5. The Rational Mind
Any theory predicting the random assembly
of the human brain (the most orderly state of matter in the known
universe) as 'rational', 'logical' and therefore capable of discerning
truth and therefore doing 'science'.. must itself be unreliable.. not
capable of doing science.
Gödel was a convinced theist.[22] He rejected the notion of others like his friend Albert Einstein that God was impersonal.
He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "Of course this supposes
that there are many relationships which today's science and received
wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this [the
afterlife], independently of any theology." It is "possible today to
perceive, by pure reasoning" that it "is entirely consistent with known
facts." "If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then
there must be such a thing [as an afterlife]."[23]
...
[Wikipedia - Kurt Godel]
I
think God is an uncomfortable truth for everyone actually.. but in the
end truth is what we need and what good science is all about. It cannot
be left to a bunch of theophobics to make it up to suit their beliefs.
They have brought science into disrepute and most certainly misled
society into thinking you can forget about God (and by implication
truth)..
Absolutes do exist.. Temperature has one,
Entropy has one, Velocity has one.. so it should not surprise you to
know that Law and Morality have them (since they are based on the
existence of truth). Truth is by definition an absolute which cannot be
avoided and only fools try to fight.
Please read 9.1-2
'The Falsification of Evolution'.. if you agree I suggest you also look
at "Who is God" at [vh-who.blogspot.com.au]. If you do not understand or
accept the falsification case.. leave a comment.
I am sincerely trying to help you..
Thank you..
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Appendix 4.2 Other Laws
These points are not so much other laws but where evolutionary thinking fails in its application..
3. The First Star
After the mega blast of energy and mass, many times the size of the universe, the extremely high initial temperature produces a rapidly expanding ball of protons.. (hydrogen nuclei).. After a little more cooling the protons gain a couple of electrons and voilà - a massive ball of hydrogen.. (cosmic sand).
By definition that process becomes an adiabatic expansion of gas. Its adiabatic because there is no 'space' outside it for any of the heat to transfer or radiate into.. it is expanding as fast as the radiation itself. Which all means it begins as a low entropy state.. highly concentrated very hot.. and moves to being a high entropy state.. cool and fairly evenly distributed.
Now density fluctuations are theorised to cause the collapse of one or more regions under the action of their collective gravity to eventually form the first massive stars. But compared to a cool ball of hydrogen in space a massive star is a much lower entropy state.!! Oh No.. not that Second Law again.
So gravity MUST overcome the Second Law.. I don't think so.. I should be able to prove that.. (to come)
4. The Simple can explain the Complex
From a mathematical - logic point of view.. this was proved to be impossible by Kurt Godel in his 1931 Incompleteness Theorems. There is always a 'remainder'. It's equivalent to saying the whole can be explained by examining the parts.. basic reductionism.. Its false.
An aeroplane may comprise 15000 parts.. none of which can fly..
In technological terms.. the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
Godel's theorems give meaning to the word 'design' as a Functional State of Matter.. meaning a design always has an overall purpose.. which can only be the product of a mind.
Think about it..
3. The First Star
After the mega blast of energy and mass, many times the size of the universe, the extremely high initial temperature produces a rapidly expanding ball of protons.. (hydrogen nuclei).. After a little more cooling the protons gain a couple of electrons and voilà - a massive ball of hydrogen.. (cosmic sand).
By definition that process becomes an adiabatic expansion of gas. Its adiabatic because there is no 'space' outside it for any of the heat to transfer or radiate into.. it is expanding as fast as the radiation itself. Which all means it begins as a low entropy state.. highly concentrated very hot.. and moves to being a high entropy state.. cool and fairly evenly distributed.
Now density fluctuations are theorised to cause the collapse of one or more regions under the action of their collective gravity to eventually form the first massive stars. But compared to a cool ball of hydrogen in space a massive star is a much lower entropy state.!! Oh No.. not that Second Law again.
So gravity MUST overcome the Second Law.. I don't think so.. I should be able to prove that.. (to come)
4. The Simple can explain the Complex
From a mathematical - logic point of view.. this was proved to be impossible by Kurt Godel in his 1931 Incompleteness Theorems. There is always a 'remainder'. It's equivalent to saying the whole can be explained by examining the parts.. basic reductionism.. Its false.
An aeroplane may comprise 15000 parts.. none of which can fly..
In technological terms.. the whole is more than the sum of the parts.
Godel's theorems give meaning to the word 'design' as a Functional State of Matter.. meaning a design always has an overall purpose.. which can only be the product of a mind.
Think about it..
