics as mathematics is a branch of logic and science is based on a logical approach to describe reality. Science can exist without mathematics, it just can't exist without logic (but as maths is part of logic...).

Now, with Maths, it can be used to describe reality, but it can also be used to describe things that can not exist in reality.

As an example, take a Kline bottle, this is a Mathematical object where the inside of the bottle is also the same as the outside of the bottle. Now, something like this is mathematically possible, but it could never actually exist in reality.

So Reality can be described by a subset of Mathematics, but there exist things is mathematics that are outside of Reality.

As science is about developing a description of reality, this means that we have to be aware that just because something can be constructed mathematically, it does not then follow that it must also be a description of reality.

No matter how prefect your maths is, if what you are describing is not possible in reality, then you can not be describing reality. :doh:

Please explain them thoroughly why do you think that my theory is wrong and what evidence do you have to back up your claims or my claims.

I did, but it seems that because what I posted disagrees with what you want to believe, then you find something insignificant (like the fact that I posted links to references and actual evidence to support my claims) and so you seem to feel justified in ignoring it. :-(

your theory is wrong because you:

1) Do not show that there are observations (evidence) that contradicts currently accepted theories.

2) Use logical fallacies to support your position.

3) Make mistakes in the basic mathematics used in the presentation of your theory.

4) Have demonstrated an ignorance about what the scientific method actually entails (and yet claim that you are doing science).

How are those reasons? :rolleyes:

lawsinium · August 18, 2008

That is the problem with you guys who always claim that you really know science very well, but your slip is showing. OMG.

"your theory is wrong because you:

1) Do not show that there are observations (evidence) that contradicts currently accepted theories.

2) Use logical fallacies to support your position.

3) Make mistakes in the basic mathematics used in the presentation of your theory.

4) Have demonstrated an ignorance about what the scientific method actually entails (and yet claim that you are doing science)."

How can you claim that my theory is wrong since in the first place you have not read my theory yet. (remember scientific methodology : you need to state the problem, gather your data before making conclusions - I learned this concept when i was a first grader). Currently the big bang theory, which is now use as the basis in the scientific community (the other cult) as the answer to evolution of the universe, is being refuted by NASA itself. So do I still use this as a basis? If I based my theory with an erronoeous theory, does it fall under logical fallacy? You do not need any evidence to prove that my theory is right at all since you see them and experience them in your day to day living. It is constant, like Pi! It will always be the same until the end of time - the theory of everything. NOT like scientific theories that always change overtime. You just do not notice them because you just evaluate things in a few seconds or maybe in a few minutes, try doing them 20/7 and sleep 4 hrs. It is like the air that you breathe or the pencil speeding up in your table or the burning books in your shelves. If you do not get these, try my advice below - afterall you do not need methodology to prove them.

Another problem with you guys is that you always use the tricks of your trade. You try to change the nature of your mathematical approach just to make sure that your theory will FIT TRUE (remember Einstein great blunder about cosmological constant). You have just done this in my derivation! It is like religion, they suppress the real chapters of their book that contradicts their ideology. You are like the charlatant of the medieval today or like quack magicians that use redirection methodology to make everyone believe that they have discovered a great scientific breakthrough.

You look to be true but I am sorry dude, but you are not. You might be doing your homework, but you need to balance your thoughts and just do not take one side of the spectrum. You might hate religion because you believe in science. You might hate science because you believe in religion. But what if both of their teachings or ideologies are wrong and you are already indoctrinated? Where do you go next? Or can you accept other ideas - new concepts that are extraordinary like my declaration that god is just a part of the evolution of creation?

And i think you can not still get it about scientific methodology dont you. :doh: You do not always need this tool in order to prove something is right or wrong. This is just one of the tools scientists use when they approach certain scientific challenges. How will you set up a methodology if you want to prove Pi? Which circle is the controlled and which one is the experimental? Can I not make my control as experimental and experimental my control? I think I can and can not, because the result will always be 3.1416+. That is why I do not believe in the methodology of science and its ideology. It does not give a result that is always CONSTANT. (experimental results are only good in a certain environment like earth, but Pi will always be true even you take it out to space and beyond)

BTW, what is your stand about god. Do you believe in god and why.

what is your stand about souls. do you believe in spirit and why

If you do, then you do not need to explain your position. It just tells me you have been indoctrinated and most probably you do not have any ideas how our brain and body sensors work! Maybe you can start studying what happens when you first insert your car key and start it! Which component starts first, which one follows next and so on and so forth. What happen to the other system? And make sure you follow your scientific methodology. Just teasing you!

Honestly, you are really good in arguments, I like the way we exercise our minds, and maybe next time use them to refute my theory about Creation by laws rather to those things that I already know.

Edited August 18, 2008 by lawsinium

Edtharan · August 19, 2008

How can you claim that my theory is wrong since in the first place you have not read my theory yet.

This just confirmed point Number (1). The point was that you have not shown evidence against current theory and for your theory, because you have not even presented your theory (otherwise how would we know if the evidence you present supports or denies your theory).

Actually you have presented your theory, just not formally presented it. You presented it by the position you are arguing for (and against).

If you haven't even shown us your theory, how can we say if it right or not. Yet you ask us to accept your theory based solely on your claim that it is more correct than we currently have. You are asking us to take it on faith that your theory is correct without us even seeing what your theory is.

Faith is not science. :doh:

Further more, the other requirement was that you provide evidence that show the current theory is incorrect. You could do that even without showing us your theory at all. But you haven't even done that. :doh:

(the other cult)

This, is called a Strawman and is a logical fallacy. Which brings me to point number (2)

If I based my theory with an erronoeous theory, does it fall under logical fallacy

It is not a logical fallacy to do this, because you might not have made any mistakes in your logic. However, it does mean that your conclusions might (read virtually never, but you might have got lucky) not actually be correct.

Even then if you were somehow luck and you were correct, because your theory was based on incorrect data it is not a very useful theory because it won't work for any other situation.

Showing that a theory is based of incorrect data (or other theories) is one way scientists use to build evidence against a theory.

Think of it this way. If you were convicted of a crime you didn't do because the judge based their decision on evidence that was presented but shown to be fabricated (but still convicted you anyway), would you have a problem with that?

It is the same with science. If a theory is presented that is based on something already known to be untrue, why would you accept that theory?

