Action at a Distance = Fiction

[sjw40364]

sjw40364,
facts and logic! Is it really so hard for your brain to get this?
The alternative is fiction and nonsense.

Which is precisely what you are introducing here:
"Are you saying that since thought is nothing more than electrical actions along a pathway, then scientifically no being of pure thought could exist along the paths that connect the universe?"
Fiction. And no, I am not saying that. You are! I try to avoid this kind of fiction.
Thoughts are immaterial. They are not made of matter, and also they are not electricity. It doesn't matter how the brain works. I don't consider power plants to be smarter than myself.

"Supernatural or just currently unexplainable by science"
Nonsense. If it can be explained by science in the future, it is not supernatural.

"A fact based upon AAAD that in reality we know nothing about".
Nonsense. A fact that we know nothing about, can hardly be called a fact.

"that is all supernatural is, something unexplainable by current knowledge and science"
Nonsense. Check the definition of the word.

"Supernatural by definition since we have never observed life from non-life"
Nonsense. Living beings exists. That is a fact. You and I are both living proofs. Never having observed life from non-life does not make any of us supernatural. You assume life evolved from non-life. That is precisely what you never observed.

"Big Bang or just always there, supernatural by definition."
Nonsense. "Always there" is a possibility that doesn't violate neiher reality nor logic. Big Bang is another cup of tea. Again, check what the word supernatural means.


Science cannot deal with anything but reality. Period.

Lets see, the facts, we exist. The fact, no life has ever been observed to form spontaneously. So if you believe it did, then you believe in something against the observed data.

So you believe science to be wrong when it says for every effect there must be a cause? One of the main tenets of scientific belief. So how does an eternal universe without a cause not violate cause and effect or creation from nothing, the two top tenets that separate science from mythology? So since we are here, then one of the above two tenets of science is incorrect. Take your pick.

[klypp]

Lets see, the facts, we exist. The fact, no life has ever been observed to form spontaneously. So if you believe it did, then you believe in something against the observed data.

I don't believe anything regarding this question. Whether or not non-living matter can turn into life or not does not change anything. In both cases the conclusion must be that life has always been part of an eternal universe. It doesn't take much thinking to realize this.
Your problem is that you are desperately seeking "beginnings" in order to prove the supernatural. Even though the supernatural per definition cannot be proven.
Wouldn't it be better to just accept the observed data. Life as such exists. It never began.

So you believe science to be wrong when it says for every effect there must be a cause? One of the main tenets of scientific belief. So how does an eternal universe without a cause not violate cause and effect or creation from nothing, the two top tenets that separate science from mythology? So since we are here, then one of the above two tenets of science is incorrect. Take your pick.

An eternal universe never started.

Creation from nothing is not a tenet of science. It's mysticism, and yes, often found in in mythologies.

[sjw40364]

Lets see, the facts, we exist. The fact, no life has ever been observed to form spontaneously. So if you believe it did, then you believe in something against the observed data.

I don't believe anything regarding this question. Whether or not non-living matter can turn into life or not does not change anything. In both cases the conclusion must be that life has always been part of an eternal universe. It doesn't take much thinking to realize this.
Your problem is that you are desperately seeking "beginnings" in order to prove the supernatural. Even though the supernatural per definition cannot be proven.
Wouldn't it be better to just accept the observed data. Life as such exists. It never began.

So you believe science to be wrong when it says for every effect there must be a cause? One of the main tenets of scientific belief. So how does an eternal universe without a cause not violate cause and effect or creation from nothing, the two top tenets that separate science from mythology? So since we are here, then one of the above two tenets of science is incorrect. Take your pick.

An eternal universe never started.

Creation from nothing is not a tenet of science. It's mysticism, and yes, often found in in mythologies.

Not knowing an answer to the question does not invalidate the question. It is called avoidance to something not supported by the evidence.

You say an eternal universe never started, yet you then have effect without cause. You may not like the answer, but since we are here, there must have been a beginning since science forbids effects without causes. That supposition is unavoidable based upon your so called scientific fact that no effect can occurr without a cause. We may never know how, but that does not change the fact that no effect can happen without a cause. You might be surprised at just how much mythology you have built into modern cosmology.

