Don’t let the multiverse on the public payroll

Querius, Thanks for the reference at #70. daveS

Querius: Look up near-instantaneous frame dragging. Your citation: "it is not clear whether this or other similar infinite speed of gravity findings in EGR may only be artifacts." It is quite possible to observe effects that move faster than light speed. For instance, if a rotating object emits light, and that light reflects on a distant surface, then the observed movement of the light across the distant surface can be faster than the speed of light, even though none of the photons are moving at such a rate. Querius: But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense? You are conflating the gravitational field with gravity waves. The Earth moves through the gravity well of the Sun. That gravity well is essentially static. If the Sun were to suddenly collapse on itself, then that field would vibrate (like an earthquake) as the field changed configurations. Those vibrations are gravity waves. They are posited to move at the speed of light. There is only indirect evidence of this so far, but so far that evidence is consistent with General Relativity. The technology has now reached the point where it should be possible to directly determine the speed of gravity in the near future, and a number of experiments are ongoing. Zachriel

Ok, here's a reference . . . Trends in Black Hole Research By Paul V. Kreitler (editor), 2006 Look up near-instantaneous frame dragging. -Q Querius

Querius: – Gravity waves that are so undetectably small with all that dust and all that they’re quite indistinguishable from being non-existent Gravity waves may not move at the speed of light. They may not even exist, but that is what General Relativity predicts, including that they are of very small effect under ordinary circumstances. Technology is just now reaching the point where it should be possible to detect gravity waves, so this question will be answered soon. Your claim, however, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of General Relativity. Zachriel

Querius, The question on the table is whether the speed of gravity is the same as c or not in GR.

That the causes of space-time inflation of necessity different, a point that I didn’t argue, but rather that the effects were the same on space-time

Your use of the term "inflation" was confusing; I didn't know you were talking about metric expansion of space in general before you answered that question.

That space-time is somehow different than the curvature of space-time

Spacetime in GR is modeled by a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Curvature of spacetime is given by a tensor defined on that manifold. The manifold itself and this tensor are not identical.

That mass-energy can “outrun” the deformation of space-time that accompanies it, the cosmological equivalent of walking on water

That's not quite what I said, but are you familiar with how cosmic inflation is hypothesized to solve the horizon problem? If so, you would understand why I'm skeptical about your statements about the speed of gravity. Likewise for the Big Rip. If you can give a published reference (or even a paper on arxiv.org) which shows that gravity can travel faster than c, or that the speed of gravity is determined somehow by the rate of expansion of space, I'd like to see it. daveS

Mapou, Adios, pal. Notice that I'm being challenged by the proposition of - the sun instantly vanishing leaving no trace, a physical impossibility - the dimensionality of space-time "tearing," another impossibility (what's in the hole, a spatial discontinuity? Frayed strings?) Oh and does a black hole ever tear space-time? - Gravity waves that are so undetectably small with all that dust and all that they're quite indistinguishable from being non-existent - That the causes of space-time inflation of necessity different, a point that I didn't argue, but rather that the effects were the same on space-time - That space-time is somehow different than the curvature of space-time - That mass-energy can "outrun" the deformation of space-time that accompanies it, the cosmological equivalent of walking on water However, I must admit that I'm impressed by the demonstration of faith! ;-) -Q Querius

Pearls and swines come to mind. Adios. Mapou

Querius, Further to #61: See the wiki article on the Big Rip.

A universe dominated by phantom energy expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure.

daveS

For example, the Earth orbits in the gravity well of the Sun. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, the manifold would begin to rebound, and the speed of that rebound would (based on General Relativity) move at the speed of light. The Earth would feel the gravitational effects just as the Sun blinked out. Zachriel

Querius: unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. A gravitational field is a {typically static} deformation of the manifold, but gravity waves propagate through the manifold. Gravity waves have not yet been directly detected. Even signals from colliding black holes are too attenuated to be detected. Zachriel

If you said “IS curvature of spacetime”, I would agree.

Pure crackpottery since everyone who understands spacetime knows that it is abstract. Spacetime could not possibly exist since it is an unchanging block universe: nothing can move in it. Hello. I know I'm a nut but are these people nuts too?

"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

And:

"At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation." Source: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper. Emphasis added.

Mapou

Querius,

daveS, Ok, you don’t get it. I’m saying that there’s no difference to space-time between inflation and “accelerating expansion.” Look at the diagrams.

Well, both refer to the metric expansion of space, but they are believed to be quite distinct in cause [Edit: And more importantly here, magnitude] (inflation being caused by the "inflaton", and the current accelerating expansion being caused by dark energy).

You’re also not grasping that you can’t separate gravity from space-time. I’m saying that gravity IS space-time.

If you said "IS curvature of spacetime", I would agree. Nevertheless, we were discussing whether the speed of gravity is the same as that of the expansion of space, and I believe the answer is no. In fact, during the inflationary period, regions within each others' cosmological horizons are hypothesized to have become causally separated, meaning that in a sense, they actually did "outrun each others' gravity". daveS

daveS, Ok, you don't get it. I'm saying that there's no difference to space-time between inflation and "accelerating expansion." Look at the diagrams. You're also not grasping that you can't separate gravity from space-time. I'm saying that gravity IS space-time. -Q Querius

Querius,

Yes, that’s right. But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense?