If I presented a theory that required Pink Unicorns to exist, and there is no evidence for pink unicorns, should you accept my theory? No. :doh:

You do not need any evidence to prove that my theory is right at all since you see them and experience them in your day to day living.

If you are claiming to do science you do. However, if you encounter proof in day to day living, then that is observational evidence. If you can then show a definite link between the observations and your theory (ie that the association is not just down to a misunderstanding: as Correlation does not imply Causation - a logical fallacy if you think it does).

Another problem with you guys is that you always use the tricks of your trade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This is an Ad hominem argument. A logical fallacy. You claim that Scientists use "Tricks of the Trade" but then when you state what those trick are, they turn out to what makes it actually work and are not tricks at all (ie finding that if you made a mistake, you attempt to fix that mistake).

But to top it off, you yourself use them to argue your point. :confused: :eek:

Seriously. You can't have this double standard. Either you call them tricks and you can't use them your self, or accept that they aren't tricks and you can then use them.

You might hate religion because you believe in science. You might hate science because you believe in religion.

An Ad Hominem and a Strawman rolled into one.

I do not hate religion because I believe in science.

For starters I don't "believe" in science. I understand science and know about logic and rational arguments. It is through this that I know how science works and agree with its principles. I do not "Believe" in it at all, at least not like you are implying as a kind of "Cult" or "Religion".

Also, just because someone is religious does not mean that they hate science. I have a friend that is an Anglican Minister and is very much into science.

It seems your prejudice is showing.

Currently the big bang theory, which is now use as the basis in the scientific community (the other cult) as the answer to evolution of the universe, is being refuted by NASA itself.

Part of what science does is to question everything. Even itself.

First you demand that Science question the big bang theory, but when it does so you claim that it must therefore be wrong. :confused: :eek: :doh:

Calling the Scientific Community a "Cult" is called an ad hominem argument and is a logical fallacy. It is also a Appeal to emotion as you are implying that cults are bad (the emotion is fear), and Appeal to Emotion is also a Logical fallacy.

And i think you can not still get it about scientific methodology dont you. You do not always need this tool in order to prove something is right or wrong. This is just one of the tools scientists use when they approach certain scientific challenges.

This is about my point number (4).

The Scientific Method is the tool with which scientist gauge whether or not they are describing reality. The scientific method is a "Reality Check". That is they come up with a beautiful new theory, and the check if it matches with reality.

The theory might be perfectly mathematically correct, and right. But if it doesn't actually describe reality, then it can not be called a description of reality. :doh:

You claim that I don't know what the scientific method entails, but then you use a strawman argument to show that I don't. What you are really saying is that I am not following what you think the scientific method is. However, as it has been shown, it is you that have the wrong idea of what the scientific method actually is. It has also been shown that my concept of the Scientific method is the same as what is called the scientific method be scientists.

So, who do you think is a better judge of that is the Scientific Method: You, or Scientists trained in the Scientific Method?

Me? I would take those that have been taught what the scientific method is as the ones who know that the scientific method is.

I am not stating here weather or not the scientific method is right or wrong, or that your approach is right or wrong. Only that what you think the scientific method is, is wrong.

This is your biggest mistake and your biggest hang-up. You can't seem to understand or accept that what you think the scientific method is, is incorrect. Once you understand this, and only when you understand this can we even begin to examine your theory with the scientific method, and only when you understand what the scientific method actually is can you raise objections about it.

Until then any argument you present about the scientific method is just a Strawman. A strawman is creating an argument against a position by constructing an incorrect representation about the position you are arguing against. And, as you are arguing against your own incorrect understanding of the scientific method, this counts as a strawman.

You try to change the nature of your mathematical approach just to make sure that your theory will FIT TRUE (remember Einstein great blunder about cosmological constant).

Yes. This proves that it is not your reputation, not you intelligence, not how mainstream, not how different and not your fame that determines if a theory is correct. But, only if you have evidence for your theory and evidence against the accepted theory.

Einstein added in the cosmological constant because he believed that the universe was static. hen when evidence came in that the universe was not static, he realised that the cosmological constant that he had included did not describe reality, so therefore he change his theory to fit with Observed Reality. That is Science, and that is the Scientific Method.

Later when it was shown that there was a discrepancy in the observed Reality and the theory, it was found that a term had to be added to make the theory fit with observed reality. This factor that needed to be added was similar to Einstein "cosmological Constant", but not exactly the same (different cause and different size), but was similar enough to call it the same name (it is confusing, I know, but just because it is confusing, it does not make it wrong).

That is Science in action. It is attempting to describe Reality, so if theory disagrees with reality then it is the theory that is wrong and they adjust it to make sure that it is a description of reality.

What is wrong about that?

You might have heard of the old saying: If it ain't broke, then don't fix it.

Well when it is shown to be "broke" then you should fix it. :doh:

they suppress the real chapters of their book that contradicts their ideology.

Only if you consider the "Book" in this analogy as being "Reality" and "Chapters" as theories. Then this analogy is true. Yes, science will not accept a theory if it is not a description of reality. :doh:

They suppress the Theories that don't describe reality because the ideology is to come to a description of reality.

How long will it take for you to understand this. The purpose of Science is to develop a description of Reality. Therefore anything that is not a description of reality is not included as Science.

If I was to create a description of your theory, but I kept adding in bits that were not in your theory, would you or would you not try to remove those extra bits?

So If one is attempting to describe reality, would you or would you not want to eliminate those bits that are not found in reality. This is all that the scientific method is doing.

You are trying to argue that if something can be show to be mathematically correct, but not a description of reality, then it must be accepted as a description of reality.

It is simple. If it is not a description of reality, then it is simply not a description of reality.

So my 4th point is: that you don't understand what the scientific method is and what it entails. You just proved it. You call science a Cult (and don't even explain why you think it is a cult), you ask us to accept something as science but then claim that it doesn't and doesn't have to describe anything in reality (ie for it to describe reality it must be subject to testing and produce predictions that attempt to describe reality, but you don't seem to think that this step is important).

But what if both of their teachings or ideologies are wrong and you are already indoctrinated?

Hmm, Is rational though wrong? Should we all act insane? Does 1 + 1 not equal 2?

I can't remember who said it but: "The most Incomprehensible thing about the Universe, is that it is Comprehensible."

