Is this BEDROCK ? Things will always ultimately get better !

[Strange]

However that area AT and FROM time zero, to begin with is a ' no go ' area for many .

 

 

Because we don't (yet) have any models that work under those conditions. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Quote ( Strange )

 

I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years?

 

Yes , I meant , the universe MUST have an internal structure ( in favour of betterment ) . If there were no internal structure or outside intervention , the universe would have fallen enough to have NOT survived 12 billion years.

 

 

How do you define "better"?

 

 

 

The universe may well be in decline. In fact it obviously is. It is expanding and cooling. Eventually we will not be able to see any other galaxies.

 

On what basis do you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years? Can you show the calculations that lead you to that conclusion?

 

 

 

Again, what does "better" mean?

-------------------------------------------

 

 

What is there, on Earth, that recognises beneficial change?

 

The whole ECO. System.

 

What is there, in stars and galaxies, that can be described as reproduction?

.

Stars have there life 'X' millions of years producing higher atomic number atoms in their insides. As they reach the critical pressure , they often expand as a red giant to explode , and blast their contents across space.

 

Much later these dust clouds condense to become new stars ( reproduction ) .

 

These secondary Suns have more spread of elements , so thus are ' better ' . And so it goes on in cycles of improvement .

 

 

This is a false dichotomy of an unusual sort (usually it's because there is at least one other option). In this case it's because, as Strange has implied, that the terminology is undefined. What's better for you may be worse for me.

 

I was asking about how you came to the conclusion (based on reason, you say) that the universe was designed. This bit doesn't address that.

.

 

I can recognise in my own career the difficulties in getting ' things ' working .

Hence the comments about design in simple things like survival equipment like a 'pump' so the inlaid designs prompt human reason into believing in the evidence of design criteria , such as this correction when things make an improvement .

 

Mike

Edited May 31, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

Quote ( Strange )

 

I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years?

 

Yes , I meant , the universe MUST have an internal structure ( in favour of betterment ) . If there were no internal structure or outside intervention , the universe would have fallen enough to have NOT survived 12 billion years.

 

 

That is just repeating your assertion.

 

WHY would it not last 12 billion years? How did you calculate this? How long would it have lasted?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That is just repeating your assertion.

 

(A) WHY would it not last 12 billion years? (B)How did you calculate this?© How long would it have lasted?

.

 

A. Experienced designers would find in any processing mechanism that resultant outputs would go off target after any reasonable quantity of time . We as civilisation have designed mechanism to serve societies needs as well as individual needs . Our recycling centres are full to bursting with machines that have failed with years activity say 10- 20 years. Not 20 million years . Yet the universe including our earth have reached 5 to 12 billion years .

 

B and C . I could not ( as Laplace said ) and do not need to calculate it. It is an instantaneous , incalculable self stabilising system , that has within its nature , and exists in the fabric of the universe .

 

I believe the philosophers like Decart and Laplace reasoned on this subject . About a possibility of the universe being predictable by a superhuman .

 

If anyone ever needed an example of superb control , integral in the system . This past 13,000,000,000 year running mechanism , is still going , and I would say getting better .

 

There appear to be two counter flowing systems entropy ( going apart ) and counter entropy ( going together ) . I am suggesting the " getting together ' better ' will win or achieve equality .

 

 

Mike

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

.

 

A. Experienced designers would find in any processing mechanism that resultant outputs would go off target after any reasonable quantity of time . We as civilisation have designed mechanism to serve societies needs as well as individual needs . Our recycling centres are full to bursting with machines that have failed with years activity say 10- 20 years. Not 20 million years . Yet the universe including our earth have reached 5 to 12 billion years .

 

 

And why shouldn't it?

 

It seems barely rational to compare the lifetime of the universe to a washing machine. Maybe the lifetime of the universe is a trillion, trillion years and it is still in its initial warranty period.

 

You are making an argument from incredulity. And your argument is ludicrous.

 

B and C . I could not ( as Laplace said ) and do not need to calculate it.

 

 

Then we can dismiss it as baseless. And pointless.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And why shouldn't it?