Eh? I don't believe so. When you say "inflation", do you mean the cosmic inflation that occurred before 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang? Or are you referring to the expansion which continues to the present time, and is apparently even accelerating? The speed of gravity is certainly not equal to the "speed" of either of these two phenomena. daveS

Zachriel (and daveS),

Stretching of the space-time manifold is not the same as velocity within that manifold. Light has a finite speed, but the manifold can expand faster than the speed of light. Gravity waves travel within the manifold, just as does light.

Yes, that's right. But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense? Admittedly, this whole area is controversial. -Q Querius

Zachriel:

Stretching of the space-time manifold

Since spacetime is both abstract (non-existent) and motionless (it's a block universe), good luck with that. Talk about chicken feather voodoo physics. Phew! Mapou

I didn't refresh the page before Zachriel posted; his answer is more to the point than mine. daveS

Querius,

Maybe—we’re all pretty much guessing. But if it’s not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity.

Er, I'm not sure about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of an association between rapid metric expansion of space and stars outrunning their gravity. daveS

Querius: But if it’s not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity. Stretching of the space-time manifold is not the same as velocity within that manifold. Light has a finite speed, but the manifold can expand faster than the speed of light. Gravity waves travel within the manifold, just as does light. Zachriel

Maybe---we're all pretty much guessing. But if it's not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity. There's quite a bit of controversy about this, much of it hinges on what gravity actually is. -Q Querius

Querius,

daveS, Perhaps in a static universe, but I don’t know how one would test it. Consider this. Gravity is the result of the deformation of space-time. According to the inflationary model, space-time has stretched faster than the speed of light–a deformation that causes the nearly all of the red shift. Thus, gravity also propagates faster than the speed of light. -Q

Have you checked this out with anyone? Because I don't think it works. There is no doubt that the speed of gravity is c in GR. Hartle, from the reference cited on the wikipedia page, calculates the line element for spacetime in which a gravity wave is traveling. The velocity at which the wave travels is clearly that of light in a vacuum. If you disagree, I encourage you to write it up formally and show it to a cosmologist, and see what they think. daveS

Zachriel:

Mapou: And Newton was right. Unlikely, but it is conceivable. According to General Relativity, gravity waves should travel at the same rate as electromagnetic waves. It’s not easy to test, though, and that will probably have to wait for new technological advancements.

Yeah well, those of us with a little understanding always keep in mind that General Relativity is that magical theory which posits a block universe (spacetime) in which nothing can move. We also know that Newtonian physics is the physics that NASA uses to send probes throughout the solar system. Why? It's because Newtonian physics is extremely accurate once you take the speed of light into consideration. Sure, I've heard the Mercury argument a thousand times. It's nothing that Newtonian physics cannot predict if you care to incorporate clock slowing into the theory. Those of us who are privileged enough to understand these things know that gravity is a non-local phenomenon caused by a violation in the energy conservation principle. Mapou

daveS, Oh, and regarding the simulation interpretation of QM, it's considered pretty likely. There are some YouTube videos that address this question. Here's one, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Nu0Dmul1E The *evidence* is plentiful, but the interpretations of that evidence are highly controversial. -Q Querius

daveS, Perhaps in a static universe, but I don't know how one would test it. Consider this. Gravity is the result of the deformation of space-time. According to the inflationary model, space-time has stretched faster than the speed of light--a deformation that causes the nearly all of the red shift. Thus, gravity also propagates faster than the speed of light. -Q Querius

Querius,

Regarding gravity, most scientists accept Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Gravity is due to the deformation of space-time, which can be at a rate that’s faster than the speed of light. Here’s a good explanation:

It can? I thought gravity has to travel at speed c under GR, as explained here and here, along with some "possible experimental measurements".

Do you agree with many physicists that there’s a strong probability we’re living in some kind of virtual reality simulation? Check this out:

I don't have any evidence pointing either way, but it sounds more like science fiction than anything. I vaguely recall talk of a possible test of this hypothesis, and I would be curious to see the results if it could be done. daveS

Mapou: And Newton was right. Unlikely, but it is conceivable. According to General Relativity, gravity waves should travel at the same rate as electromagnetic waves. It's not easy to test, though, and that will probably have to wait for new technological advancements. Zachriel

daveS, Regarding gravity, most scientists accept Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Gravity is due to the deformation of space-time, which can be at a rate that's faster than the speed of light. Here's a good explanation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/may/09/what-is-quantum-gravity I think it should be clear that a unified theory, if it's even possible must of necessity include a compatible mathematics. Currently, it isn't and so it won't. The "uneeded" part of my argument is the acknowledgment that we use mathematical models as tools---we don't confuse the tools with the actual phenomena. When needed we can insert a constant, a term, or complete replacement to a formula.

Regarding your question about the mathematics of QM, I do agree that in my limited understanding, it’s radically different from CM, and frankly quite bizarre.

Oh, then according to Richard Feynman, you do understand QM! Do you agree with many physicists that there's a strong probability we're living in some kind of virtual reality simulation? Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Nu0Dmul1E If there's a simulation, then there's a simulator and a result. -Q Querius

Zachriel:

Newton thought the force of gravity was transmitted instantaneously.

