One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="931601 wrote:
For this hypothesis to be acceptable, it will require more than just words to support it. It will require a mechanism, it will require an evidential basis, and as the suggestion is that this process started in the quark-gluon plasma after the initial expansion, it will require a logic shown through mathematical modelling.



Suppose i told you to go read a book , and then i asked you to explain briefly what happened in the first chapter, would you read all the chapter to me, or just give me the feel of the chapter broadly speaking?

Chapters of evolution thrower, for more You need to get off first base.

*The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution.

Paul.

http://youtu.be/C88yb-OVNmw


Paul: you've produced, I would estimate, something like 50,000 words on this topic, so your claim that it's a summary is rather untenable.

Further, you didn't address what I wrote. This is not a topic for mere words; words can make fantasy as well as they can describe facts.

What would support your claims are a) evidence or b) a mathematical underpinning.

Until then, you're not even in the batting team.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="931608 wrote:
I'm attempting to see evolution as a single process that begins with the bb. For there to be such an occurrence, for that to happen then evolution must be seen as being self perpetuating.


The Primodial tree bore fruit, the Earth and a tree of life, the tree of life bore fruit, good intelligence [?]

Paul.


Metaphors are only useful when they have expository power. The 'primordial tree' metaphor doesn't work because a tree is an already complex, functioning system: that is to say, it's not relevant to what you've been claiming where an innate process arises in a medium where it can have no functionality, then waits around for several billion years, holding its ground through an ever-changing state, until objects arise where it can have an effect.

Like I said: words are simply not sufficient here. You need evidence or mathematical proof. Until then, you've got nothing but a jumble of words you like to thrust at people.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower wrote:Paul: you've produced, I would estimate, something like 50,000 words on this topic, so your claim that it's a summary is rather untenable.


Look at yourself, Test and re-test your opinion and attitude Thrower.
The thread stalls, despite what you believe, state to the contrary the 'one bang one process' hypothesis falls well within the zone of logic and reason, it therefore "stands to reason" to the reasonable. But then your not rational are you.


Further, you didn't address what I wrote. This is not a topic for mere words; words can make fantasy as well as they can describe facts.


Lets cut through the crap; Can you accept in principle 'the most basic premise', the bb = the common ancestor?


What would support your claims are a) evidence or b) a mathematical underpinning.


The three types of selection i outline explain the observed data.

Until then, you're not even in the batting team.


The thread stalls, you are to blame.

Paul.



!
GENERAL MODNOTE
The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed

Durro
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

spearthrower wrote:Metaphors are only useful when they have expository power. The 'primordial tree' metaphor doesn't work because a tree is an already complex, functioning system: that is to say, it's not relevant to what you've been claiming where an innate process arises in a medium where it can have no functionality, then waits around for several billion years, holding its ground through an ever-changing state, until objects arise where it can have an effect.


Eh, what are you on about.

Like I said: words are simply not sufficient here. You need evidence or mathematical proof. Until then, you've got nothing but a jumble of words you like to thrust at people.


You see a jumble of words because you want to see a jumble of words.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="933068 wrote:Paul: you've produced, I would estimate, something like 50,000 words on this topic, so your claim that it's a summary is rather untenable.


Look at yourself, Test and re-test your opinion and attitude Thrower.


I'm not the one making claims, Paul.


pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote:The thread stalls, despite what you believe, state to the contrary the 'one bang one process' hypothesis falls well within the zone of logic and reason, it therefore "stands to reason" to the reasonable. But then your not rational are you.


More empty assertions coupled with a sleight on me as a person.

You are thereby obliged to extend that criticism to all participants of this thread. That presumably leaves you as the only person who is rational. Does that seem a fair assessment to you?


pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="933068 wrote:Further, you didn't address what I wrote. This is not a topic for mere words; words can make fantasy as well as they can describe facts.


Lets cut through the crap; Can you accept in principle 'the most basic premise', the bb = the common ancestor?


Not from what you've written, no.


pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="933068 wrote:What would support your claims are a) evidence or b) a mathematical underpinning.


The three types of selection i outline explain the observed data.


What observed data?


pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="933068 wrote:Until then, you're not even in the batting team.


The thread stalls, you are to blame.

Paul.



Don't make accusations, Paul - it doesn't bolster your claims.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="933078 wrote:
spearthrower";p="933078 wrote:Metaphors are only useful when they have expository power. The 'primordial tree' metaphor doesn't work because a tree is an already complex, functioning system: that is to say, it's not relevant to what you've been claiming where an innate process arises in a medium where it can have no functionality, then waits around for several billion years, holding its ground through an ever-changing state, until objects arise where it can have an effect.


Eh, what are you on about.


You've used the metaphor of a primordial tree. It doesn't have explanatory power.


pfrankinstein";p="933078 wrote:
spearthrower";p="933078 wrote:Like I said: words are simply not sufficient here. You need evidence or mathematical proof. Until then, you've got nothing but a jumble of words you like to thrust at people.


You see a jumble of words because you want to see a jumble of words.

Paul.


