Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

Whatever. Cantor would have to explain why set subtraction appears to refute his claim on cardinality. ET

ET, I just mean that if one of these 19th century mathematicians studying the distribution of primes joined this discussion, and we referred them to the wikipedia page on natural density, then they would say something like "Oh yes, according to my research, the natural density of the primes is probably 0. I don't have a rigorous proof yet, however". These people were in essence already working on problems involving "relative cardinality" even without being exposed to relativity (in the sense of Einstein). Likewise, I know of no reason why Cantor wouldn't have also immediately understood "relative cardinality"; he would just say it's a different concept than his notion of absolute cardinality. daveS

daves:

These mathematicians, working decades before Einstein was even born, could have told you immediately and with a great deal of confidence that the “relative cardinality” of the primes was 0

What does that mean? ET

ET,

But more importantly Cantor did not understand relativity.

I assume you're referring to Einstein's special and/or general theories of relativity, as opposed to other places, even in physics, where "relativity" is used. In fact, mathematicians have been aware of what you call "relative cardinality" problems since way before Einstein. Throughout the 19th century, people were working to prove what is now called the Prime Number Theorem, formulating conjectures on the number of primes less than a given number. For example, there are actually 78,498 primes less than 1,000,000, and mathematicians were looking for a way to quickly estimate these values as opposed to simply counting them. According to the above numbers, slightly less than 8% of positive integers less than 1 million are prime. So they in essence were working to calculate what you call the "relative cardinality" of the primes. These mathematicians, working decades before Einstein was even born, could have told you immediately and with a great deal of confidence that the "relative cardinality" of the primes was 0 (they would have been certain by 1896, when the first proofs of the Prime Number Theorem were published). Conclusion: It's actually not important at all that Cantor didn't understand relativity (meaning SR and/or GR), perhaps until later in life after his set theory papers were published. These "density" problems have been worked on forever, and didn't have to wait until after 1905. daveS

JVL:

It’s not just me that is unconvinced that Dr Pattee’s work insists on design as you do.

So what? You definitely don't have anything to account for what we observe. So yours is not a scientific objection. ET

daves:

The natural numbers and the even natural numbers do end up in the same bin according to our process, even though {1, 2, 3, …} – {2, 4, 6, …} =/= {}. That’s not some sort of fatal error that Cantor overlooked.

It depends what the bin is labeled. And Cantor ignored the fatal error, if he even knew it existed. But more importantly Cantor did not understand relativity. ET

A widely supported system exposed as fraudulent by way of a standard set operation. If your alignment was good then set subtraction should verify and validate it. Yet it contradicts it. And all you can do is either ignore that fact of handwave it away. You didn't even understand that set subtraction is a standard set operation. And look, dippy, ID has the science whereas your side has the pathological liars and cowardly bluffers. It's your ignorance of science that betrays you. You and yours make your side to be laughing stocks. No one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is more useless than blind watchmaker evolution. Your bluffing cowardice proves that point. ET

. ES, Thanks Eugene. Its good to hear you are doing well. Welcome back. Upright BiPed

. Yes yes, JVL, upthread you implied I had called you a "lunatic moron". I am not sure I've ever called anyone a "lunatic" or a "moron" ever in my life. You are certainly not the first person to come to UD to tell us that the design inference is without evidence, only to suddenly find themselves in need of an exist strategy around the evidence and history they can't refute. Here's a thought -- if you are unable to support your claims, perhaps you should just keep them to yourself. Upright BiPed

UB Thank you, I am well. I was thinking of you and of your loss. Nice to see your comments here and nice to be back. EugeneS

ET: So perhaps you should shut up Perhaps I should since despite my repeated attempts to explain a incredibly widely supported system with extremely common examples and techniques which you refuse to accept and your continual unwillingness to address some common simple sets and, most importantly, how it can be that two sets can be lined up, element for element, one-to-one all the way down the line and yet one set has more elements than the other. I used to think you were sincere. Then I thought you were laughing at us and how you've wasted hours and hours of our time honestly trying to explain things to you. Now I wonder if you aren't actually an anti-ID troll who is trying to make the community look completely lunatic. You are clearly not the first, not with your manner and name-calling, and I cannot respect either of the other two. So yeah, probably time to leave you to your mathematical dead-end knowing that it will never, ever go anywhere or be used by anyone. Also knowing that you will never, ever be able to find the relative cardinality of the primes, the triangular numbers, the rational numbers, the perfect numbers, the set of polynomials with integer or rational coefficients and a lot of other sets. JVL