And Newton was right. Mapou

nm daveS

Querius,

These are all good questions.

Thanks. This discussion is more interesting than I had anticipated.

My argument does not apply to CM precisely because it’s unneeded–there are no, “then a miracle occurs,” phenomena in CM. Of course, direct observation of the effects attributed to Chaos still falsifies causal determinism in many classical scientific fields, including orbital mechanics of more than two bodies as one example.

First, I do acknowledge that CM itself is not deterministic, as shown for example by Norton's Dome. But secondly, I don't see how the nature of the phenomena predicted by QM vs CM, or whether anything is "needed" determines whether your argument applies. For clarity, I will stipulate here that any consistent formal system which expresses QM must also express natural number arithmetic and therefore must be incomplete (in its arithmetic component) by Gödel's theorems, hence QM is nondeterministic. I believe that's your argument; if not, please correct me. In response to my question about whether this argument also shows CM is nondeterministic, I see three possible responses:

1) It actually does show CM is nondeterministic. 2) It doesn't show CM is nondeterministic, and the reason is that (unlike the QM case) some formal systems for CM don't express natural number arithmetic, and hence Gödel's theorem doesn't apply. 3) It doesn't show CM is nondeterministic, and the reason is that despite the formal system being incomplete in its natural number arithmetic component, that doesn't imply CM is nondeterministic (unlike the QM case).

If you can identify others, please let me know. Regarding your question about the mathematics of QM, I do agree that in my limited understanding, it's radically different from CM, and frankly quite bizarre. daveS

related note:

New Book, Cosmological Implications of Heisenberg's Principle, Argues for Purpose and Design in Nature - Casey Luskin - August 5, 2015 Excerpt: Physicist Stephen Barr explains his view of quantum indeterminacy: "The death of determinism is not the only deep conclusion that follows from the probabilistic nature of quantum theory. An even deeper conclusion that some have drawn is that materialism, as applied to the human mind, is wrong. Eugene Wigner, a Nobel laureate, argued in a famous essay that philosophical materialism is not "logically consistent with present quantum mechanics." And Sir Rudolf Peierls, another leading physicist, maintained that "the premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being . . . including its knowledge, and its consciousness, is untenable." Why does it destroy materialism? Because any material system is subject to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. Only once a mind observes (or doesn't observe) some event can you have a definitive answer about whether the event did (or did not) happen. As Barr puts it: "As long as only physical structures and mechanisms are involved, however complex, their behavior is described by equations that yield only probabilities -- and once a mind is involved that can make a rational judgment of fact, and thus come to knowledge, there is certainty. Therefore, such a mind cannot be just a physical structure or mechanism completely describable by the equations of physics." Minds, therefore, cannot be strictly material entities or they too would be subject to such indeterminacy. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/new_book_cosmol098321.html

bornagain77

Querius: Things in CM don’t do instantaneous. Assuming by CM you mean Classical Mechanics, Newton thought the force of gravity was transmitted instantaneously. Zachriel

daveS @ 38,

Moreover, wouldn’t your argument also apply to classical mechanics? What facts about QM did we use to get to the point where we could invoke Gödel’s theorem, that would not be available in CM?

These are all good questions. My argument does not apply to CM precisely because it's unneeded--there are no, "then a miracle occurs," phenomena in CM. Of course, direct observation of the effects attributed to Chaos still falsifies causal determinism in many classical scientific fields, including orbital mechanics of more than two bodies as one example. However QM effects are radically different than those in CM, often seeming like miracles. As I said, electrons don't transition from one orbital to another--the switch is instantaneous and in a way, digital (although not considering the energy in Zeeman spectral splitting). Transitions between waves and particles through an observed double-slit experiment also don't transition, they switch instantly (or even backwards in time). Things in CM don't do instantaneous. ;-) Check this out and tell me whether you agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics -Q Querius

Can the Ontological Argument apply to the Multiverse? 1.Heaven is the greatest conceivable universe in the multiverse 2. It is greater to exist than not to exist. 2. Therefore, Heaven exists. ppolish

Querius,

Exactly the point. There isn’t one that’s complete. As you know, mathematical systems are used to describe and predict interactions (causal determinism), and we’re observing quantum interactions that don’t make sense mathematically. For example, the “quantum leap” that occurs as electrons instantly disappear from one orbital and instantly appear in another is not a continuous function, you can’t integrate over time with quantum erasure–you get an instant change that seems to rewind time.

First, after doing a bit of background reading, I noticed I left out a few critical words in my informal summary of the incompleteness theorems. But to reply to your #37, I'm not at all convinced that the lack of a consistent formal system which includes all of physics (or even just QM) has anything to do with Gödel's work. In fact, I'm not even sure that it is indeed impossible. From your most recent post, I take it you assume that any potential formal system for QM must express natural number arithmetic. However, the undecidable statement that Gödel's first theorem produces would itself be a statement about natural number arithmetic, not QM in general. In other words, every statement of QM might still be decidable in this formal system. Moreover, wouldn't your argument also apply to classical mechanics? What facts about QM did we use to get to the point where we could invoke Gödel's theorem, that would not be available in CM? Has anyone written up and published a more extended version of this argument? I've read through some informal discussions of the relation between Gödel's theorem and physics, and it seems the physicists don't find it very compelling. I found just one research group, headed by one Reg Cahill, that referenced it. They work on "process physics", but they also make some grandiose claims, and their reputation seems not to be stellar. daveS

daveS,

But the first thing that concerns me is that if we are going to apply Gödel’s theorem, presumably we need an axiomatic system. If so, do you have one in mind?