 

It seems barely rational to compare the lifetime of the universe to a washing machine. Maybe the lifetime of the universe is a trillion, trillion years and it is still in its initial warranty period.

 

You are making an argument from incredulity. And your argument is ludicrous.

 

 

Then we can dismiss it as baseless. And pointless.

.

 

No . I refute your judgement of my argument .

 

It has as its base the history of the Earth . ( let alone the rest of the Universe )

 

It has as its POINT , the very sober point that we have no excuse , we are sitting on the very example of ' things getting better ' . Look at the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago . It was a mess .

 

Although as Laplace said , it is incalculable , the EVIDENCE for the reasoning and argument are in front of our eyes

as ' evidence '. This has far more weight than any possible or impossibility of calculations .

 

EVIDENCE ( BASE ) :-

 

.----------- Getting worse Venus , . ---------------Getting better Earth , ----------------

 

 

( this does not include the current human condition , which needs fixing, I agree )

 

Earth 4 / 4.5 Billion years ago .

Better Earth Now .

 

Mike

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Quote ( Strange )

 

I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years?

 

Yes , I meant , the universe MUST have an internal structure ( in favour of betterment ) . If there were no internal structure or outside intervention , the universe would have fallen enough to have NOT survived 12 billion years.

There's no must here. Just wishful thinking.

 

I can recognise in my own career the difficulties in getting ' things ' working .

Hence the comments about design in simple things like survival equipment like a 'pump' so the inlaid designs prompt human reason into believing in the evidence of design criteria , such as this correction when things make an improvement .

Argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand does not imply some underlying design.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

There's no must here. Just wishful thinking.Argument from incredulity. Just because you don't understand does not imply some underlying design.

.

 

It is not that I do not understand . I have investigated both Astronomy and Geology .

Both amaze me as to the engineering , science , design , some things beyond understanding it is true. But through and through it is an absolutely amazing ' bit of kit ' .

 

Now if all THAT has come from ' Nowhere' then I am a ' monkey's Uncle ' ! There has just got to have been some input , somewhere , for goodness sake . .

 

If no . It would be like landing on a space ship from another world , on this planet earth , and getting out as a visitor , who they then the visitors asking " where did all this infrastructure , technology, transport system , machinery, Internet , I pads, ear pods , throat pads, and goodness knows what " where did it all come from '

 

And we told them " well it just sort of came about , by itself " .. They would think we were stark staring bonkers !

 

Mike

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

.

 

It is not that I do not understand . I have investigated both Astronomy and Geology .

Both amaze me as to the engineering , science , design , some things beyond understanding it is true. But through and through it is an absolutely amazing ' bit of kit ' .

 

Now if all THAT has come from ' Nowhere' then I am a ' monkey's Uncle ' ! There has just got to have been some input , somewhere , for goodness sake . .

 

If no . It would be like landing on a space ship from another world , on this planet earth , and getting out as a visitor , who they then the visitors asking " where did all this infrastructure , technology, transport system , machinery, Internet , I pads, ear pods , throat pads, and goodness knows what " where did it all come from '

 

And we told them " well it just sort of came about , by itself " .. They would think we were stark staring bonkers !

 

Mike

And you can't see how that is argument from incredulity?

[Strange]

Now if all THAT has come from ' Nowhere' then I am a ' monkey's Uncle ' ! There has just got to have been some input , somewhere , for goodness sake . .

 

If no . It would be like landing on a space ship from another world , on this planet earth , and getting out as a visitor , who they then the visitors asking " where did all this infrastructure , technology, transport system , machinery, Internet , I pads, ear pods , throat pads, and goodness knows what " where did it all come from '

 

And we told them " well it just sort of came about , by itself " .. They would think we were stark staring bonkers !

 

 

This is EXACTLY the argument used by Creationists. And just as wrong.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

This is EXACTLY the argument used by Creationists. And just as wrong.

.

 

 

Well then , I think we ought to review the very ,very early in time , foundations of SCIENCE,.

 

Somebody went stark, staring ,bonkers , somewhere along the line somewhere ?

 

Somebody took a wrong turn , way way back , and nobody noticed it. We are up a stream , without a paddle .

