Lib, thanks for the link to J. Chem. Edu. When I have more time I shall read it in depth, but even after a quick glance at it, I think I see your point: informational entropy should not be equated with thermodynamic entropy. Some years ago I wrote a research paper summarizing the then-current thinking on the application of the Second Law to biological organisms and biological evolution. The confusion/equation of informational and thermodynamic entropy was common in the literature even then, especially in the area of genetics.
Although I didn’t make a clear distinction in my previous post, I was speaking in terms of thermodynamic entropy: the Second Law does favor the development/evolution of biological organisms. In such far-from-equilibrium systems, increasing thermodynamic entropy results in a system which is best described as highly organized rather than highly ordered, in part because the term “order” evokes human concepts/perceptions of information and the arrangement of things. And IMHO, whoever started the association of “information” with “entropy” should be. . . well, allowed to witness the heat death of the Universe.
However, my studies in this area were 10+ years ago and my understanding could very well be out-of-date, for which I apologize. And this is probably a topic for another thread anyway.
Look, if constellations were really supposed to be connect the dot drawings then there would be little numbers next to stars. (compliments to Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst).
But nothing has ever encapsulated (IMO) views on the universe any better than the Principia Discordia.
[Yawn] - Yes, we all know you can’t prove a negative.
There are at least 4 problems with this reasoning: (1) Your unfounded belief that the universe is ordered; (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe without supernatural intervention would be non-predictability; (3) That a sentient being such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn is required to provide order; and (4) If such a being even existed, that you can know anything about it’s characteristics without any objective evidence.
I will expound on my point, if that will help. The problem with trying to deduce God in the manner that Saen has attempted, is that even if you accept all his premises (which I do not), and then accept his conclusion that “something” controls the universe, we are still left with no information whatsoever about the characteristics of this “something”. So, at best, even if the premises held, the conclusion would still be “We don’t know what controls the universe”.
Besides which, the point isn’t even necessary, since Saen’s argument is entirely predicated on a belief that predictability is somehow NOT the natural state of the universe, and that “outside intervention” is needed to make events predictable. If this is the case, please demonstrate why this is so.
You needn’t convince me of the weakness of Saen’s argument, but I wasn’t addressing his; I was addressing yours, or at least one element of it.
You say that my assertion that not all valid evidence is objective is false, and that its converse is not relevant. What objectively would constitute valid evidence that brown is my favorite color? If I signed an affidavit testifying that my favorite color is brown, how would you know I wasn’t lying or mistaken?
I’m sorry, but was that your “unfounded belief” to make you state the first quote?
(1) Semantics aside I think we agree that the universe is not random. Wheather ordered or organized something makes it “predictable”. (2) Your assumption that the state of the universe is just predictable ranks right up there with a father telling a son “because I said so”.(3) I never said a sentient being was required. I said something, and you said something is not god. (4) Now you get into particulars based upon different religions. And it makes me wonder if you have a clue what faith is all about.
My argument is not weak or flawed. you are trying to get me into a debate about a particular religion and beliefe system when my first post stated basically that we do not know. Then you say that you know that it is NOT something. You say that you cannot prove a negative but your posts are peppered with negative conotations against agaisnt a “god”. Ok instead of me asking you to prove a negative, what is you objective evidence of what controls the universe? and what does not?
There are different theories as to why the universe is predictable. Superstring theory, for example, holds that all subatomic particles are “strings” that are vibrating at a particular rate. This determines how the particles interact with each other, which in turn determines how matter and energy interact in the universe. We can observe these interactions and make predictions. I don’t know if superstring theory is correct, but it is an example of “something” that is not a god. (If someone has studied physics, and I have grossly misstated this, please correct me.) This is not the same as being “ordered”. Are the stars lined up in rows? Are planets all of equal size and density? What exactly do you think is so orderly about the universe?
This is what you said:
Sounds to me like you said that the “something” is God. Either that, or your last sentence is completely unrelated to the previous two.
Faith is all about self-deception and wishful thinking.
"So yes there is a God/gods." Doesn’t sound like “we do not know” to me.
Why does something have to control the universe? Maybe the universe is the way it is because this happens to be the way all those particles bounced around and stuck together. Why is it that you can’t accept that explanation, yet you can accept the even more unlikely explanation that a magical being pulled the universe out of his ass, so to speak?
It’s your assertion. Prove it or abandon it. Otherwise, if you stand by it, you’re engaging in what you call “self-deception and wishful thinking”. Plus, you still have not shown what valid objective evidence there is that my favorite color is brown.
Eris, the problem with the Eristic Principle is that there is indeed an objective grid for the universe; i.e., for any arbitrary particle, its distance from any other particle at any time is an exact sum of Planck distances. Thus, the objective grid is the grid whose coordinates are Planck distances apart.
Libertarian is correct: this statement is a “myth” arising from some mixed-up ideas about scientific theories and how to test them.
In order for a scientific theory to be rigorous and valid (as a construct), it must be potentially falsifyable. That is, the theory must be constructed such that predictions can be made on the basis of it and experiments designed to test those predictions and the soundness of the theory.
In this sense, a theory is easy to disprove, because one only needs to find one instance where the experimental and predicted outcomes do not agree in order for the theory to be false. This may lead to the theory being revised or discarded altogether; but in either case, the original theory has been disproven.
It is much more difficult to prove a theory, as you might imagine, because to do so one has to demonstrate that the theory applies in every imaginable instance. Now, if the theory is worded in a negative sense – “such-and-such does not occur” – then this “negative” is hard to prove because one has to show that it applies in every instance. This, I think, has led to the myth of “you can’t prove a negative”.
OK. . . now for a more pragmatic approach. Here are some negative statements:
The Earth is not flat. The Earth does not revolve around the Sun. Green is not Libertarian’s favorite color.
Are these inherently unprovable because they are negatives?
Now consider these two statements:
God does not exist. God exists.
Is the first inherently more difficult to prove than the second?
“A gem-quality diamond larger than the Cullinan does not exist.”
This may not be disprovable in fact, though it is theoretically so, by finding such a diamond. But if only one existed, and that one in an asteroid belt in a stellar system in the Andromeda Galaxy, there would at present be no way of disproving the statement.
In general when I’ve seen this statement, it’s been with reference to a universal negative. But even this is easy to disprove in theory. “There’s no such thing as a white crow” requires only that we find one white crow to disprove it.
Perhaps in honor of the poster who brought it up, we might refer to the idea as Saen’s Fiction?
Now wait a second. First of all you cite me a theory that belies what we percieve today and would be false if you did not base it upon another theory (Kaluza-Klein Theory), that creates 6 more invisible dimensions. And I would loosely call it a thoery but more of an idea.
And so therfore your assertion is because of these theories then there is no “god”?
Of course since these are unproven theories they would not be based upon your faith (self-deception and wishful thinking) in the authors, But you were the actual scientist who has the limited information for you to come up with this theory. You just cant prove it to us little folk yet.
Coincidence huh? Shit happens? How about “because I said so”? Let me ask you why can’t something controll the universe. Why are you so averse to there being a “god”? It has never been proven to be false so why do you proclaim it so? You would rather base your faith upon invisible dimensions based upon some half baked theory wich in itself is based upon another idea. At least I have the history of man and studies to back me up.
Poly, a much easier example is this: “2 plus 2 does not equal 5”. It is easy, even trivial, using the Peano axioms, to prove that that assertion is true.