Exactly the point. There isn't one that's complete. As you know, mathematical systems are used to describe and predict interactions (causal determinism), and we're observing quantum interactions that don't make sense mathematically. For example, the "quantum leap" that occurs as electrons instantly disappear from one orbital and instantly appear in another is not a continuous function, you can't integrate over time with quantum erasure--you get an instant change that seems to rewind time. Quantum math is more like observing the changes in a spreadsheet than incremental changes in classical, deterministic physics. -Q Querius

"Not Of This World" is one of my favorite Jesus Quotes. And like many Christians, I have a "NOTW" sticker on my car. Maybe we will start seeing NOTW stickers popping up on cars next to Darwin Fish with Legs stickers. To me, Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory are "places" outside of this Universe. NOTW. Having modern science say this is possible is interesting to me. ppolish

Querius,

Incidentally, his proof seems almost a child's game, doesn't it?

If you're referring to the construction of Gödel sentences, yes, I find that rather slick. Although I certainly am not familiar with the details of the proof.

So, considering various quantum effects, how would you think that these could be be relevant?

I don't know; I need a hint here. But the first thing that concerns me is that if we are going to apply Gödel's theorem, presumably we need an axiomatic system. If so, do you have one in mind? daveS

"They spent so many years mocking God with their spaghetti monster and pink unicorn ridicule, He finally just let them go insane." Lol SIlver Asiatic - and so true. And besides Spagetti Monster, the multiverse also gives us Thor and Zeus. "Which God do YOU believe in?" All of them lol. http://production-streamsend.ezpublishing.netdna-cdn.com/assets/extended/4329/73/images/GCS_Chapter_02_Illustration_07-86e61ee8844f6879fd6eebdfb37a5400.jpg ppolish

Looks like we whipped some major Darwinist asteroids in this thread. LOL. Mapou

daveS @ 27 said regarding Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

My informal understanding is that the first incompleteness theorem says that a theory which includes the arithmetic of the natural numbers also includes true but unprovable statements. The second incompleteness theorem says that such a theory cannot include the statement that it is consistent unless it is inconsistent. Both theorems describe limitations of sufficiently strong axiom systems—you can’t prove all the true statements, and you can’t prove the system is consistent within the axiom system itself.

Good. Incidentally, his proof seems almost a child's game, doesn't it? So, considering various quantum effects, how would you think that these could be be relevant? -Q Querius

@RDFish: If you really fail to see the irony in your post after all the time you've spent here there's really no point for any debate... Sebestyen

STRAWMAN ALERT: Popperian:

But this would be no problem for ID’s designer because it has no paying customers or limitations on resources and time.

Evidence please. Virgil Cain

Popperian: I sincerely believe you are missing a fundamental point of design, and reuse in it. You cannot conflate the self-imposed limitations humans place on design (cost of redesign, for example) on the principles of design. You are using speculation about design but are missing the point about optimal design. The point about any design is that even if it is sub-optimal or inefficient, it is constrained by the laws within the system it operates. A computer code is a good example. If you operate on a particular language code, you can have a code that performs task X, and that code can be sub-optimal, or inefficient. It can take too long to perform X because let’s say, the code has a lot of unnecessary components not needed to perform the task X.  So you can redesign the code to be more optimal – usually, this will just be editing of the existing code in a way that will not look hugely different from the original. However, what you cannot do is then implement a code that works under a completely different operating system (set of “laws”). Even the inefficient code though is designed to work to complete a task under the constraints of the inherent laws that the system demands. So when you claim that we can one day just design whatever car we like for example, this is only true to a point – you cannot design against the inherent laws placed there. Thus optimal design will almost always end up reusing design within the constraints of the same system. So for example, perhaps we will change cars one day because the combustion engine is too inefficient. However we have to do that under the constraints of the system but we also must remember the change would be about efficiency and optimal design, not just for the sake of redesigning (i.e. BECAUSE it is inefficient and suboptimal). Why do we use a cylindrical wheel and not something else? Why not a spheroid structure instead? We are constrained by the laws of the systems and inextricably linked with that are the needs of the performed function. There are many reasons why a spheroid wheel would not be optimal for a car design and those are largely linked to the needs of the designed function. Now when we look at a designer you claim they are abstract – yet this is only in part true. In fact, a designer is limited by the laws they put into place. So when we examine biological design we must do so in the constraints of the operating system. As said above in a similar vain to the computer’s operating system, you cannot just change the operating system or the laws without impacting on already existing programs and their compatibility. Likewise, a designer cannot simply “upgrade” the universe as a system without consequently needing to upgrade the contents/programs running within that system, which would dramatically change their operation (which could be done, but just because it has not means nothing). So when we see laws in place that everything contained within that system is bound to, and we want efficient and optimal design, we realise that a designer even if they are apparently “abstract” is very much so limited to design within that system and such design must replace that system. It is a misnomer to say “the designer could design whatever they wanted to design” because it implies that life could be designed in a way that broke these rules which is a fallacy. The only way that could happen is for a different set of rules to be first designed in the design of the universe, and then different programs running within that universe could exist. But then we would find ourselves in that situation, where again, people would question the nature of a designer and why is there apparent re-use of design. It’s a circular argument. Thus again, I come back to the point – if we observe optimal and efficient processes, we would only expect in a given system (of which the earth is a system) that we should also observe the reuse of such design. That is a very rational and logical expectation. If we saw many different mechanisms or programs for achieving a goal (which I must remind you – relates as well to the context of the complexity of the lifeform you are studying, thus, for example the replication machinery of an archaea by definition in that context will be quite different to that of a complex multicellular eukaryote as its needs are different, but this will differ more by complexity rather than completely different design, due to greater levels of programming required rather than completely new programming, which is what is expected of optimal design constrained by common laws), then we might suspect that there are multiple designers or design was not involved in the process at all. The truth is, when we look at the microscopic level, things such as ATPase, the other fundamental and complex cellular processes, we see very high efficiencies given the laws of nature these are subject to. Often, people perceive inefficiencies and examples of very suboptimal structures, such as the mammalian eye, but on closer inspection and further interrogation we find the inefficiency was our understanding of how the process worked, not the actual process itself.   The ironic thing is that materialists generally believe all of this as well - that is what they label convergent evolution. Specifically that for many things, there is only one most efficient and optimal destination/program to achieve this, but sometimes the path to that destination changes. You just call that convergent evolution but it is describing exactly what you would expect from a designer (although we are constantly reminded how Darwin predicted convergence so apparently that takes care of that). Dr JDD