Well, we have evolved to take advantage of regular patterns that occur in the Universe. From chemical reactions that is the basis of living organisms, to the regular patterns of Night and Day and to the behaviours of people (language, family, etc).

If we therefore take it that "A priori" that there exist regular patterns in the Universe (if none existed, then we would not exist, as we ourselves are a regular pattern of chemical reactions). Then we can use those patterns as the basis of a method of discovering more about them (and more patterns).

On such pattern is that if you have two separate objects, and put them together, you have a set of objects that is the value of 2. It could have been 3, but that would not be the patterns of this Universe and so sounds like nonsense to us.

This pattern of sets is the basis of all mathematics and logic. We test this each and every time we do any maths, or even observe it occuring in the world around us. Go grab two oranges and place them together and count them.

This set theory pattern seems to hold true for every single object and system in the Universe. Of course, if evidence was presented that this did not hold true, then this would be a major discovery and pretty much everything we know would have to be reassessed (and probably end up being a special case of the new theory).

So science is the process of describing these regular patterns, and it uses these patterns to aid in the discovery of other patterns. Does this mean that it can't detect things that don't conform to those initial patterns? No.

If something was discovered that violated these patterns, then it would stick out (like a sore thumb) from the rest and we would be able to see it. We might not be able to understand it using the initial patterns, but we would be able to see it and know of its existence.

So. What if the Ideology of science is wrong? Then the way that the ideology of science is constructed (the process of discovery patterns, and the assessments of new patterns discovered) would make any errors stand out. Science attempts to bring exceptions into the mainstream.

Religion on the other hand attempts to marginalise exceptions and hide them.

Science is not a religion. Of course, this does not stop someone from constructing a Strawman Argument against Science by calling it a religion or a cult, but to do so is a logical fallacy (and an incorrect representation of what science is). That is a mistake in logic. Which is breaking the pattern of: "1+ 1 =2" that seems (according to all observation, tests, and the fact that we exist) to be Universal.

So, by calling Science a religion (the false logic), you are only doing so because you ignore your very own existence (as your existence is based on the fact there are regular patterns, one of which is that 1+1=2). Either you are wrong, or you don't exist, you pick (oh wait if you don't exist, then you can't pick :rolleyes: :doh: .

try doing them 20/7 and sleep 4 hrs.

Here is something that has been shown. Lack of Sleep causes hallucinations. This brings doubt as to the reliability of this method of observation. Part of science is that experiments (tests) are repeatable. If a method of observation is unreliable, that means that it is not repeatable and therefore not a valid means of observation. Not only that, lack of sleep has been show to be hazardous for your health.

And besides, due to an injury (unstable shoulder caused by a dislocation) I often have sleepless nights (or night with very little sleep), for days at a time (in fact two weeks ago I had a bad reaction to some new pain medication and didn't get much sleep at all that week). I thus full fill this "experiment" of yours, and I still don't see what you are talking about.

(experimental results are only good in a certain environment like earth, but Pi will always be true even you take it out to space and beyond)

Not all mathematics are constant. Would you agree that a Triangle always has 3 straight sides and 3 angles that add up to 180 degrees? Well I can give you an example where this doesn't work.

Take a basket ball. Draw a line from one pole (say the valve) to the opposite side. Now using that line as the base, draw two more lines so as to make a triangle.

Get a protractor and measure the three angles and ad them together. Do they equal more than 180 degrees? Yes.

Also, if you do this in a strong gravitational field you can get a similar response (it is actually less than 180 degrees in a gravitational field). Actually any gravitational field good enough, it is just that here on Earth the gravity is not strong enough to make a visual difference, but it doe make a measurable difference if your instruments are accurate enough (and modern ones can be).

But hang on, part of the proof that the circumference of a circle and it's diameter is related by the fact that the angles in a triangle always ads up to 180 degrees. But I have just shown that it doesn't! :eek:

This is the reason for the scientific method. With the scientific method you have to check it against reality. In reality, because the universe is not totally Euclidean (flat), it means that things like Pi are really more complex than they first appear to be in the limited range of environments we can survive in.

If you adjust the theory of Pi to take into account the non Euclidean nature of reality, you can then adjust the theory of Pi so that it is true in non Euclidean space.

But this is the very thing you have a problem with, with the scientific method. You don't want reality to force us to change a theory, just because we might have got it partially wrong in the first place (due to the limited ability to test it).

A theory is developed based on observed patterns. But these observations don't limit where that pattern might exist, or under what extremes that pattern might be taken to. Experimentation and the Scientific method are designed so as to take and test these patterns under extreme conditions to see if we are only using a simplified (because of the limited environments) theory.

If we find that what we observed is only a subset of a larger pattern (eg: Newtonian gravity is a subset of Einsteinian gravity), then we should change the description of the pattern to take this into consideration.

Euclidean Space is actually a subset of Non Euclidean Space.

The formulas that relate Pi to the Diameter and Circumference (and Area) of a circle only apply to Euclidean space. But this is a simplified version of the formulas that relate Pi to the Circumference and diameter in Non Euclidean space. It can be simplified because the terms in the equations that account for the variations of all the non Euclidean spaces cancel to 0 in Euclidean space.

Now, in your mathematics that you presented, you used the simplified Einsteinian: E = MC^2 equation. Because it was implified, one of the terms looked like the term in another equation. You then thought you saw a link between them.

But. Because it was only a simplification, when you instead take the equation in its full form, this link disappears and is no longer valid.

So, for your maths to be correct, then the equation that you are using to prove them to be correct, must its self be incorrect.

As you said earlier, if you base a theory of something that is incorrect, is it a logical fallacy.

I said that it wasn't a logical fallacy, but it did mean that your conclusion are incorrect (just not a logical fallacy).

So the very mathematics that you used to prove your theory correct, because they are shown to be incorrect, indicate that the theory is also incorrect (as the proof of the theory is derived from those equations).

As Mathematics is a Universal pattern of reality, this means that if something is shown to be mathematically incorrect, then it can not be reality. If it is not reality, then it doesn't exist in this universe.

what is your stand about god. Do you believe in god and why.

God, as described by all religions does not exist. Why, because there is no reliable evidence for his/her/its/their existence. Also, the God described in the Judaic/Muslemic/Christianic religions is not one I would consider worthy of reverence (so that if He did exist, I wouldn't worship him).