If you are going to disregard your main tenet of science, that no effect can occurr without a cause, you might as well trash science since you are going to ignore it when it doesn't suit you to follow it. I don't say a being created it, how will never be known, but without a doubt there is no conclusion to be drawn that it had a beginning no matter how far back that might be. So let's just ignore cause and effect so we can have it the way we want it while pretending we haven't just violated our own set of scientific beliefs to keep the fantasy alive.

[Morphix]

The fact that all causes have effects and all effects have causes, whether the universal set of things caused and affected is finite or infinite, does not mean that the set as a whole must have a cause. Ascribing the qualities of parts to the whole would be the well known fallacy of composition, which no scientist should commit if they care about logic. I suppose a scientist could respond that logic does not apply to causality, but that would have to be argued philosophically as it is not a scientifically testable hypothesis.

These are the sorts of errors that occur when scientists attempt to go beyond the reach of scientific method. A more proper approach for scientists is to seek spcific causes for specific effects and specific effects for specific causes, and stay away from claiming to have a handle on things like an absolute beginning of the universe. To answer such a question while treating the universe as an "effect" you would have to know everything there is to know of the "effect" and its cause, which would require omniscience, which is impossible.

This is probably why most people's minds reel when presented with the BBT or infinite universe concept: the mind reels because neither can be arrived at by facts or by logic, and never can be artived at by a finite mind with a limited context and fallible ideas. If you happen to be omniscient and infallible, no problem.

[sjw40364]

The fact that all causes have effects and all effects have causes, whether the universal set of things caused and affected is finite or infinite, does not mean that the set as a whole must have a cause. Ascribing the qualities of parts to the whole would be the well known fallacy of composition, which no scientist should commit if they care about logic. I suppose a scientist could respond that logic does not apply to causality, but that would have to be argued philosophically as it is not a scientifically testable hypothesis.

These are the sorts of errors that occur when scientists attempt to go beyond the reach of scientific method. A more proper approach for scientists is to seek spcific causes for specific effects and specific effects for specific causes, and stay away from claiming to have a handle on things like an absolute beginning of the universe. To answer such a question while treating the universe as an "effect" you would have to know everything there is to know of the "effect" and its cause, which would require omniscience, which is impossible.

This is probably why most people's minds reel when presented with the BBT or infinite universe concept: the mind reels because neither can be arrived at by facts or by logic, and never can be artived at by a finite mind with a limited context and fallible ideas. If you happen to be omniscient and infallible, no problem.

Which is why I do not try to answer "how" it happened, but to claim that what separates science from mythology is reliance on testable theories then claim the universe has always been eternal which violates not only testability, but cause and effect harkens back to mythology. If you stand by scientific principles that no effect can happen without a cause then logic dictates there was a cause. This does not mean one should attempt to explain what that cause was without data, but to deny its inevitability requires one to abandon those same scientific principles they then claim to uphold. I don't believe the BBT or an eternal universe is correct. One is a sad attempt to explain what may always be unexplainable, one an avoidance of the issue. Granted it may have been so long ago that eternal is as good a word as any to describe the lapse of time since existence, but I doubt it. And I'll lay two to one odds the mars rover finds no life, past or present, and any sent anywhere else in the solar system finds no trace either. Matter of fact yesterday's TPOD says a lot about the EU's stance on mythology. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/12 ... science-3/

[webolife]

I'm with both of you on this issue.
Klypp wants an eternal universe [including no beginning of life -- it has always existed] without any supporting evidence or logic, then turns around and says he believes nothing about this. That is double avoidance, imo.

But I take this a step further by claiming that all models of the invisible, imponderable fundamentals of the universe [eg. atoms, electrons, etc., gravity, electricity, light, energy, force, mass, charge...] are built upon premises, sets of presuppositions [some better defined than others, no doubt, but unprovable assumptions nonetheless], what I call the "faith base" of every scientist. Those who cannot acknowledge that their own "scientific" conclusions are logical outcomes of their premises, are blinded to their own shaky foundation. On this point there is equity [not necessarily equality of quality] among theories.