ppolish, Godel's contribution to the question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant, IMO. If his arguments cannot be explained in a way that the average intelligent layperson can easily understand, the have no value. Mapou

Querius, My informal understanding is that the first incompleteness theorem says that a theory which includes the arithmetic of the natural numbers also includes true but unprovable statements. The second incompleteness theorem says that such a theory cannot include the statement that it is consistent unless it is inconsistent. Both theorems describe limitations of sufficiently strong axiom systems---you can't prove all the true statements, and you can't prove the system is consistent within the axiom system itself. daveS

Godel proved that God exists. The math backs up the proof. It was checked & checked again. "Calculemus — Let us calculate" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.4526v4.pdf Godel was Mr Logic. Mr Rationality, Crazy smart. ??[P (¬?) ? ¬P (?)] ????[(P (?) ? ?????x[?(x) ? ?(x)]) ? ??[P (?) ? ??x?(x)] G(x) ? ??[P (?) ? ?(x)] P(G) ??xG(x) ??[P (?) ? ???? P (?)] ? ess. x ? ?(x)???(?(x) ? ?????y(?(y) ? ?(y))) ?x[G(x) ? G ess. x] NE(x) ? ??[? ess. x ? ?????y?(y)] P(NE) ?????xG(x) ppolish

Popperian:

Mapou:

Everybody who’s ever written a few lines of code on a computer (I’m assuming that you have since you proudly call yourself the AI guy) knows that software engineering would be nowhere without object oriented programming, a hierarchical system of classes of objects. Why? It’s because software design pioneers long ago realized that the intelligent thing to do is not to reinvent the wheel. That is to say, the intelligent thing to do is to reuse existing designs as much as possible.

Popperian:

The problem with this is that ID’s designer is abstract.

That's news to me. Where did that come from? Fundamentalist Christians? My designers are just a super-advanced civilization.

Reuse saves us time and money because we have limited time and resources. However, ID’s design has no such limitations. As such it has no such motivation to reuse anything.

Who told you this? This is nonsense that someone pulled out of his/her asteroid. ID's designers are intelligent, just like us. They are just much more advanced and have much greater resources to play with. As such, they go through the same learning or experimental curves that we do. We see this in the fossil record. They went through multiple waves of ecological/terraforming experiments followed by massive extinctions. This is a sign that they either were not satisfied with previous designs or they were conducting data collection experiments. I realize that some of the religious backers of ID have different ideas but that does make their ideas correct.

To follow your analogy, it could completely change the entire APIs for an OS, then update all applications that use it instantaneously, without any concern for time, money, resources, if they were deployed, had legacy data, etc. Are there installations with incompatible data in the field? No problem, it could migrate all of the data and update every install everywhere instantaneously, as the very same time. In fact, it could change the all of these things, on the fly, without needing to interrupt the user while they are are actively using the application! The entire program could be reimplemented and deployed in completely different ways every second while the application is in use and translate data formats interactively!

So? Anybody can do a lot of stupid things. What is the point?

Car manufactures do not create entirely new vehicles every year because the engineering and testing resources required would drive the product cost too high for customers to pay. But this would be no problem for ID’s designer because it has no paying customers or limitations on resources and time. It could design completely new vehicles every year, every month, day or even every second with completely new parts that share nothing with previous models. In fact, since it has no defined limitations it could instantaneously upgrade all cars on the fly, while people are driving them!