If you are proposing a completely new concept of God, then I would hold it to these criteria:

1) Is there any reliable evidence for its existence.

2) Is this Deity worthy of my reverence (however, if it doesn't require it, then this question is not as important).

If there is reliable evidence for a Deity, then I will not deny Its existence. But whether or not It is worthy of reverence will change the way I feel about It if It does exist.

what is your stand about souls. do you believe in spirit and why

Again, lack of evidence. If reliable evidence is presented, then I will accept them as being real. But until there is evidence, I can not accept them as existing.

Now, people tend to get emotionally charged about these concepts (logical fallacy: Appeal to Emotion). So I like yo use an analogy: Money in the Bank.

If I wanted to buy something from you for a lot of money and said that I had money in the bank to pay for it, but I can not prove to you (no evidence - eg: my bank statements show $0 in it) that I do have that money. Would you be willing to give me the expensive item and not ask for it back if there really was no money in my bank account?

I don't think many people, even the very religious one, would agree to that.

lawsinium · August 20, 2008

Ooopppsss, I am sorry that I have not explained to you my theory about the Duality System of Everything. I was thinking that we discussed it already on this thread but it looks like our arguments revolve only on pseudoscience and scientific methodology.

Since you are an expert on scientific methodology, I will be happy if you can dissect and critique the pros and cons of my observations and interpretations about Duality. Let me introduce you to my theory by following your advice about scientific methodology in simplified format.

Problem: Why Things are paired?

Hypothesis: At the very least level (only 2 objects), all things are paired to ensure that the evolution of creation(ism) will continue to take place.

Experimentation: (I would just provide you the output of my experimental procedures, which obviously will list down the steps on how I arrived with my results. Tell me these steps based on your analysis and I will tell you the process as we go along.)

To illustrate this pairing theory which I sometimes called a Family System, I will use the letters of the alphabet as an example. The alphabet pairing is made up of the letter A and its alter pair the letter Z. These letters live in an enclosed system called the Family of Language. These two letters are logistically positioned to coexist as partners. As these letters combine, they group together and transform into words, sentences, paragraphs, books, encyclopedias, libraries. Letters group together and expand to create more different words, words group together and expand to create multiple sentences, sentences create paragraphs, paragraphs create pages, pages create books and books create never ending voluminous information. However, in their exponential transformation and continuous progression, some words become dormant and others become effective and efficient. These letters who are effective and efficient dominate, thrive and survive.

Data: ( This is the summary of all the variables used during experimentation. I classified them into natural and artificial)

I. Artificial - duality duplicated by humans

a) Duality of zero and one (0-1) = created the family of numerals from numbers to html codes.

b) Duality of letter A and its alter pair the Letter Z (A-Z) = created the family of language from words to” information highways”.

c) Duality of metal and wood (metal-wood) = created the family of tools from a simple lever to the space station.

II. Natural - duality created by nature

a) Duality of egg and sperm cells = created the family of living things.

b) Duality of mass and wave = created the family of non-living things, at the least.

c) Duality of long and short waves = created the family of electromagnetic waves where colors is a part.

Interpretation: (To organize the data of my first experiment which is the duality of zero and one, I will place them in a matrix table for analysis. We will assume the Big Bang theory to be the duality of matter-energy as the least basis of this interpretation. This matter and energy pairing will be represented by binary digits 0 and 1. BTW, it is not always true that 1+1 =2; in the binary system the answer is different.)

It is easier to see patterns when you organize your data in a table format. In the third table, note that the first column and the first row are set up to provide reference only, and these numbers can go beyond 9 by following certain rules. In all the tables below, all numbers that you see are generated in the duality of zero and one (matter and energy), and to make it more readable to humans, I substituted this binary with the standard numerals in table 3.

* 0

1 10

Duality of zero and one – the grand family creating a specie called “10”.

00 01

10 11

Duality of the subset family “10” – evolving 4 species; 00, 01, 10, 11. In this family some of them will survive, some will thrive and some will fail. The subfamilies will also evolve like their parental ancestors and their subfamilies and subfamilies and so on will do the same. Note that every species, both parents and products, are simultaneously evolving

* 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

3 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

4 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

5 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

6 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

7 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

8 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Duality of zero and one evolving ( this is the first table above evolving into a more complex families of dualities) – creating all the species known to man. All subsets, like the duality of family “10”, also evolve and follow the matrix of the grand family of zero and one.

Also another way to look at the evolution of matter and energy is to use base-10 instead of base-2. In other words, the process of base 2 can be duplicated exactly using the family of base-10. The logic and the rules are just the same, but the approach is somewhat different. In table 3, if I filled up the second row with all the first basic ten counting numbers (products of evolution), and started placing number 1 (alterpair) in front of each numbers, the group would look like this – 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. So then, after counting from 0 to 9, I have a new set of numbers, following number 9 – 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. If I filled up the third row with all the first basic ten counting numbers again, and started placing number 2 in front of each number, the group would look like this – 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29. Thus, a new set of numbers again has been created. If I follow this set of rules repeatedly, then new sets of numbers will be created forever. This well-organized number system, which is made up of a regiment of numerals, can be a duality of anything that exists in the universe.

Conclusion: Confirmation of the hypothesis.

Reality: If we look at the world we live in, we always find objects in pair. When something goes up most likely it will go down. A magnet has always north and south poles. Electricity runs, when the positive and negative terminals of a battery are connected. We created the word bits, for binary digits zero and one. White and black, A and Z, roots and branches, crest and through, right and left, body and soul, yin and yang, lighting and thunder, yes and no, here and there, e and pi, matter and energy and many more examples could be given possibly with no end. We do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game, these objects can be detected or interpreted by our senses - sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing and dreaming. And as you analyze deeper the evolution of all kinds of pairing, they always follow the seven laws of creation which I sometimes called the Family Life Cycle.

Edtharan · August 20, 2008

Since you are an expert on scientific methodology,

I am not an expert by any stretch, I just know more than you do about it. :cool:

I will be happy if you can dissect and critique the pros and cons of my observations and interpretations about Duality.

Ok, my first impression is that you have been Cherry Picking. This is a logical fallacy where by you either unintentionally or intentionally select information that supports your ideas by ignore the information that contradicts your idea. It is human nature to do this, and that is why you need procedures in place to stop this occuring (this is why the scientific methods as the falsifyability requirement).