 

 

Mike

[Strange]

Well then , I think we ought to review the very ,very early in time , foundations of SCIENCE,.

 

Somebody went stark, staring ,bonkers , somewhere along the line somewhere ?

 

Somebody took a wrong turn , way way back , and nobody noticed it. We are up a stream , without a paddle .

 

 

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you think is wrong. Philosophers of science have spent a lot of time and effort on this subject, so feel free to reference some of their work in your answer.

 

As a starting point, where do you think the problem lies in the following sequence:

 

1. Observe

2. Formulate a hypothesis (a possible explanation) and create a model

3. Test and refine that model by further observations and measurements

4. Publish your results for others to tear apart

5. Go to 1.

 

Note that step 3 avoids the "it looks like it to me so it must be true" trap that you and Creationists love to fall into.

[zapatos]

.

 

No . I refute your judgement of my argument .

 

It has as its base the history of the Earth . ( let alone the rest of the Universe )

 

It has as its POINT , the very sober point that we have no excuse , we are sitting on the very example of ' things getting better ' . Look at the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago . It was a mess .

 

Although as Laplace said , it is incalculable , the EVIDENCE for the reasoning and argument are in front of our eyes

as ' evidence '. This has far more weight than any possible or impossibility of calculations .

 

EVIDENCE ( BASE ) :-

 

.----------- Getting worse Venus , . ---------------Getting better Earth , ----------------

 

 

( this does not include the current human condition , which needs fixing, I agree )

 

Earth 4 / 4.5 Billion years ago .

image.jpeg

Better Earth Now .

image.jpeg

 

Mike

 

Your argument is analogous to saying that things have been getting better in Detroit since its inception, and your proof is to show me the yard of a home that had an unruly lawn on Friday, and a neatly cut lawn on Monday.

 

You cannot pick such a minuscule place and time as the earth, and reasonably argue that it is representative of the universe as a whole. I could just as easily point to a place and time that was once 'better' and is now a dying ember.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you think is wrong. Philosophers of science have spent a lot of time and effort on this subject, so feel free to reference some of their work in your answer.

 

As a starting point, where do you think the problem lies in the following sequence:

 

1. Observe

2. Formulate a hypothesis (a possible explanation) and create a model

3. Test and refine that model by further observations and measurements

4. Publish your results for others to tear apart

5. Go to 1.

 

Note that step 3 avoids the "it looks like it to me so it must be true" trap that you and Creationists love to fall into.

.

I am going to give this post some serious thought.

 

In the meantime, to show I am not ignoring the situation , I have looked into what I suspect is at the root of ' possible ' problems that I could see getting in the way of some science progress in developing the Picture of Reality .

 

That is :-

 

The place of 'Creativity ' in the Science Process ( your 1-5 list above )

 

Link :- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341649/

 

Mike

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

In the meantime, to show I am not ignoring the situation , I have looked into what I suspect is at the root of ' possible ' problems that I could see getting in the way of some science progress in developing the Picture of Reality .

 

That is :-

 

The place of 'Creativity ' in the Science Process ( your 1-5 list above )

 

I don't think creativity works in science without the rigor of study, no matter how much we might wish for it. Once you have the knowledge, you can apply your creativity, but without the foundational information, creativity just flails around with nothing much to talk about.

[Strange]

Interesting paper. It confirms the well known fact that good scientists are highly creative people. Creativity is an essential component of each of the steps above.

 

Err.... so where is the problem?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interesting paper. It confirms the well known fact that good scientists are highly creative people. Creativity is an essential component of each of the steps above.

 

Err.... so where is the problem?

.

 

Creativity has been identified with ' right brain ' style of activity. ( even if it is not always located in the right hemisphere ) . Which to many can be viewed as ' woolly , and 'semi- unscientific , ' as it tends to be thought of as non logical, art'y , non mathematical in origin, not accurate , not specific enough . And yet I have felt and on your prompting read a few reviews about the roll of creativity in the research arena.

 

I Need to do a bit more thinking on this , but I would not be surprised to find that , it is in this area that the ( dichotomy) , if that is the correct word * ) , lays . Uncontrolled creativity , has Been ' frowned on ' by some ( not all ) stalwart science zealots . And yet those articles quoted show that creativity of thought has a vital role to play in research. I can see something interesting coming out of this !