This is total BS. You set up a stupid strawman, wrestled it to the ground and declared victory? Not very valiant of you I should say. Where does this notion that the designers of life on earth are all-knowing and all powerful come from? Did you invent that crap? I am a Christian and I can assure you that, in spite of claims to the contrary, the Yahweh Elohim (plural) that I worship are neither infinitely powerful nor knowledgeable. What a boring life that would be if only it were possible. Omniscience and omnipotence are old stupid Catholic dogmas that found their way into Protestant Churches. That is all. It think they are devoid of any logic and have nothing to do with intelligent design. [The rest of your nonsense deleted for sanity's sake] [edit: messed up the blockquotes, sorry] Mapou

daveS, Yes, equations are a part of axiomatic systems known as mathematics, and, in our context, they are indeed used to predictively describe the fundamental relationships between measurable entities (and constants) considered reality. But I'm not going to write a Wikipedia article for you, so it's your turn. What are Gödel’s theorems, and what significance do they have to mathematics? -Q Querius

Once inside, you need the Many Wotlds Interpretation to explain the fine tuning of stuff like first RNA impossibility.

Except, the MWI doesn't explain the fine tuning of the first replicators. In fact, the first replicators are not thought to be very accurate, and therefore not fine tuned. Care to provide a reference for that? Popperian

Everybody who’s ever written a few lines of code on a computer (I’m assuming that you have since you proudly call yourself the AI guy) knows that software engineering would be nowhere without object oriented programming, a hierarchical system of classes of objects. Why? It’s because software design pioneers long ago realized that the intelligent thing to do is not to reinvent the wheel. That is to say, the intelligent thing to do is to reuse existing designs as much as possible.

The problem with this is that ID's designer is abstract. Reuse saves us time and money because we have limited time and resources. However, ID's design has no such limitations. As such it has no such motivation to reuse anything. To follow your analogy, it could completely change the entire APIs for an OS, then update all applications that use it instantaneously, without any concern for time, money, resources, if they were deployed, had legacy data, etc. Are there installations with incompatible data in the field? No problem, it could migrate all of the data and update every install everywhere instantaneously, as the very same time. In fact, it could change the all of these things, on the fly, without needing to interrupt the user while they are are actively using the application! The entire program could be reimplemented and deployed in completely different ways every second while the application is in use and translate data formats interactively! Car manufactures do not create entirely new vehicles every year because the engineering and testing resources required would drive the product cost too high for customers to pay. But this would be no problem for ID's designer because it has no paying customers or limitations on resources and time. It could design completely new vehicles every year, every month, day or even every second with completely new parts that share nothing with previous models. In fact, since it has no defined limitations it could instantaneously upgrade all cars on the fly, while people are driving them! IOW, human beings are good explanations for human designed things because we are concrete designers that have defined limitations. The intelligence you referrer to is applied to mitigate those limitations. However, IDs designer has none to mitigate. Furthermore, customers want new vehicles that are cheeper and updated more often. In the future, we will create completely unique vehicles for customers using advances in computers to design and test them cheaply and quickly, and advances in 3D printing technology to build them inexpensively, yet on demand, This new model will not need to share any parts at all. In fact, you'll be able to design your own completely unique vehicle online and have it printed in your garage using totally custom printed parts. Better yet, in the distant future, this printing system will be able to use your existing vehicle as raw materials when building a new model. So, even if the analogy you're appealing to didn't fail today, which it does, it simply will not hold in the future. Note: this is why I keep saying that ID proponents grossly underestimate the role that knowledge plays in design. In this case, this argument assumes we will not create new knowledge that will have a fundamental impact on their own argument, and a transformative impact on design, in the future. Apparently, they think designers in the future will resemble designers in the past. Just as the unseen designer of the distance past that designed the biosphere resembles designers in the present. But that simply doesn't hold up. Popperian

Querius,

daveS, what are equations a part of and used for?

Well, equations are used for a great many purposes, I suppose. Many mathematical theorems take the form of an equation. They can also be used in models in the sciences. Can you be more specific about what Gödel's theorems apply to (causal determinism, etc.)? daveS

Mapou, no not private. Any human mind will suffice to collapse a wave function for everyone else. So far, everything else becomes entangled in a von Neumann chain. daveS, what are equations a part of and used for? -Q Querius

Querius, Do you have a source which discusses the implications of Gödel's theorems you describe above? I understand them as applying to axiomatic systems rather the nature of reality, determinism, etc. daveS

So Querius, let me get this straight. Each mind creates its own private illusion of reality? If so, there is a big problem with that hypothesis. Mapou

Not to mention chaos theory, Gödel's theorems, non-locality, entanglement, quantum erasure, and the like. These and many other discoveries have blown apart Causal Determinism, Realism, and even Naïve Realism.