There are many exceptions to your proposition of universal duality. For instance there is Gravity. There is no evidence of a negative change to gravity, there is only 1, not 2 aspects to it. As gravity is a fundamental aspect of all matter, this seems to violate your proposition that there exists a duality to all properties.

To illustrate this pairing theory which I sometimes called a Family System, I will use the letters of the alphabet as an example.

However, the letters used in the English language are not the only letters in existence. Not only that, even in languages that use the same (or similar) alphabet, the arrangement of the letters can be different. For your theory about the letters, Z must always be the last letter of the alphabet and A must be the first. Not only that, as you propose the rest of the alphabet is derived from these two letters (A and Z). This means that if you change the other letters positions, then you have changed the rules to which A and Z combine.

a) Duality of zero and one (0-1) = created the family of numerals from numbers to html codes.

The number 0 was not invented for a long time, long after all the other integer numbers. So, if as you propose, all other numbers were derived from 0 and 1, then how could this have occurred if 0 wasn't invented until after the rest of them.

b) Duality of letter A and its alter pair the Letter Z (A-Z) = created the family of language from words to” information highways”.

As stated above, the English alphabet is not the only alphabet possible and even then, the English alphabet has not always had the letters in the same order (with new ones coming in and some letters being discarded.

An interesting one is: "Ye". Originally there was a letter that has now been lost from the English alphabet that looked like a "b" and "p" superimposed (it was called "thorn" and does vaguely look like a "Y"). This letter was for our sound "Th", not "Y". You might have seen this in many things trying to look like they are from the Middle ages. Things like "Ye Oldde Shoppe" and such. However, it should be pronounced: "The Oldde Shoppe". As this letter is no longer used, the letter Y (which at the time was similar in shape to thorn and was under used) was substituted.

c) Duality of metal and wood (metal-wood) = created the family of tools from a simple lever to the space station.

Can you explain why metal and wood are a duality? I don't understand why you think they are a pair? Why not Metal and Air, or Metal and Water, Or Air and Wood? There are so many other pairing that could have been made here that I wouldn't consider this a "Pair" as such. This is seem to be one of the biggest incidents of Cherry Picking in your argument.

a) Duality of egg and sperm cells = created the family of living things.

For a long time there was no Male and Female. This "Duality" is really not a very good one. Even today there are many organisms that reproduce asexually (with no eggs or sperm). And I am not just talking about micro organisms. There is a species of Lizard that has only females and reproduces asexually, they have evolved males (and therefore sperm) out of it entirely.

b) Duality of mass and wave = created the family of non-living things, at the least.

What is the difference between living and non living? Living systems are just made up of non living atoms.

There was a theory long ago (well not specifically a scientific theory, but it was tested using scientific principles), called "Elan Vital" (which means living force), where they believed that there was some unknown force that made non living matter and living matter different. However, since no experiments have been able to find evidence (either direct or indirect) of this Elan Vital, and that there has been evidence to show that it is not needed for living systems, then this theory has been removed because it does actually describe reality (even though it was a very good and self consistent theory, it just failed on the reality test).

Also, this duality between Matter and Wave could just be down to our preconceived notions that matter and waves are two different phenomena. This would be based on the fact that in the macroscopic world, they do appear to be two separate things. But we know that in the realm of atomic and sub atomic particles, what goes on in the macroscopic world is not necessarily the same.

Matter and Waves might be derived products of a single object or behaviour. Much as Temperature and pressure are derived products from the motion of atoms. As current theories (and experiments) are supporting this, using an out of date assumption is not very supportive of your theory.

c) Duality of long and short waves = created the family of electromagnetic waves where colors is a part.

Like the Alphabet thing, you are constructing this "Duality" without actually explaining why it is a duality. What is worse, waves are not a duality, but a continuum.

Like you have explained, a duality is like Positive and Negative charges, Binary 0 and 1, and so forth. These are discreet values, however,waves are not discrete, but are continuous (they form a continuum). You seem to be using two completely different definitions of Duality (one where there are two states and one where there are two extremes).

We will assume the Big Bang theory to be the duality of matter-energy as the least basis of this interpretation.

This assumption can't just be made. You will have to explain why you make it and provide evidence for it. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory that states this, so it actually means that this is your creation and says nothing about the Big Bang theory.

Duality of the subset family “10” – evolving 4 species; 00, 01, 10, 11. In this family some of them will survive, some will thrive and some will fail. The subfamilies will also evolve like their parental ancestors and their subfamilies and subfamilies and so on will do the same. Note that every species, both parents and products, are simultaneously evolving

Ok, now you are misunderstanding Evolution.

Evolution requires 4 things:

1) Reproduction

2) Inheritance

3) Variation

4) Selection

The first two means that something (It does not have to be an organism, or even alive), must be able to make a copy of itself and that copy must take its traits from its parent(s).

Number 3 means that the copy is not a perfect copy.

And 4 means that there is some method that removes some individuals from the group while letting others continue on, and that his must be based on the traits of the individuals.

Now, looking at those charts, there is none of this. There is no section in that. If they can combine to make one, the they combine to make all, and there is none that are removed form the group. It is all or none (and as there is, then there can not be none).

There is no selection going on, so there is no evolution going on. :doh:

This well-organized number system, which is made up of a regiment of numerals, can be a duality of anything that exists in the universe.

Again, I am not sure you know what the meaning of "Duality" is. It means that there is exactly Two of something. It comes from the Latin: Duo, meaning two (Duo is actually the name of the Latin number 2, just like our number 2 is spelt "two").

Conclusion: Confirmation of the hypothesis.

No. At bets all you have done is demonstrate (not even prove) that mathematics is based of a regular pattern. You have discovered that if you lay out numbers in a regular way based on the pattern that the number system is based on, then you end up with a pattern.

You have just shown that if you follow a pattern, then you end up with a patter. There is nothing surprising or overly amazing about that, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the big bang or Evolution (or even creationism). :doh:

If we look at the world we live in, we always find objects in pair.

This is just plain wrong. There are some many examples where this is not the case. I used gravity earlier, but here is another: Quarks. These subatomic particles come in 3 charges (called Red, Green and Blue because they had no idea what else to called them, I suppose they cold have called them A, B and C, but that is a bit unimaginative).