 

Mike

 

*

dichotomy

dʌɪˈkɒtəmi,dɪ-/

noun

1.

a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

"a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"

synonyms: division, separation, divorce, split, gulf, chasm; More

Edited June 1, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

The left-brain, right-brain thing is complete nonsense.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/

 

So it seems you are using a popular myth about the nature of artists and scientists to contradict research.

 

Scientists are - have to be - very creative and imaginative.

 

So any dichotomy only exists in your stereotypes. Not in reality.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The left-brain, right-brain thing is complete nonsense.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/

 

So it seems you are using a popular myth about the nature of artists and scientists to contradict research.

 

Scientists are - have to be - very creative and imaginative.

 

So any dichotomy only exists in your stereotypes. Not in reality.

.

 

With all due respect ' Strange ' , I think you may be dismissing the two styles of thinking , a little hastily . This problem , irrelivent of , how or where in the brain this mental process physically resides, nonetheless has had a universal impact on human behaviour and thinking , since the year ' Dot ' . On a time to time basis , it is possible , and almost essential , for artists and now I would say , scientists too, to put their brain into different ' modes ' at different times . Not even sure what the name is for the logic , based thinking , is ? ( Rational ? Perhaps .

 

This is experimented with in ' art ' by painting , upside down . Not the person , the picture .

 

The two different modes ( right and left brain ) even if this is, as some research has found , not the actual location in the brain , is nonetheless less a ' mode of thinking ' .

 

( scientifically logical mode ) mode 1...........( creatively artistically mode ) mode 2

 

None of these words in brackets are correct in detail , but there is a 'dichotomy ' at play here , which makes for confusion .

 

Men and women often have this issue in there homes , when the man wants to dismantle a machine on the dining room table and the woman wants her bowl of flowers there as it looks aesthetic.

 

Clearly both these modes of thinking are important , that's why we are , what we are ! BUT , BIG BUT .

 

" Houston , I think we have a problem ? "

 

Mike

 

Ps . Here is proof ! I was on my way to an art lesson , thinking about art and how I could create a nice image in acrylic paint . Oops !

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

With all due respect ' Strange ' , I think you may be dismissing the two styles of thinking , a little hastily .

 

 

I didn't say anything about "styles of thinking". (Although I am sceptical that such things exist, I haven't seen any research one way or the other.)

 

 

 

( scientifically logical mode ) mode 1...........( creatively artistically mode ) mode 2

 

None of these words in brackets are correct in detail , but there is a 'dichotomy ' at play here , which makes for confusion .

 

As scientists are (have to be) creative, this dichotomy obviously doesn't exist.

 

Which is one reason I am sceptical about this division. I think it is purely invented, based on false stereotypes.

 

 

 

" Houston , I think we have a problem ? "

 

I still have no idea what you think the problem is. That scientists are not creative? Obviously not true. So where is the problem?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I didn't say anything about "styles of thinking". (Although I am sceptical that such things exist, I haven't seen any research one way or the other.)

 

 

 

As scientists are (have to be) creative, this dichotomy obviously doesn't exist.

 

Which is one reason I am sceptical about this division. I think it is purely invented, based on false stereotypes.

 

 

 

I still have no idea what you think the problem is. That scientists are not creative? Obviously not true. So where is the problem?

.

 

It is not a problem , or at least does not need to be !

 

These appear to be modes of thinking which are ' diacotomy ' style opposed to each other . So can cause a problem if not recognised as such .

Hence my accident in ending up in the ditch while thinking about art !

 

A distinct problem !

 

Mike

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

These appear to be modes of thinking which are ' diacotomy ' style opposed to each other . So can cause a problem if not recognised as such .

Hence my accident in ending up in the ditch while thinking about art !

 

A distinct problem !

 

Mike

 

Your problem seems to have been caused by thinking about another problem while driving.

 

Maybe the answer is that people (artists, scientists or drivers) should just get on with their work, rather than worrying about non-existent dichotomies.