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. - Richard Conn Henry (Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University) and Stephen R. Palmquist (Professor of Religion and Philosopy, Hong Kong Baptist University)

The brilliant rays of Theism shine inexorably through aforementioned philosophical ruins. We're in a simulation, and simulations have a purpose, and a purpose has consequences. -Q Querius

Jesus told us He was not of this world. Science is trying to understand. Jesus also told us we would not understand - so Science has it's work cut out for it:) The last couple of decades has had Science reeling. Discovery of Cosmo Constant (ie Dark Energy) and molecular machinery are two recent examples of extreme fine tuning. So many more examples. It used to take Faith to believe in "The Almighty". Still takes Faith, mind you, but now also Rationality. It's becoming irrational to deny God. ppolish

Father Time (Chronos) and Mother Luck (Tyche) produced trillions and trillions and trillions of offspring that were culled by sister Huntress (Artemis). Only the fastest and strongest survived, who were further aided by Auntie Fertility (Aphrodite). The survivors became gods and goddesses of Everything that exists, existed, might have existed, and probably would have existed if it were necessary. This is now called "science." -Q Querius

The Multiverse cannot explain the fine tuning WITHIN our Universe. The Multiverse Theory drops us off at the impossibly fine tuned Universe's door. Once inside, you need the Many Wotlds Interpretation to explain the fine tuning of stuff like first RNA impossibility. Multiverse/ManyWorlds one-two punch pow. Oh the tangled web we weave when we're unable to Believe:) Infinity in the gaps? No, God everywhere. Believe. ppolish

Physicists have no idea what causes something as fundamental as inertial motion. And yet, they feel free to conjure up nonsense about interacting universes. If you can detect something, it is obviously in the universe. The reason that the multiple universes hypothesis is crackpottery is actually very simple. Everything is made of nothing (sums up to nothing) and there is only one physical nothing. Nothing is ONE and is the sum of everything. It's a yin-yang reality after all. Mapou

Actually, "bubble universes" in the cosmic multiverse sense (not the MWI sense) could intersect when they form. While it's not guaranteed that any such overlap would occur as part of the theory, it could happen in such as way that we could detect it the way the article implies would be impossible. However, I'm not a proponent of the theory, as there are other problems with the idea that the entire universe happened to form via a fluctuation, as described by the The Boltzmann Brain paradox, which was outlined by Feynman. To summarize, the overwhelming, vast majority of outcomes that start as a fluctuation would only have a very small low-entropy region that contains a single galaxy, planet or even a single brain, not an entire universe. And, even then, the high-entropy surrounding that region would collapse and annihilate it shortly after. An elaboration can be found here Popperian

RDFish, Well, I'd be willing to bet that our debates have generally been reasoned, so I will take up your post of #3.

How can you not see that ID is not observably or experimentally testable – not one bit more than multiverses?

First, let's see if we can agree on the essence of the ID Theory: 1) There are certain objects of the universe that either cannot ever be created by random processes alone, or are so much less probable that they qualify as impossible (e.g. Boeing 747) 2) Intelligent design is the only known, observable, repeatable cause for these products (e.g., we know that intelligence can, and does, and has repeatedly designed and built Boeing 747's) 3) Postulated: There exists a definable mathematical and/or scientific method for distinguishing which objects from #1 above qualify as "ID-only". This method involves measurable characteristics variously known as "complexity", "specified complexity", "functional specification", etc. 3a) Even if the exact threshold or characteristic definition is not precisely definable to the nth degree, there is a threshold beyond which the assertion of "random processes" becomes indefensible (whether or not you can define the precise characteristics or mathematical formula that makes a 747 an ID-only object, to deny it is ID-only or to propose it is the result of random chance is a sign of illogical denial or insanity) 3b) Because we know that something does define ID-Only, it is a worthwhile scientific pursuit to improve both the definition of the characteristics and mathematical equation 4) Postulated: Life exhibits enough of the characteristics of #3 that it qualifies, under 3a, as orders of magnitude more likely designed by intelligence, than the result of random chance. Now, for your assertion that ID is "not observably or experimentally testable", not only is it observable (I can see a 747 being designed and built, I can see that less "complex" objects, e.g. cloud that looks like a pony, aren't designed), but it has the value of claiming a universal negative: "Life is so complex that random processes can NOT generate life", or "the bacterial flagellum is so complex that random processes can NOT create one". While a universal negative can not be Proven, it can easily be Disproven. So - abiogenesis research, in addition to being a worthwhile field of study, that helps us learn more about the complexity and difficulty of creating life, is, in fact, an ID Experimental Test and Refutation Research Program. So. Logically. Please state where you disagree with the above logical proof that ID is a) observable, b) testable, and c) disprovable, unlike the multiverse theory. drc466

RDFish: Furthermore, you fail realize to that design reuse in software did not begin with object-oriented programming (!), Mapou: What is the basis of this lie? Everybody realizes this unless you are a Darwinist. The basis of this lie is that it is the truth. Look, I must be a Darwinist! Mung

RDFish:

As for 2, as usual this is Mapou’s own highly idiosyncratic and bizarre theory that nobody else in ID seems to share. Go with it, Mapou, but I was talking about what folks like Dembski, Meyer, Behe, and other people who actually publish on the topic have to say.

Neither ID nor any other areas of science belongs to anybody.

But you may want to ponder for just a moment – if we did not find a “hierarchical system of nested classes”, how would that refute the idea that an intelligent being designed living things?

The intelligent design of complex systems over time requires it. Otherwise it's not intelligent.