This completely blows this out of the water. You sat that we "always find objects in pairs". As this clearly shows that they don't always, come in pairs, then this claim by you must also be wrong. As your theory requires this statement to be true, then it must also mean that your theory must also be wrong. :doh:

roots and branches,

What about leaves, flowers, bark, heartwood, sapwood, sap, and everything else that goes into making up a plant?

body and sou

There is no evidence that the souls exists, so it can't actually be included in this list. This would make it "Body" with no duality. Hmm, another cause where there is no duality, yet your theory requires that duality always exists.

yin and yang

Now this is called circular reasoning. Yin and Yang were created to represent the Dualities that do exist, but then you are using this as a duality to priove that dualities exist. This is a logical fallacy called Circular Reasoning.

here and there

Cherry Picking. What about Elsewhere, Nowhere, Everywhere?

many more examples could be given possibly with no end.

The thing is there are just as many counter examples. It is only if you ignore the counter examples (cherry picking) that you end up thinking that Duality exists everywhere, when in fact it doesn't, and as your theory is about Duality being everywhere, any one single counter example disproves your theory.

We do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game

The game isn't about finding matches, it is about trying to find things that disprove your theory. Only looking for matches is called Cherry Picking (and as I have stated, you have been doing a lot of this), and Cherry Picking is not science.

Sure, it allows you to look for what might be a new discovery, but once you have discover something, you have to check that it really is there. The way to do this is to make sure there is nothing that disproves what you think you have discovered. If you find evidence that disproves what you think you have found, then it means that you haven't actually found anything.

We do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game, these objects can be detected or interpreted by our senses - sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing and dreaming.

Dreaming is not a reliable method of observation. Dreaming can't be reproduced, and further more, dreaming is not reality (and as the purpose of science is to discover what reality is , then this is completely useless in determining what reality is).

Even then, our senses can be fooled very easily. Our senses don't exist to give us a description of reality, but only exist to allow us to function as an organism. As an example have a look at this: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=490946 .

Also, there are many optical illusions that exist (and other sensory illusions too), so our senses are not completely reliable and not very accurate (that is why scientists spend lots of money building complex and powerful machines, so that they can take the place of our senses).

Science demands repeatability, so unreliable observations can not be used as they are by definition unrepeatable.

And as you analyze deeper the evolution of all kinds of pairing, they always follow the seven laws of creation which I sometimes called the Family Life Cycle.

Be careful that you are not over analysing something. Over analysing something will lead you to see patterns where none really exist.

Also, I don't know those seven laws you are talking about, would you be kind enough to post them here so we know what we are talking about. Threads are supposed to be kept separate (according to the rules of the forum), so just because someone might have posted something in another thread does not mean that everyone who reads this thread will have read the other threads.

lawsinium · August 21, 2008

My philosophy in life is “Always go back to the basics”. I believe in this statement for a simple reason: if you like to know how things work, you need to learn the basic principle and basic parts of that machine and later learn the more complex parts. (Remember the key in your car!) And I believe this premise is what scientists use to determine the origin of our existence. They try dissecting the smallest detected particle, for they believe that this is the solution in finding the “fingerprints of life”. (aside from looking an alternative source for energy) But they are looking in a different direction or their premise is wrong. Obviously the fingerprints of life, which existed way back the birth of the universe, are all over the place until today, but they think otherwise.

And my philosophy is what I used as a basis to prove my theory. I presented to say the LEAST the natural and artificial duality that created by nature and duplicated by man. It does not matter what will be the by-products of a new evolving families after these six basic dualities e.g. what is the alter pair of gravitons (there is but I do not know yet and actually it does not matter at all). What is important here is that if I can prove the six least families of duality is true, everything after these six examples will mean that my theory is applicable to anything found in the universe. My theory of duality is also backed up by a set of rules/requirements (the Seven Laws of Creation), where you already pointed out four of them. But are these six elementary dualities important. It just like you asking me: Is there a difference between living and non living? It does not matter at all, there are no differences, because they evolve to the same ancestors and therefore they will always possess the attributes of their ancestral parent. That is why I called both living and nonliving to have “life”.

What I am implying here again is that if this theory and rules work to this set of basic(first,original) families, it will work to all other succeeding families too. So I do not care whether it is Chinese, Japanese, hieroglyphics or some kind of alphanumerical, or other “species”, what is important is that the theory is universal. Actually I do not need to explain to you the six variables that I classified artificial and natural, since it merits little to serve as evidences. It just so happened that the examples I used are common dualities that we observed day to day and I selected them too for the common people to easily understand. However, these family dualities do not really matters since it is only one of the seven instinctive laws that I have analyzed and experimented to prove that my theory is feasible. Analyzing 20/7 lead me to see common patterns to all my variables.

I used the big bang theory as the basis of my duality since this is the accepted theory the scientific community is endorsing. If the big bang theory, which provides matter and energy as the end product is correct, then all things in the universe evolved from it. Like my Duality theory, which also provides matter and energy (and “god”) as the end product, then it is also correct that all things in the universe evolved from it. So I do not need to defend all other six variables at all or the “root and branches or What about leaves, flowers, bark, heartwood, sapwood, sap, and everything else that goes into making up a plant? “ But I assure you they have an alter pair, it just that it was not looked and studied deeper yet because I am introducing a new concept of creationism.

Also, just like all other else that are subjected to evolution, duality also evolves to a more complex process. It can be a triality, a quadlity and so forth and so on. A good example, which evolved from the duality of black and white, are colors. Some of them evolved to more complex families of RGB. From the triality of this RGB family, which started from the primary colors of a rainbow, to our television sets, to our monitors, they are now evolving in the world of html codes. But is triality does matter? No, because it is not the BASIC(first,original) part of the evolution. So will I concern myself about “there is no evidence of a negative change to gravity, the letters used in the English language are not the only letters in existence, number 0 was not invented for a long time”? My answer is NO!. The fact of the matter is that if the principle(theory) works since the birth of the first duality of family, it will also work today (check again my six variables). The timeline roughly looks like this: It started with the big bang(matter and energy), frequency(long and short) comes next to the picture, living things (egg and sperm) propagate, numbers (0 and 1) were discovered, language( a-z) followed next, and tools (metal and wood) were invented. My duality of family comes before the big bang!