Upright BiPed: If it weren’t for your tacit and active support for the movement to deprive people of the intellectual freedom to believe the science, I’d just walk away. That would certainly by my preference. It's not just me that is unconvinced that Dr Pattee's work insists on design as you do. But you cannot accept that and so resort to slanderous statements as above (and many, many times in the past). Because of that I am going to stop responding to you. I'd prefer having an actual conversation but past a certain point you seem unwilling to do so. You're right and that's the end of the discussion and then you start calling names. JVL

ET, The bottom line for me is this argument you are making about set differences doesn't invalidate the process I described above of sorting sets into bins labeled by cardinal numbers. The natural numbers and the even natural numbers do end up in the same bin according to our process, even though {1, 2, 3, ...} - {2, 4, 6, ...} =/= {}. That's not some sort of fatal error that Cantor overlooked. daveS

. oops billion with a "b" :) Upright BiPed

. EDIT to #888: It is as if you cannot refute the science that supports ID, so as a rhetorical strategy, you re-imagine my argument to include something that it doesn’t include, then you set out to refute that instead (despite being repeatedly told otherwise). It provides an image of you having something decisive to say in your defense, and I suppose offers some comfort under the duress of having your beliefs objectively challenged by empirical observation. If it weren’t for your tacit and active support for the movement to deprive people of the intellectual freedom to believe the science, I’d just walk away. That would certainly by my preference. Upright BiPed

. UB comment #883:

Just to clear this up for you JVL. Listen carefully: Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. And here is another: That does not change the science he produced. That does not change the science he produced. But if you just can’t bring yourself to listen to me, then listen to you instead: “Good science is good science no matter where it comes from or who discovered it. If it’s repeatable, predictable and observer independent then I’m good.”

JVL comment #884:

I don’t think he does support intelligent design. At the very least, you have no evidence that he does support intelligent design.

I believe only someone bent on deception and rhetoric could possibly make that comment. Upright BiPed

. JVL, You’ve misinterpreted directness on my part JVL, and on the contrary, it clearly appears that it is you who has become frustrated.

I’ve never denied any of Dr Pattee’s stated conclusions or findings.

Good, then you agree that: 1) the gene system uses a system of symbols 2) life on earth began with the onset of this symbol system 3) the coding of genes requires a general-purpose language 4) the physical organization that enables genetic language and human language are the only two such system known to science; one appearing with the onset of humanity and the other appearing 4 million years earlier at the origin of life itself With your concession on these points, it appears your only remaining position is to deny that they infer design. Upright BiPed

There is no indication that Pattee or anyone else has any materialistic explanation for the existence of the genetic code. And to falsify the claim the genetic code is evidence for ID all someone has to do is step up and collect the prize worth millions of dollars- the prize anyone can win as long as they can demonstrate nature can produce coded information processing systems. ET

LoL! @ JVL - YOU are the waste of time. You are the person being willfully ignorant of a standard set operation. And YOU are the one who constantly brings up the majority. So perhaps you should shut up ET