Not at all Paul, I could as equally ignore you given that you constantly assert claims that are fictitious, then cast aspersions on your interlocutors. Why don't I? You never give credit to the people who are here critiquing your claims. If they hold water, then no amount of criticism will detract from those claims. Yet you are not interested in hearing criticisms, you want and expect agreement, and if that's not forthcoming, you start aiming barrages at the person rather than their argument.

The reason I see a jumble of words is, as I have gone to great lengths in this thread to explain to you, your words are merely titles with no explanatory power. They are not expanded on, at any point; all you do is repeat the same sets of words over and over like a mantra. No forward progression can occur while you simply reiterate the same previously challenged assertions over and over. You could try and reflect on the response you've had here and at other forums: is everyone out to get you? is everyone close-minded? Or is it possible that you are not presenting your material coherently, and it's you that needs to work on your communication skills if you think your idea is substantively valid, and would actually like it addressed.

Honestly; what's the objective here, Paul? Could you answer me just this directly. What do you want from people? Do you want them to just accept your ideas without question? Do you want a support group, followers, uncritical acceptance? If not, then why don't you put some more effort into explaining your position?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Not at all Paul, I could as equally ignore you given that you constantly assert claims that are fictitious, then cast aspersions on your interlocutors. Why don't I? You never give credit to the people who are here critiquing your claims.



Dunnig Krugar, old dog new tricks syndrome me thinks,mmmmmmmm

Your wasting my time.

Paul.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
Posts: 10805
Joined: Feb 05, 2011 2:00 pm
Name: Kento
Country: UK/US/AU/SG
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by LucidFlight »

Hi, Paul (prankinstein). :wave:

Any response to my query here?

How about hackenslash's question?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="933121 wrote:
Not at all Paul, I could as equally ignore you given that you constantly assert claims that are fictitious, then cast aspersions on your interlocutors. Why don't I? You never give credit to the people who are here critiquing your claims.



Dunnig Krugar, old dog new tricks syndrome me thinks,mmmmmmmm

Your wasting my time.

Paul.


No Paul, you're wasting your time.

Best go read up on those titles prior to trying to score cheap points with them; then you might be able to spell them correctly.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower wrote:No Paul, you're wasting your time.

Best go read up on those titles prior to trying to score cheap points with them; then you might be able to spell them correctly.


You seem to be wrapped up in your own spin. Look, just because 'Spearthrower" says so does not make it so, fiction indeed, clap trap.

You want the finished item, well i'm affraid i don't have it, we could explore together, except you can't get off first base.

Paul.
User avatar
Durro
RS Donator
Posts: 16737
Joined: Feb 26, 2010 11:17 am
Country: Brisbane, Australia
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Durro »

pfrankinstein";p="933068 wrote: But then your (sic) not rational are you.



!
MODNOTE
Paul, you have twice been advised and twice been warned for personal attacks/insults against other members. As you have repeated this behaviour, you have now earned your 3rd current warning and a 1 week suspension from the forum. I suggest that you reconsider your posting style and review our forum rules, for a repeat of this sort of behaviour or other rule violations may see further sanctions applied.

During this suspension, you may not make any additional accounts (sockpuppets) or else your suspension may be increased up to and including permanent banning from the forum. If you wish to contact the Mod team during your suspension, you may do so via the admin e-mail at info@rationalskepticism.org

Other members are reminded that suspended members are still afforded protection under the FUA, so please, no personal comments about Paul. If anyone wishes to discuss this issue, please PM myself or another Mod, or raise your issue in Feedback. But please do not derail this thread with discussion/debate about moderation.

Thanks,

Durro
I'll start believing in Astrology the day that all Sagittarians get hit by a bus, as predicted.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

When Paul comes back, maybe he can try addressing this honest request to understand what he wants to achieve:

Spearthrower";p="933091 wrote:Honestly; what's the objective here, Paul? Could you answer me just this directly. What do you want from people? Do you want them to just accept your ideas without question? Do you want a support group, followers, uncritical acceptance? If not, then why don't you put some more effort into explaining your position?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
Posts: 10805
Joined: Feb 05, 2011 2:00 pm
Name: Kento
Country: UK/US/AU/SG
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by LucidFlight »

Welcome back, Paul. So, how's that theory of yours coming along? Do you have any (new or novel?) proposed mechanisms, predictions, tests, or evidence to support your particular ideas about the cosmos?
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
starr
RS Donator
Posts: 6483
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 8:28 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by starr »


!
GENERAL MODNOTE
I've split the posts that discuss pfrankinstein's warning into a new thread in Feedback, Site Suggestions, and Bug Reporting.

Please take the discussion about the moderation decision to that thread and do not continue it here.

starr
[quote="stijndeloose";p="1580588"] A wise decision that anyone can make: if you feel tempted to attack a RatSkep member, take a break.[/quote]
Image
Darwinsbulldog
Posts: 7440
Joined: Feb 27, 2010 9:19 am

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Darwinsbulldog »

@pfrankinstein

Let's get back to basics Paul.

What is science? The study of nature. But it is not quite that is it? It is the study of phenomena. Why not nature itself? Because we can't know for sure when what we see is nature. Take for example, visible light. Yes, we can see that. But not the rest of the spectrum. Other animals can see into the infra-red or ultraviolet. So we know that our senses, while useful, are imperfect. The trouble is we will probably never really know "true" nature, because we have no way of knowing how close we are to truth.