What we know, ie. see, observe, measure, record as "facts" are the effects of those dynamic fundaments, and on this point scientists may be equitably gifted by looking at the same evidences and effects, yet from each peculiar perspective. Thus we share with, are challenged by, and learn from each other.

We all see and and try to describe or explain AAAD. But none of us can see the fundaments supporting it.
So I continue to place a question mark on the thread title. This is not a valid equation.

[nick c]

All good points.
There is a conundrum wrapped in a riddle here:
If the universe had no beginning then it is an effect without a cause, violating the axiom that every effect must have a cause
If we assert that the universe had a beginning then we are violating the axiom that you cannot get something from nothing...what created the universe? what existed before the universe was created?

Obviously we have overreached the potential of our use of the tool we call science. The present state of human mastery of the tool (scientific method) is not developed to an extent that these issues can be resolved. Perhaps it is just using the wrong tool, somewhat like using a hammer to work on a fine watch. As I see it, the problem is rooted in the attempt to reify the mathematical concept of infinity.

[Aardwolf]

All good points.
There is a conundrum wrapped in a riddle here:
If the universe had no beginning then it is an effect without a cause, violating the axiom that every effect must have a cause
If we assert that the universe had a beginning then we are violating the axiom that you cannot get something from nothing...what created the universe? what existed before the universe was created?

This is the reason BB enthusiasts only like to discuss the fraction of a moment after the BB event itself and not what caused it. Cognitive dissonance abounds.

[sjw40364]

All good points.
There is a conundrum wrapped in a riddle here:
If the universe had no beginning then it is an effect without a cause, violating the axiom that every effect must have a cause
If we assert that the universe had a beginning then we are violating the axiom that you cannot get something from nothing...what created the universe? what existed before the universe was created?

This is the reason BB enthusiasts only like to discuss the fraction of a moment after the BB event itself and not what caused it. Cognitive dissonance abounds.

Hence science is unable to formulate any valid theory as any theory violates its own strictures. The next logical conclusion, one or both of those hypothesis is incorrect. Such strictures may hold currently when dealing with matter, but what is energy besides our sad attempt to describe it as an ability for a system to do work. What is work, well it is energy, and round and round we go. So I assert one cannot claim the above strictures hold for energy when we do not even have a realistic description of what it is or in truth understand it in the least. Just as with gravity supposition upon supposition which has morphed into what we take as fact. Two of the biggest unknowns in modern science, gravity and energy, yet we are assured we understand them completely.

[orrery]

Creationism is illogical and the positive claim that must be supported. There is no evidence to support Creationism and an infinite progression of turtles is the only outcome.

Life can easily be an eternal pantheistic or panspermia quality of an eternal universe requiring no beginning. The Cause-effect argument need not apply, because the Universe is neither a cause or an effect. There is no dichotomy mechanic, that would imply 2 entities whereas the Universe by definition is Singular.

Define life, some could argue even a rock is alive. Life is not this crude matter, but the force of the universe that moves it.

[Morphix]

Good discussion. I would like to offer a few more observations:

The rule of cause and effect is definitely axiomatic to scientific method. But if by the term "universe" one means "all that is", and if you are asserting "all that is" is always about cause and effect, you have ventured into philosophy and metaphysics. Why? Because while the concepts of cause and effect may be axiomatic to the practice of science, they are not from science.

That is how axiomatic concepts typically relate to the practices they make possible: they are foundational to some field but cannot be studied as a subject of inquiry within it. One cannot use scientific method to test scientific method. One cannot find a cause for cause and effect as such, or show that cause and effect as such are the effect of some cause.

I know that some people think philosophy and metaphysics have been left behind and replaced by scientific method, but that in itself is a philosophical sort of proposition. On the other hand, I think laymen often sense that someone is trying to pull a fast one with things like the BBT. Who is to say that what cosmologists refer to as "the universe" really is all that is? It is a rediculous, unscientific, philosophically inept sort of claim, particularly when we have no explanation for basic forces, energy, matter, consciousness, etc.

Knowing that we have a lot to learn should lead to more open mindedness and less dogma, but then again we are talking about us humans!

[sjw40364]

Creationism is illogical and the positive claim that must be supported. There is no evidence to support Creationism and an infinite progression of turtles is the only outcome.