Furthermore, you fail realize to that design reuse in software did not begin with object-oriented programming (!),

What is the basis of this lie? Everybody realizes this unless you are a Darwinist.

that not all human designs exhibit reuse, and that not all apparent reuse is the result of human (or any other) design (for example, all matter resuses the same combination of molecules, which resuse the same atoms, which reuse the same subatomic particles…)

You are passing this incoherent blather as a rebuttal? Don't make me laugh. How does the composition of molecules prevent intelligent design, pray tell? Composition occurs naturally up to a level of complexity. Beyond this level, it requires design. It's not really all that hard to understand. We humans have designed many new materials that do not normally occur in nature. Again, intelligent design over time reuses previous designs because that is the intelligent thing to do. The result is a hierarchy. Anything else would be as stupid as RM+NS. This is why living organisms form a hierarchy. This is the main prediction of ID, IMO. Heck, even the genome itself is organized hierarchically, an unmistakable sign of intelligent design. Read it and weep.

You seem to be a very angry person, fond of calling people names.

Of course, I am angry. Who wouldn't be? You people are stealing my and the public's money to promote your religious crap. That's thievery. It's also criminal because it's against the law of the land.

Perhaps if you manage your anger and channel more energy into learning you wouldn’t make such glaring mistakes.

In your dreams. I made no mistake glaring or otherwise. You, on the other hand, are a liar and an idiot. I know you like being called that. LOL. Mapou

Dear RDFish, Newton's four rules of scientific investigation tell us we don't even consider a design inference if mother nature and father time can explain the phenomena observed. Sir, the (design) explanatory filter, explained in great detail by kairosfocus, shows us the same thing.

But you may want to ponder for just a moment – if we did not find a “hierarchical system of nested classes”, how would that refute the idea that an intelligent being designed living things?

By showing Darwinian and neo-darwinian processes are sufficient. Slice off the designer with the sharp blade of Newtonian science, also known as parsimony (although relying on unknown numbers of just-so accidents isn't really the more parsimonious explanation). Dr Behe goes over this- as does Meyer, Dembski- well I am pretty sure that is a unanimous ruling with IDists.

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments. Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis. I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right.- Dr Behe

The EF gives all the power to non-telic processes. They have us right by the yahoo and they can't seem to pull the google. A nested hierarchy just gives a designer control over his/her/its design. Virgil Cain

I very rarely post here anymore because there is nobody left here who can actually participate in a reasoned debate. These responses make that quite clear; so far the responses have been: 1) How can you not see ID is true? 2) Object oriented programming proves ID 3) Your stoopid 4) You dum As for 1, Mung's response is a personal question rather than a debating point. As for 2, as usual this is Mapou's own highly idiosyncratic and bizarre theory that nobody else in ID seems to share. Go with it, Mapou, but I was talking about what folks like Dembski, Meyer, Behe, and other people who actually publish on the topic have to say. But you may want to ponder for just a moment - if we did not find a "hierarchical system of nested classes", how would that refute the idea that an intelligent being designed living things? Furthermore, you fail realize to that design reuse in software did not begin with object-oriented programming (!), that not all human designs exhibit reuse, and that not all apparent reuse is the result of human (or any other) design (for example, all matter resuses the same combination of molecules, which resuse the same atoms, which reuse the same subatomic particles...) You seem to be a very angry person, fond of calling people names. Perhaps if you manage your anger and channel more energy into learning you wouldn't make such glaring mistakes. I have no response to 3 or 4, so I guess those are the best counter-arguments anyone here can muster. Well done! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

RDFish: How can you not see that ID is not observably or experimentally testable – not one bit more than multiverses? Oh, so now the multiverse doesn't just generate universes it generates multiverses, on the word of RDFish. How can you not see that ID is observably and/or experimentally testable – at least 500 bits more than a multiverses? Mung

RDFish is without a doubt the king of irony... Sebestyen Sebestyen

RDFish, why don't you pack it where the sun doesn't shine, eh? This is pathetic, man. How long have you been commenting here anyway? You should know better than this. Why do you insist on acting like an idiot? Are you getting paid to do this? :-D Everybody who's ever written a few lines of code on a computer (I'm assuming that you have since you proudly call yourself the AI guy) knows that software engineering would be nowhere without object oriented programming, a hierarchical system of classes of objects. Why? It's because software design pioneers long ago realized that the intelligent thing to do is not to reinvent the wheel. That is to say, the intelligent thing to do is to reuse existing designs as much as possible. [Unless you are a Darwinist, of course, in which case the intelligent thing to do is to use a stupid search mechanism (RM+NS)] Over time, design reuse normally results in a mostly nested class hierarchy. This is unavoidable. Guess what? This is precisely what is observed in nature. If that was found to be false, ID would have been falsified. My advice to you is to just hang out with the other brilliant morons at that inbreeding meme cesspool known as antievolution.org. LOL. Mapou

How can you not see that ID is not observably or experimentally testable - not one bit more than multiverses? There is nothing that the mysterious "intelligent cause" cannot do in ID 'theory' - it can build a flagellum or an eyeball, set the physical values of the universe, cause the sun and the moon to subtend the same angle in the sky, take millions of years to design something or do it instantly, produce designs that appear to be optimal or ones that appear inefficient, and so on. Thus every possible observation will always be consistent with ID, just as it is consistent with multiverses. Neither of these ideas are scientific, because we have no way of deciding if either of them are true. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy RDFish

They spent so many years mocking God with their spaghetti monster and pink unicorn ridicule, He finally just let them go insane. Now they're the ones who actually believe in pink unicorns and spaghetti monsters. And they're so deluded they don't even get the joke while the rest of the world is laughing at them. Silver Asiatic

How do they get away with it? Mapou