Upright BiPed: So you don’t want to address the actual content of the paper – i.e. the physical conditions required for the system to function. That should surprise no one. Okay. I've never denied any of Dr Pattee's stated conclusions or findings. You know what this looks like to me? I know you’d deny either way, but this really looks like you did a word search for howard+pattee+intelligent+design in order to find something – anything – to say. C’mon man, get real. Pattee is not even talking about semiosis here. Not only does his comment here have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical evidence and history you’re running away from, he even goes on to tell you that the answer to that argument is unknown. Consider that he puts intelligent design in quotes. What do you think that means? I think that means that he is casting aspersions on the whole notion. Then he disparages one of its core arguments. Added to that he never, ever says, in this paper or any other, that he concludes based on his work that design should be inferred. I understand why you want to use Dr Pattee's work to support your view but I don't think it does. You’ve been confronted with irrefutable hard evidence of design in biology which you simply cannot repel, and so you are reduced to the weakest tactics left to you. If you can just find some little nugget and wedge it in somewhere, perhaps your denial of the science and history will appear somehow less obvious – even justified, reasonable, and sciency in some way. No, that is exactly the point. YOU think it's irrefutable evidence but clearly some other people, including, I think, Dr Pattee, disagree. But here’s a nugget for you JVL: Howard Pattee wrote a lot over five decades. He mentioned ID about as much as he mentioned tennis shoes. However, he mentioned materialist reductionism quite a bit. Now, I noticed that you accused Eugene of cherry-picking Pattee when he made the obvious distinction between Pattee’s scientific observations and his personal worldview. It was a rather pathetic accusation, by the way, but who is really doing the cherry-picking here, JVL? I think we can demonstrate that rather decisively. How about you post the next quote you find where Howard Pattee mentions ID. I’ll do the same with Pattee’s comments on materialist reductionism. Let’s see how long you last. But that's not the topic is it? We're not seeing which of two world views Dr Pattee supports; we're seeing if he supports one in particular. And I don't think he does support intelligent design. At the very least, you have no evidence that he does support intelligent design. You very succinctly say here that it is the science, not the who, that is decisive for you. In your current attempt to now ignore the “repeatable, predictable and observer independent” science, have you not made yourself a hypocrite? We're talking about the interpretations of the work NOT the work itself. Your conclusions do not seem to be supported by the people who did the work. There is no indication that Dr Pattee agrees with you. And there are some indications that he does not. You have been given science and history that is both irrefutable, coherent, and universal. It justifiably infers the presence of an unknown intelligence. And yet, many of the people whose work you use would disagree on your interpretations. You cannot understand that what you see as irrefutable many others view differently. And that makes you angry and frustrated. But that is your problem, not mine. I think we should just stop the conversation: you are completely convinced you are correct and your view cannot be falsified. What's the point in discussing it further? JVL

.

UB: Whenever you are ready to discuss those physical conditions, I am happy to engage. JVL: Shall we just decide to discuss the actual excerpt from the paper by Howard Pattee I referenced?

So you don’t want to address the actual content of the paper – i.e. the physical conditions required for the system to function. That should surprise no one. Okay.

What do you think about his statement?

A more interesting question is what you think about it – or more accurately, why you think it is relevant. Did you actually read it? This quote comes from a section of the paper (a summary review of past research, published as chapter in Barbieri’s Introduction to Biosemiotics) where HP is discussing Von Neumann’s question as to “why the molecules of life are what they are?” He is talking about the size of the molecules, and the requirement that they be built up from sequences of smaller molecules, and thus, a dizzying improbability of any particular sequence. This is, of course, an entirely uncontroversial observation made across biology. Then, in a mere 10 words, he tells you that ID proponents have made this argument, and then goes on to say that the weakness in this argument is that the answer to it is unknown. Good grief JVL, really? gah-wub-hmph-splz. I stumble for words here. This is a double facepalm and a head-shaker. You know what this looks like to me? I know you’d deny either way, but this really looks like you did a word search for howard+pattee+intelligent+design in order to find something - anything - to say. C’mon man, get real. Pattee is not even talking about semiosis here. Not only does his comment here have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical evidence and history you're running away from, he even goes on to tell you that the answer to that argument is unknown. It just boggles the mind why you brought this up. But in retrospect, that is a question that really answers itself, does it not? You’ve been confronted with irrefutable hard evidence of design in biology which you simply cannot repel, and so you are reduced to the weakest tactics left to you. If you can just find some little nugget and wedge it in somewhere, perhaps your denial of the science and history will appear somehow less obvious – even justified, reasonable, and sciency in some way. But here’s a nugget for you JVL: Howard Pattee wrote a lot over five decades. He mentioned ID about as much as he mentioned tennis shoes. However, he mentioned materialist reductionism quite a bit. Now, I noticed that you accused Eugene of cherry-picking Pattee when he made the obvious distinction between Pattee’s scientific observations and his personal worldview. It was a rather pathetic accusation, by the way, but who is really doing the cherry-picking here, JVL? I think we can demonstrate that rather decisively. How about you post the next quote you find where Howard Pattee mentions ID. I’ll do the same with Pattee’s comments on materialist reductionism. Let’s see how long you last. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Just to clear this up for you JVL. Listen carefully: Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. And here is another: That does not change the science he produced. That does not change the science he produced. But if you just can’t bring yourself to listen to me, then listen to you instead: JVL: “Good science is good science no matter where it comes from or who discovered it. If it’s repeatable, predictable and observer independent then I’m good.” You very succinctly say here that it is the science, not the who, that is decisive for you. In your current attempt to now ignore the “repeatable, predictable and observer independent” science, have you not made yourself a hypocrite? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - And finally, just as a reminder: You have been given science and history that is both irrefutable, coherent, and universal. It justifiably infers the presence of an unknown intelligence. In order to dismiss that science and history, you have: 1) Disengaged from the science. 2) Ignored that the evidence comes from multiple sources and is universal. 3) Asked to see the toilets. 4) Sought to leverage the (irrelevant and unpublished) personal worldviews of researchers 5) Promoted a quote that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the issues at hand What next. Upright BiPed