Friday, August 23, 2013
Appendix 4.1 Other Laws
If the theory of evolution by natural selection violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics it should not be too surprising to find that ideas and theories founded on the same thinking may also be shown to violate other laws of physics. The scope of influence of evolutionary thinking cannot be underestimated as to its effects on almost every aspect of science and education from medicine to economics.. so what if its wrong!!
1. The Law of Biogenesis Louis Pasteur circa 1860
Inorganic chemistry.. molecules are supposed to have 'competed' for fitness, resulting in greater size and complexity in the primordial soup on an ancient earth cooling down from its assumed hot beginning. All leading to a self replicating RNA or DNA molecule or a proto-protein capable of replication. That's the essence of 'abiogenesis', however.
Last night on the BBC Story of Science Power, Proof and Passion program 23rd Aug 2013, Michael J Mosley made a watershed admission.. DNA can only exist within a cell, complete with all its complex systems that maintain it and make it work. The observation was simply put "living cells come from living cells".. and he concluded life started.. complex not simple.
Biogenesis is back on the podium.. (Omni vitum ex vita).
2. The First Law - the baryon number problem
After Einstein we knew mass was a concentrated form of energy and it could be converted directly into energy as confirmed by the atomic bomb. Conversely energy can be 'concentrated' to form mass. However.. the law of conservation dictates that whenever this happens you always get an equal number of anti-matter particles and matter particles (baryons - matter particles).
So the postulate of a big bang creating matter from energy means you not only get a universe.. but also an anti-universe!! Which means they should both annihilate one another and return to energy.! So it is postulated this universe is just the 'ashes' left over from a very much bigger bang than anyone can imagine.. meaning the universe is just the tiny 'error'.
Laws would breakdown at a big bang singularity.. however the energy -> mass conversion occurs after the singularity. The assumption of a baryon number error the size of this universe has to qualify as a violation of the 1st law.
There's more.
1. The Law of Biogenesis Louis Pasteur circa 1860
Inorganic chemistry.. molecules are supposed to have 'competed' for fitness, resulting in greater size and complexity in the primordial soup on an ancient earth cooling down from its assumed hot beginning. All leading to a self replicating RNA or DNA molecule or a proto-protein capable of replication. That's the essence of 'abiogenesis', however.
Last night on the BBC Story of Science Power, Proof and Passion program 23rd Aug 2013, Michael J Mosley made a watershed admission.. DNA can only exist within a cell, complete with all its complex systems that maintain it and make it work. The observation was simply put "living cells come from living cells".. and he concluded life started.. complex not simple.
Biogenesis is back on the podium.. (Omni vitum ex vita).
2. The First Law - the baryon number problem
After Einstein we knew mass was a concentrated form of energy and it could be converted directly into energy as confirmed by the atomic bomb. Conversely energy can be 'concentrated' to form mass. However.. the law of conservation dictates that whenever this happens you always get an equal number of anti-matter particles and matter particles (baryons - matter particles).
So the postulate of a big bang creating matter from energy means you not only get a universe.. but also an anti-universe!! Which means they should both annihilate one another and return to energy.! So it is postulated this universe is just the 'ashes' left over from a very much bigger bang than anyone can imagine.. meaning the universe is just the tiny 'error'.
Laws would breakdown at a big bang singularity.. however the energy -> mass conversion occurs after the singularity. The assumption of a baryon number error the size of this universe has to qualify as a violation of the 1st law.
There's more.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Appendix 3.3 Evolutionary Predictions
Last but not least is..
(3) Computer Simulation
From Darwin 1857 to about 1990 it was not possible to do really big model simulation and the only method was complex algebra and later calculus to find analytic solutions (formula with general applicability). But many problems have no analytic solution.
In the 1990's massively parallel computers became available allowing for simulation of such things as the weather.. and the solution of very large structural problems.. (economics is apparently still out of reach :*()
Surely evolution... bunch of replicating things.. subject to occasional random change.. in an environment with a few enemies, a few different foods, a few ecological niches etc. let it run and see what survives.. a lot easier than the weather I would imagine. Checking the Wiki..(Evolutionary Algorithm)
"Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes. The computer simulations Tierra and Avida attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics." (complete with spelling error.. mutation.. hmm)
Hint.. "macroevolution" means create new information.. "attempt" means NO its not been done..
In 'Climbing Mount Improbable' Richard Dawkins promised this prediction would be fulfilled within ten years.. that was 1996. From my falsification I can confidently say it will never be done.. because macro-evolution implies a violation of the Second Law for any DNA coding protein type life on any Earth like planet.
The humble honey bee routinely does problems we need a supercomputer to solve?
A little humility is probably in order for us..