 

BTW, as well as scientists being creative, the best artists are also very rigorous and methodical in their work.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Your problem seems to have been caused by thinking about another problem while driving.

 

Maybe the answer is that people (artists, scientists or drivers) should just get on with their work, rather than worrying about non-existent dichotomies.

 

BTW, as well as scientists being creative, the best artists are also very rigorous and methodical in their work.

?

My early 'inkling ' on this matter is that for creativity to have its sway , it can operate in an orthogonal ( 90 degree ) dimension. In such a way as not to (a) disturb , or be (b) disturbed by the other two orthogonal dimensions that contain , say , rigorous science , and deterministic action. Having had its creative ' ' foray ' ( which contain a spectrum of alternative ideas) . Tests can then be undertaken as to the validity or usefulness or otherwise of these creative , vaporous , excursions .

 

These are just thoughts !

 

Mike

 

Ps . I had the understanding , that this is what Philosphers did, :- While away the hours on the steps in Rome or between the columns of the Acropolis in Greece discussing with each other and thinking great thoughts !

I don't think creativity works in science without the rigor of study, no matter how much we might wish for it. Once you have the knowledge, you can apply your creativity, but without the foundational information, creativity just flails around with nothing much to talk about.

I am not so totally sure about what you are saying here. One could spend hours and years studying up a subject , that becomes completely redundant. My first bout at electronics in the early 1960'/65s , taught us about mechanical adding machines ( actual wheels and gears, it taught us about valves, all while I used a slide rule and log books to do math. My second session in university in the 1990/2000 was all about digital filters that were software and probabilities in communication. I joined a local radio ham group the other day , hoping for some exciting experience with great power valves and coils , and they are all using hand held button operated ( not a knob in sight ) software controlled devices.

 

Nowerdays I wonder if hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy might just be more useful study !

 

Mike

Edited June 2, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

My early 'inkling ' on this matter is that for creativity to have its sway , it can operate in an orthogonal ( 90 degree ) dimension. In such a way as not to (a) disturb , or be (b) disturbed by the other two orthogonal dimensions that contain , say , rigorous science , and deterministic action. Having had its creative ' ' foray ' ( which contain a spectrum of alternative ideas) . Tests can then be undertaken as to the validity or usefulness or otherwise of these creative , vaporous , excursions .

 

That sounds like how science works.

 

I still don't see where the problem is. (Apart from the fact you seem to want to be able to do the random dream stuff without doing the actual testing bit.)

 

 

I am not so totally sure about what you are saying here. One could spend hours and years studying up a subject , that becomes completely redundant.

 

You probably learn a lot of reusable concepts and transferable skills (such as the importance of specifying things up front, spending more on design than implementation, how to test things, etc).

 

Many of these skills are valid across many disciplines. When I first started programming, my Dad (who was an artist) borrowed one of my books on computer programming and brought it back a few days later and said, "so its all about design, then". And, of course, he was absolutely right.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

That sounds like how science works.

 

I still don't see where the problem is. (Apart from the fact you seem to want to be able to do the random dream stuff without doing the actual testing bit.)

 

 

 

You probably learn a lot of reusable concepts and transferable skills (such as the importance of specifying things up front, spending more on design than implementation, how to test things, etc).

 

Many of these skills are valid across many disciplines. When I first started programming, my Dad (who was an artist) borrowed one of my books on computer programming and brought it back a few days later and said, "so its all about design, then". And, of course, he was absolutely right.

.

There is not a problem , as far as I am concerned. I am having a philosophical discussion about science . That seems great.

 

If you mean , because I stated that science took a wrong turn , a long way back possibly ( possibly more recent).

I agree with your list of how science works ( with the one proviso now ) .

 

There possibly in view of this ' creative issue ' needs to be more emphasis in the early part, ( application of creative thinking . ) Possibly running through the early stages particularly and the revision , refining loop stages . .

 

 

No I am very interested in the testing , experimenting , revising , retesting process. All I am trying to establish is this ' creative edge ' to various things , so as to add the possibility of some form of flexibility into the ' loops '

 

The only problem being with me . I come from an era , when you tried a different resistor, winds on a coil , or build a new circuit, Nowerdays is all blinking computer programming .

 

Mike