To be sure, a naive realism helps us survive. If we are crossing the road, and a bus approaches, it is best to assume the bus's "reality'. So we can have confidence in, but not absolutely trust our senses or our interpretations of what we see. T.H. Huxley remarked that science was :-
"Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic".
All good sentiments. Except that they are wrong. Because if common sense was utterly reliable, if Umwelt [our natural local and traditional knowledge] were always true, then we would have no need of experiments. And accuracy too, is limited, despite our best efforts.

So how do we judge the worth of an idea?

The first comment to make is that such judgment is likely to be subjective. Correlation, induction, cause, truth, falsity, reality, nature, teleology, purpose etc can all be attacked. This is an epistemological problem. How can we devise a methodology that is value-free? We have to dump all metaphysical claims.

This brings immediate advantages! To be sure, it seems odd, because as I said above, we rely on our naive reality to survive. Folks who could correctly judge the capabilities and intent of the hungry lion at the waterhole tended to survive and have offspring over those who paid little heed of such dangers. We all have to drink, and so we all have to go to the waterhole. Most animals have this property of judging capabilities and intent. But it is not perfect.

We see this as science developed. With phenomena that is fairly mundane and well within our experience set, our Umwelt serves us fairly well.

But what of the very fast, or very small or very large? Is our Umwelt, or common-sense, up to the task of knowing what it is like to travel at near the speed of light? Is our common-sense up to the task of knowing what it is like to be a bacterium? Or can we have an understanding of time scales of billions of years? When most of us do not live a 100 years?

So let's dump all metaphysics and see where it gets us.

1.A scientist thinks he sees a pattern of [natural] phenomena.
2. He/she formulates a description of that supposed system.
3. The description yields testable predictions.
4. Via experiments, and /or further observations of phenomena, the predictions of the model are destructively tested.
5. If the the model passes, it is said to work based on all the available information[phenomena!] at that time.
6. The conclusions are tentative, and have to be modified if/when further phenomena are discovered.
7. "Explanation" in terms of the model, is confined to the model's ability to both describe and predict the system of phenomena under study.

1-7 is totally free of metaphysics.

It does not demand reality, purpose, teleology, tastes, beliefs, causes, truth, falsity etc.

Therefore, it is for everyone. Atheist, realist, theist, anybody-ist can use the same system.

So, to sum up. Claims, especailly in terms of absolute truth, absolute reality and other metaphysics are absurd. They are absurd because none of us are omniscient. Because ONLY if one is omniscient, can one claim absolute knowledge and thus be able to judge what is absolutely true or false. In other words, we lack the capacity to totally know reality, and worse we can't even really tell how close our notions are to reality.

This applies not only to science, but every system of human thought, including of course, religions. Unless one can successfully prove omniscience, one cannot make an absolute claim. Well, people can claim anything absolute, but it would be false as I have argued.

I will stop there and wait for your reply.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Darwinsbulldog wrote:I will stop there and wait for your reply.


I'm not sure how much of the "One bang en process" supposition you understand sir.

Let me start by addressing my motivation, because i believe that "placing into context" = coherence, mine is attempt to place Darwinian evolution into context of it's own evolution by its own measure.

Validation for the line of enquiry = shift in perception.
The way we perceive the subject of "evolution" has shifted over the years, macroscopic/microscopic/naturalist/biologist [>].

Mine is an attempt to see "evolution" from a large macroscopic perspective.

By supposing *The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution, some circumstantial evidence has come to light.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="909675 wrote:One question:

Can you identify the selection mechanisms?


What was the mechanism in Darwins day.

Remember i'm measuring "evolution" by its own measure. Are you expecting a complex answer?

Paul.
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

pfrankinstein";p="961411 wrote:What was the mechanism in Darwins day.


In Darwin's day, the mechanism was the pressure to survive. This, of course, doesn't apply to your rectally extracted drivel, because survival is something that only applies to living organisms.

Good work, you just fucked your own theory.

And for my next impression...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJkHykGRXrw[/youtube]

Remember i'm measuring "evolution" by its own measure. Are you expecting a complex answer?


No, I'm expecting an intelligible answer. Of course, given your past record, this is almost certainly an empty expectation.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="961426 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="961411 wrote:What was the mechanism in Darwins day.


In Darwin's day, the mechanism was the pressure to survive.


FFS. In Darwins day, with his perspective his explanation of the mechanism was "Descent with modification by means of natural selection".

MECHANISM. MECHANISM.

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Aug 14, 2011 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
hackenslash
Posts: 22910
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 2:26 pm
Name: The Other Sweary One
Country: Republic of Mancunia
Location: That niggling voice telling you you might be wrong...
Contact:

Re: One bang one process.

Post by hackenslash »

pfrankinstein";p="961445 wrote:FFS. In Darwins day, with his perspective his explornation of the mechanism was "Descent with modification by means of natural selection".


And what, exactly, do you think 'natural selection' is?

MECHANISM. MECHANISM.


Yes, you haven't provided one.
Locked