(3) Computer Simulation
From Darwin 1857 to about 1990 it was not possible to do really big model simulation and the only method was complex algebra and later calculus to find analytic solutions (formula with general applicability). But many problems have no analytic solution.
In the 1990's massively parallel computers became available allowing for simulation of such things as the weather.. and the solution of very large structural problems.. (economics is apparently still out of reach :*()
Surely evolution... bunch of replicating things.. subject to occasional random change.. in an environment with a few enemies, a few different foods, a few ecological niches etc. let it run and see what survives.. a lot easier than the weather I would imagine. Checking the Wiki..(Evolutionary Algorithm)
"Techniques from evolutionary algorithms applied to the modeling of biological evolution are generally limited to explorations of microevolutionary processes. The computer simulations Tierra and Avida attempt to model macroevolutionary dynamics." (complete with spelling error.. mutation.. hmm)
Hint.. "macroevolution" means create new information.. "attempt" means NO its not been done..
In 'Climbing Mount Improbable' Richard Dawkins promised this prediction would be fulfilled within ten years.. that was 1996. From my falsification I can confidently say it will never be done.. because macro-evolution implies a violation of the Second Law for any DNA coding protein type life on any Earth like planet.
The humble honey bee routinely does problems we need a supercomputer to solve?
A little humility is probably in order for us..
Appendix 3.2 Evolutionary Predictions
(2) Systematic Taxonomy
The evolutionary algorithm is a theory of limitless and constant change.. long periods of 'stasis' are cited for such creatures as crocodiles simply because their fossils cover a theoretical 200 million years.. However other fossil deposits demand very 'rapid' evolutionary change. The problem is the science is vague and accords more with convenient storytelling.
Human beings are described as having opted out of evolution.. But it was not so long ago black indigenous native people were considered less than human, primitive savages in evolutionary terms. Certainly Charles Darwin expressed this opinion and thought they would eventually die out.
The question is how does a system of continuous change produce a living kingdom which conforms to an enduring classification system of distinct types with identifiable groupings. The original idea actually came from the bible.. by a creationist (like all theists of his day) and it is still with us! Carl Linnaeus was the first to create the binomial naming system of classification.. its changed but his classification of large animals remains essentially unchanged.
Species is an inadequate term to talk about immutability but at the higher family level it accords rather well with the bible's use of the word 'kind'. Creatures reproduce after their kind and the flesh of one kind is different to the flesh of another kind.. accords well with observation and the Law of Biogenesis..
"Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is due not to spontaneous generation, but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo "all life from life")." [from Wikipedia article Louis Pasteur]
must move on..
The evolutionary algorithm is a theory of limitless and constant change.. long periods of 'stasis' are cited for such creatures as crocodiles simply because their fossils cover a theoretical 200 million years.. However other fossil deposits demand very 'rapid' evolutionary change. The problem is the science is vague and accords more with convenient storytelling.
Human beings are described as having opted out of evolution.. But it was not so long ago black indigenous native people were considered less than human, primitive savages in evolutionary terms. Certainly Charles Darwin expressed this opinion and thought they would eventually die out.
The question is how does a system of continuous change produce a living kingdom which conforms to an enduring classification system of distinct types with identifiable groupings. The original idea actually came from the bible.. by a creationist (like all theists of his day) and it is still with us! Carl Linnaeus was the first to create the binomial naming system of classification.. its changed but his classification of large animals remains essentially unchanged.
Species is an inadequate term to talk about immutability but at the higher family level it accords rather well with the bible's use of the word 'kind'. Creatures reproduce after their kind and the flesh of one kind is different to the flesh of another kind.. accords well with observation and the Law of Biogenesis..
"Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation is caused by the growth of micro-organisms, and the emergent growth of bacteria in nutrient broths is due not to spontaneous generation, but rather to biogenesis (Omne vivum ex vivo "all life from life")." [from Wikipedia article Louis Pasteur]
must move on..
Apppendix 3.1 Evolutionary Predictions
All good scientific theories make predictions which are crucial to the verification of the truth of the theory and evolution is no exception. Again there are at least three I am a ware of..
(1) The Occurrence of Beneficial Mutations
Since it is just too improbable for a mutation or series of mutations to occur precisely when they are needed by a change in say the environment or food supply or predators etc. It is postulated that these accumulate in waiting as neutral or non fatal mutations which become available when the system is driven out of its previously stable pattern.
Unfortunately studies of mutations to date have not turned up anything remotely like what would be required to actually make evolution a possibility. The vast majority of mutations are neutral or of very small effect thanks to the redundancy built into DNA and the double helix. The elaborate proof reading and error correcting mechanism plays a vital role in verification of the copy and last but not least.. the biblical command to not marry your close relatives.. also practised in nature by larger animals.
Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance" a graduate in both mathematics and genetics does a calculation of the required number of 'favourable' mutations required to meet the evolutionary requirement for a creature like the horse. Its of the order of 2 million!
Confirmation comes from the research like Motoo Kimura.. Kimura's data shows beneficial mutations as so rare to be not measurable. and from research in the Wikipedia "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.". One often cited beneficial mutation called "Sickle Cell" gives resistance to Malaria but itself is ultimately shortens life expectancy?
The data clearly does not support this prediction..
(1) The Occurrence of Beneficial Mutations
Since it is just too improbable for a mutation or series of mutations to occur precisely when they are needed by a change in say the environment or food supply or predators etc. It is postulated that these accumulate in waiting as neutral or non fatal mutations which become available when the system is driven out of its previously stable pattern.
Unfortunately studies of mutations to date have not turned up anything remotely like what would be required to actually make evolution a possibility. The vast majority of mutations are neutral or of very small effect thanks to the redundancy built into DNA and the double helix. The elaborate proof reading and error correcting mechanism plays a vital role in verification of the copy and last but not least.. the biblical command to not marry your close relatives.. also practised in nature by larger animals.
Dr Lee Spetner in "Not By Chance" a graduate in both mathematics and genetics does a calculation of the required number of 'favourable' mutations required to meet the evolutionary requirement for a creature like the horse. Its of the order of 2 million!
Confirmation comes from the research like Motoo Kimura.. Kimura's data shows beneficial mutations as so rare to be not measurable. and from research in the Wikipedia "Out of all mutations, 39.6% were lethal, 31.2% were non-lethal deleterious, and 27.1% were neutral.". One often cited beneficial mutation called "Sickle Cell" gives resistance to Malaria but itself is ultimately shortens life expectancy?
The data clearly does not support this prediction..
Appendix 2.4 Evolutionary Assumptions
(3) Physical Assumption
The physical assumption inherent in the evolutionary algorithm is that you can naturally increase complexity because natural selection gets around the Second Law..
The tactic has been to avoid a clear definition of the word 'complexity'.. ignorance at work. (go on.. have a look for the definition)..
Ludwig Boltzmann, Willard Gibbs and Max Plank put a scale on the axis of complexity for any state of matter..
COMPLEXITY = IMPROBABILITY
The Second Law requirement for any large system that the absolute entropy cannot naturally decrease means improbability cannot increase which means complexity cannot increase over time. Inconsistent with evolution but consistent with all observations, simulations and honest calculations.
Natural selection is just that, SELECTION of what has already been produced by random mutation and therefore cannot effect or provide any direction to those mutations.
The essence of my falsification is the application of the second law to the evolution of semantic information as encoded in DNA.. but it equally applies to the physical state.
Physical 'Design' is another word left without proper definition. We even have R Dawkins inventing 'designoid' (appearance of design with purpose but not purposeful).. without first defining 'design' upon which it is based!
DESIGN = A FUNCTIONAL STATE OF MATTER
Only a mind can conceive of a need for a function.. purpose is therefore implicit. If it has a purpose then by definition it is a design.. Like eyes, ears, muscles, feathers, bicycle chains, teapots and elephants..
Occam's Razor required..
The physical assumption inherent in the evolutionary algorithm is that you can naturally increase complexity because natural selection gets around the Second Law..
The tactic has been to avoid a clear definition of the word 'complexity'.. ignorance at work. (go on.. have a look for the definition)..
Ludwig Boltzmann, Willard Gibbs and Max Plank put a scale on the axis of complexity for any state of matter..
COMPLEXITY = IMPROBABILITY
The Second Law requirement for any large system that the absolute entropy cannot naturally decrease means improbability cannot increase which means complexity cannot increase over time. Inconsistent with evolution but consistent with all observations, simulations and honest calculations.
Natural selection is just that, SELECTION of what has already been produced by random mutation and therefore cannot effect or provide any direction to those mutations.
The essence of my falsification is the application of the second law to the evolution of semantic information as encoded in DNA.. but it equally applies to the physical state.
Physical 'Design' is another word left without proper definition. We even have R Dawkins inventing 'designoid' (appearance of design with purpose but not purposeful).. without first defining 'design' upon which it is based!
DESIGN = A FUNCTIONAL STATE OF MATTER
Only a mind can conceive of a need for a function.. purpose is therefore implicit. If it has a purpose then by definition it is a design.. Like eyes, ears, muscles, feathers, bicycle chains, teapots and elephants..
Occam's Razor required..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)