Life can easily be an eternal pantheistic or panspermia quality of an eternal universe requiring no beginning. The Cause-effect argument need not apply, because the Universe is neither a cause or an effect. There is no dichotomy mechanic, that would imply 2 entities whereas the Universe by definition is Singular.

Define life, some could argue even a rock is alive. Life is not this crude matter, but the force of the universe that moves it.

The difference is life harnesses the energy of the universe to move and act and think, a rock merely absorbs or transmits it. I claim what makes your thoughts possible is no different than the currents that connect the universe except for scale. I won't discuss creationism on this board (unless the moderator wants to start a thread), but I will say the fossil record does not support an evolutionary path, regardless of what you might have been told. Do some research.

Call it what you will, but the fossil record definitely supports kind after kind, since we are discussing mythology. Nor does the fossil record show a crossing of kinds between destruction layers except for a few reptiles and fishes, which remain basically unchanged to this day. I definitely do not advocate any type of divine intervention, that is up to each person to work out, but don't try to mislead others into believing the fossil record supports any type of evolutionary fairy tale. It supports that during times of large releases of energy on a global scale, that existing life extincts, and new life springs up that did not exist before. Take that as you will too, again I do not advocate divine intervention.

[Lloyd]

Let's stick to Action at a Distance here, please, and discuss evolution on another thread. Eh?

[Goldminer]

If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it.

How would we do that?

Sparky, did anybody ever attempt an answer to your question? I am reading through this thread, and it seems you were/are being ignored!

While a short, powerful burst of laser light acts in a particle like manner, i.e its location in space can be tracked by using detectors (located along the pulse's path) connected to equal length cables all connected to a very short time division multichannel oscilloscope, I know of no means of turning a powerful beam of gravity "on" and "off" again, for a very short time period, let alone the possibility of tracking said gravity pulse!

It seems to me that mascons might be utilized, but Sjw, or was it Mv, pointed out that as the satellite distance increases from the Earth or Moon, the mascon anomaly gets lost in fuzziness. (what is measured is the distance from the satellite to the averaged surface elevation of the planet or moon in a particular radius orbit.) (the orbital path is squiggly rather than a smooth curve.) (I don't know if they (Sjw, or was it Mv) are right about the mascon anomaly getting fuzzy, either.)

So, your question, "How would we do that? " is right on point. I have no idea how to produce a short pulse of gravity. How about a GRASEG? Since LASER is the acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; a GRASEG would be the acronym for Gravity Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Gravity.

[sjw40364]

If one wants to measure the "speed of gravity" one needs a short pulse of it.

How would we do that?

Sparky, did anybody ever attempt an answer to your question? I am reading through this thread, and it seems you were/are being ignored!

While a short, powerful burst of laser light acts in a particle like manner, i.e its location in space can be tracked by using detectors (located along the pulse's path) connected to equal length cables all connected to a very short time division multichannel oscilloscope, I know of no means of turning a powerful beam of gravity "on" and "off" again, for a very short time period, let alone the possibility of tracking said gravity pulse!

It seems to me that mascons might be utilized, but Sjw, or was it Mv, pointed out that as the satellite distance increases from the Earth or Moon, the mascon anomaly gets lost in fuzziness. (what is measured is the distance from the satellite to the averaged surface elevation of the planet or moon in a particular radius orbit.) (the orbital path is squiggly rather than a smooth curve.) (I don't know if they (Sjw, or was it Mv) are right about the mascon anomaly getting fuzzy, either.)

So, your question, "How would we do that? " is right on point. I have no idea how to produce a short pulse of gravity. How about a GRASEG? Since LASER is the acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation; a GRASEG would be the acronym for Gravity Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Gravity.

Must of been Mv Gold, even a laser spreads to about 6m or so by the time it reaches the moon. So we can't even tight focus a beam of concentrated light without it spreading significantly in just a short distance. How far are galaxies again? I think we all not so much ignored the question as none of us have an answer. None of us can tell you what gravity is, so no one can tell you how to reproduce it. I believe it is related to the EMF, but I can't prove it, just infer it. I think that's a few decades down the line at least, as mainstream seems to think they understand it completely in the math, so no more research is needed.