You asked: “Can you explain why metal and wood are a duality? I don't understand why you think they are a pair? Why not Metal and Air, or Metal and Water, Or Air and Wood? Even today there are many organisms that reproduce asexually.”

There are four natural elements known the first time man evolved: air, fire, water and earth. Earth brought forth metals and woods, for man to discover and to use. Henceforth, the family of tools was created from this duality. Why not the other combinations, they did form a duality but they are not successful or maybe they survive but they did not thrive. (remember your requirements regarding evolution, you have four I have seven and they fall under the laws of creation or I called the Family Life Cycle ). With regards to asexually, if inorganic matters survived and thrived to become living things what more about asexually. I am a proponent too to the dualities of Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight. They should not be regarded as different since all of us have the same common origin or ancestors or particles that we inherited since the birth of the universe and we follow the same Grand Instinctive Laws of Evolution. There are standard man-made norms that we follow, but the happiness of anybody should not be taken from them. After all, it is not only sex that makes a partnership survive, companionship and care contribute the most in order for a relationship to last. And because of this theory of duality and its laws you will be surprised that pairing is not only for man and woman in order to grow and multiply (remember the six variables). Everything in this world can spontaneously propagate and exponentially transform by simply following the natural seven laws of family duality.

My game here is about finding matches at the least level, and you can help me by finding things that disprove my theory. It is not unintentionally or intentionally that I selected information that will support my ideas by ignoring the information that will contradict my claims. In the first place I have not thought even a single moment about things that will contradict my claims since my main objective is really to prove that creation is governed by instinctive intelligence I called The Laws in Nature, although my theory started by labeling pairs into posicles(positive particles) and negacles(negative particles).

“Matter and Waves might be derived products of a single object or behaviour. Much as Temperature and pressure are derived products from the motion of atoms. As current theories (and experiments) are supporting this, using an out of date assumption is not very supportive of your theory.” This is a piece that I need to give more attention. Thank you for giving me a heads up here. However, in the Family Life Cycle, the Law of Transcedent governs. It speaks that species in a family duality, though created equal, submit each self to one another to take control and be controlled. (the material photons become light energy or vice versa depending who is in control, matter can be energy or vice versa)

Cherry picking is a nice way to match a cherry with another cherry, but the problem is you can not match all the cherries in a tree all at the same time in a day. What more if these cherries are in a cosmological orchard.

"The universe evolved from nothing and something; and has most of this elements until today."...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

Edited August 21, 2008 by lawsinium

Edtharan · August 21, 2008

There are four natural elements known the first time man evolved: air, fire, water and earth.

For starters, Fire is not an Element, it is not even an object. It is instead a process. :doh:

What do I mean by Process? Well Fire as we know it, is the glow of a gas as it radiates thermal energy.

Elements are the different atoms. Stable combinations of Protons and Neutrons in the Nucleus and electrons surrounding the nucleus.

Those elements that you are talking about have been discredited for over 100 years. They have been shown not to exist as that. It is an out dated and disproved concept. Reality is not like that.

Also, those "Elements" that you stated are not the only "Elements" that people have proposed. In ancient China there were 5 elements, not 4. They were: Metal, Wood, Fire, Water and Earth. In Japan they also have 5 elements and these were: Earth, Water, Fire, Wind and Void.

So who is right in their list of elements, You, the ancient Europeans, The ancient Chinese, the ancient Japanese, or the Scientists?

There is evidence that contradicts, you, the Europeans, the Chinese and the Japanese. But none contradicts the Scientists (in relation to the elements being stable combinations of protons, neutrons and electrons).

So the others fail the Reality test, but the scientists, don't. The golden rule is: If reality contradicts something, then reality wins.

reality contradicts all those theories about elements except the scientists one. Therefore Reality Wins and the scientists are right.

My philosophy in life is “Always go back to the basics”.

Mine is: Reality is always right.

They try dissecting the smallest detected particle, for they believe that this is the solution in finding the “fingerprints of life”.

No, they don't do this to find the "Fingerprints of life", but to understand reality.

Life is a process. They already know the basics of that process and they know it doesn't occur with fundamental particles. They just don't have complex enough interactions to by themselves.

When scientists search for the fundamental particles, it is not life they are searching for, but how reality works.

But they are looking in a different direction or their premise is wrong.

This is why this is a strawman argument. What you have done is claim that scientists are looking for life in subatomic particles, and then argue that this is not where they will find life.

Guess what, not even the scientists think they will find life there. They are not looking for life in the subatomic realm. This also means all your arguments against science and their search for life in the subatomic realm is flawed and does not actually apply.

Their premise is wrong IF they are searching for life in the subatomic realm, BUT since they AREN"T searching for life in the subatomic realm, then that argument is completely invalid.

My theory of duality is also backed up by a set of rules/requirements (the Seven Laws of Creation)

What are those 7 laws. Could you put them in Point form. I do not know what 7 laws you are talking about. :doh:

What I am implying here again is that if this theory and rules work to this set of basic(first,original) families, it will work to all other succeeding families too.

It is more complex than that. First, you have to show that the set of basic rules actually correspond to reality. Then you have to think about complex systems and emergence.

Emergence is where the processes that go on in a system give rise to "meta" rules that govern the large scale behaviours of the system.

For instance, take these rules:

1) Using a Chess board (or something bigger, but has the same grid structure).

2) Apply the following rules to each square in turn.

3) If exactly 3 squares adjacent to a square have a counter in them, then place a counter in the current square if it doesn't have one already.

4) If exactly 2 squares adjacent to a square have a counter in them, then do not remove or place a counter in this square.

5) In all other cases remove the counter in this square.

Now, these rules are fairly simple, but they form a complex system.

From those rules, can you say whether or not a Universal Turing Machine (you computer is one form of Universal Turning Machine) can be created in that environment?

No. You can't. Also, how could you create one. There are no logic gates in there (the core principle behind computation).

Actually, it has been shown that you can create a Universal Turing Machine using those rules, but it is not a simple thing.

First they had to use the rules to create objects/patterns that could move around (they called these Gliders). Then they had to create something that could produce those Glider patterns without being disrupted in the process. These they called Glider Guns. Next they had to modify the glider guns so as to be able to be turned on and off. Finally, they had to arrange those glider guns and gliders into patterns that interacted with each other.