. Hello Eugene, I hope you and your family are well and safe. Upright BiPed

ET: Stand operation on sets You're clearly too distracted to respond sensibly. I will not respond to whatever it is I think you were trying to say. Please restate. Don’t talk about usefulness as the concept we are debating is totally useless. Again, your ignorance is not an argument. Your bluffing BS isn’t an argument. I am OK with being right. Except you aren't right. NO ONE agrees with you. No one. The majority would if they knew and cared. But the concept under debate is totally useless and contradicted by a basic operation on sets. Enjoy being wrong and trying to appeal to a majority even though you have said previously that an appeal to consensus is rubbish. You can't even be consistent in what you object to. NO ONE agrees with you. NO ONE uses your system. You can't even support it. You're not even trying. Time to give it up and admit you were wrong. Stop wasting everyone's time. JVL

Stand operation on sets:

The difference (subtraction) is defined as follows. The set A?B consists of elements that are in A but not in B.

Don’t talk about usefulness as the concept we are debating is totally useless. JVL:

Your ignorance is not an argument.

Your bluffing BS isn't an argument. I am OK with being right.

No one agrees with you.

The majority would if they knew and cared. But the concept under debate is totally useless and contradicted by a basic operation on sets. ET

ET: LoL! Don’t talk about usefulness as the concept we are debating is totally useless. Your ignorance is not an argument. And seeing that set subtraction puts a flat in your wheel perhaps you need a new design. Except it doesn’t. No one agrees with you. No one. Why you keep pretending you have a case is beyond me. JVL

LoL! Don't talk about usefulness as the concept we are debating is totally useless. And seeing that set subtraction puts a flat in your wheel perhaps you need a new design. ET

ET: Set subtraction doesn’t give a cardinality. It just demonstrates that Cantor was wrong. It doesn’t tell you anything useful AND it definitely does not contradict one-to-one correspondences which can only happen when sets have the same number of elements. And you are wrong about set subtraction. Not only that you can only blindly parrot the mainstream PoV. I’m happy to be correct no matter who figured it out. No need to reinvent the wheel. JVL

Set subtraction doesn't give a cardinality. It just demonstrates that Cantor was wrong. And you are wrong about set subtraction. Not only that you can only blindly parrot the mainstream PoV. ET

ET: If the sets had the same number of elements then set subtraction should verify and validate that. Yet it contradicts it. Set subtraction only works for sets with elements in common AND it gives the wrong cardinality. One-to-one correspondences works with finite and infinite sets, sets with no elements in common and gives consistent results. JVL is unable to think and can only deny. Being right is not denying. JVL

If the sets had the same number of elements then set subtraction should verify and validate that. Yet it contradicts it. JVL is unable to think and can only deny. ET