So the first order of Rules are the ones that I wrote down. The next order of rules, the first level of Meta Rules, was the behaviours of the gliders and glider guns, the next order of Meta rules was that of the interactions between within the system of gliders and glider guns interacting. Lastly the final order of Meta Rules was the program that the had the Glider/Glider Gun computer run initially basic maths, but they have "Written" more complex program for it to run, including an implementation of the very rules that allowed them to create that system in the first place (in other words, it was complex enough to simulate itself :eek: ).

What I am getting at here, is that you assumption: "if this theory and rules work to this set of basic(first,original) families, it will work to all other succeeding families too." Can not just be accepted as fact. It has to be tested and confirmed first. Until then it is an Unfounded assumption, not fact. Base your arguments on facts, not assumptions presented as facts.

Actually I do not need to explain to you the six variables that I classified artificial and natural, since it merits little to serve as evidences.

Actually you do. You stated them as evidence that supported your theory. In fact, it underpinned the entire argument you put forward in your last post.

Now, however, once it was shown that this entire argument is flawed, you are Shifting the Goal Posts (an other Logical Fallacy). Not only that, you are Cherry Picking (logical fallacy) again. You are only accepting evidence that agrees with you, but if there is evidence against you, you dismiss it as something that: "does not matter at all".

This was the basis of my counter argument against you. That you have been cherry picking the data to fit your concepts, but ignoring the evidence that falsifies your position.

It is not just science that this is important in. It is important with law as well. Let me give you and example:

Say you were on trial for a robbery. You might have visited the scene of the crime a short while before it happened (it might have been a friends house). This measn they find your finger prints and DNA at the scene of the crime.

However, you friend had Security cameras installed and there is evidence on them that you didn't commit the crime.

What would you say if the Judge dismissed that camera footage as something that "does not matter at all", because it contradicted their initial premise that you committed the crime based on the fact that your fingerprints and DNA were found at the crime scene.

Now, can you understand why it is important to look for evidence that contradicts your position, more so that evidence that support it?

You presented an argument that, in that post, you argued was the very basis of your theory. But I gave evidence that disputed it. Not you are saying that that whole argument was not really your argument.

If it wasn't your argument, then why did you present it at all? And why did you present it in such a way as to appear to be the cornerstone of your entire premise? :confused:

I used the big bang theory as the basis of my duality since this is the accepted theory the scientific community is endorsing.

But you haven't used the Big Bang theory at all. You have used some concoction of your own. What you have presented as being the Big Bang theory is not the Big Bang theory as is understood by the rest of the World.

This is called Strawmanning and is a logic fallacy. :doh:

what is the alter pair of gravitons (there is but I do not know yet and actually it does not matter at all).

It does if there are none and your theory states that there should be. It matters greatly.

If anti gravitons existed, then we should see the effects of them. There is an opposite charge and we see this occuring and the effects of it, and not all matter has electric /magnetic charges or is even effected by it. But all matter has and is effected by gravity. So if there is an equal and opposite to gravity, then we should have seen it by now.

This is a big hole in your theory. Your theory states that they should be an opposite to gravity, but there has never been any observations where by there has been an opposite to gravity. Not even when we look throughout the universe with telescopes. Not 1 example in a sphere roughly 16 billion light years in radius (32 billion light years in diameter). Not 1 :eek: .

That is a big volume and not 1 example. And that volume is the entire known Universe (ie Reality). This means that there is no evidence to actually support this claim, and as your theory states that there will always be an opposite, then it kind of disproves your theory.

The fact of the matter is that if the principle(theory) works since the birth of the first duality of family

Sure, IF your theory is correct, then that would be an acceptable conclusion (based on what I know of your theory), but here is the clincher. Does your theory describe actual reality? Well according to the evidence I have presented, it doesn't.

You can have a completely consistent and correct "theory", but if it doesn't correspond to reality, then it is not real.

I am not saying whether or not your theory is self consistent, or that it is mathematically correct or not (although I have concerns over its mathematical correctness). What I am saying is that there is plenty of evidence that states that your theory is not consistent with Reality.

This is from personal experience here. It is possible to create a perfectly consistent model and for it to be completely mathematically correct, but it can still not correspond to reality. My experience of this? I am a Computer game Developer.

A Computer game must be completely self consistent and mathematically correct (the mathematics of algorithms), or it wouldn't run properly (we call them bugs).

Each and every computer game is a self consistent and mathematically correct world. But there are many things that go on in computer games that don't correspond to reality.

So, just because someone develops a theory that is self consistent and mathematically correct, does not mean it therefore has to correspond with reality (or otherwise Mario and Luigi are going to have to stand trial for mass murder - poor goombas ).

Reality trumps everything. If something disagrees with reality, then reality wins (so long as you are trying to describe reality).

But I assure you they have an alter pair, it just that it was not looked and studied deeper yet because I am introducing a new concept of creationism.

Evidence. Supply evidence, not ask for faith.

If you are presenting a new theory of creation, it has to explain all observations made so far. If 1 single observation contradicts it, then it can't be correct. The current Big Bang theory explains all observations made so far (but this does not exclude future observations disproving it, it is just that any new theory would also have to explain at least as much as the current theory does).

you can help me by finding things that disprove my theory.

But when I do, you dismiss them, also, you dismiss the argument that you presented that the evidence contradicts.

It is just like me claiming that I have a red ball in my left hand, then when my left hand is open and no red ball is shown to be there, that I then state that I didn't actually claim that a red ball was in my left hand.

If you claim something, and that claim is show to be false, then just accept that your claim was wrong.

Cherry picking is a nice way to match a cherry with another cherry, but the problem is you can not match all the cherries in a tree all at the same time in a day. What more if these cherries are in a cosmological orchard.

I have respect for you and your arguments, but surely you know that this is not a good argument.

You are using an Equivocation Logical Fallacy to construct a Strawman Fallacy (btw, those links are only to the wikipedia entries on logical fallacies, you might want to read them, but you don't have to).

Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. It is where you only accept evidence that agrees with you and ignore evidence that proves you wrong. It is like the court case scenario I presented earlier in this post. You have to look at all the evidence, not just take the evidence that you want.

Sign In

EXPLORING the Origin of Life and Conscience !

Recommended Posts

lawsinium

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Edtharan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lawsinium

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Edtharan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lawsinium

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Edtharan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lawsinium

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Edtharan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

lawsinium

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Edtharan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Important Information