Human Creation, Evolution, Quantavolution, Alien Origins, etc.

[roony]

I'd very much like to see that proof.

Sure, meet my NDA lol

It's actually easier prove 1+1=0, as two objects cant occupy the same space at the same time

You could use super position or super liquids to prove 1+1=3

Math's is basically stupid symantics about our reality, which never coincide's with nature

[Raw Kyle]

Sure, meet my NDA lol

It's actually easier prove 1+1=0, as two objects cant occupy the same space at the same time

You could use super position or super liquids to prove 1+1=3

Math's is basically stupid symantics about our reality, which never coincide's with nature

You're using a lot of words. It's not convincing me of anything though. Super liquids? Math doesn't coincide with nature? How can anything NOT coincide with nature? One time I saw two animals procreate and have offspring. If there was just one of them, that wouldn't have been possible. Seems pretty simple to me.

[William]

You're using a lot of words. It's not convincing me of anything though. Super liquids? Math doesn't coincide with nature? How can anything NOT coincide with nature? One time I saw two animals procreate and have offspring. If there was just one of them, that wouldn't have been possible. Seems pretty simple to me.

And the winner is.......                  Raw Kyle!

You got it.    

[PaleoPhil]

While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. ....

Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. ....

I am not convinced that mathematics provides "absolute truths," and apparently much smarter people than me, like Einstein and Popper, were not convinced of this either. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics) I found:

> Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." [Einstein, Albert (1923). Sidelights on Relativity (Geometry and Experience). P. Dutton., Co., p. 28]

> in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, and Karl Popper concluded that "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."[Popper, Karl R. (1995). "On knowledge". In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-13548-6. p. 56]

[Edit: please note, in case there's any confusion with some other posts here, that I'm not saying that mathematics is a scam or anything of the sort--just that I'm not convinced that it produces absolute truths.]

[cherimoya_kid]

Comets are not dirty snowballs.  The sun is not a nuclear furnace.  Gravity is not the strongest force.  Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.

It is electricity, electricity, electricity.

Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

Show me how electricity can travel through the hard vacuum of outer space.  I want to see it, with my own eyes, either in a lab, or in the natural world.  I don't want craters, I don't want conjecture, I want to see it.

Electricity, though a vacuum.  Show it.

[William]

The so-called hard vacuum is supposed to be a plasma - this is the solar wind.
A plasma is a very good conductor of electricity.

I've never seen an electron.

[goodsamaritan]

Show me how electricity can travel through the hard vacuum of outer space.  I want to see it, with my own eyes, either in a lab, or in the natural world.  I don't want craters, I don't want conjecture, I want to see it.

Electricity, though a vacuum.  Show it.

Show and tell time...
Yes! Piqued some interest.
Space is not a vacuum.

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V026kSw4XCs

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Bh-GemFRo

part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxGT9CQVkDk

part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uf8-CZAWsI


Everything else is here:

http://www.thunderbolts.info

Any questions, they have a forum.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderbolts_forum.htm

[Paleo Donk]

I can't believe I'm going to have to defend mathematics as not being a scam but here goes. I ran across a thread on another forum that asked the question of whether math is a discovery or an invention?

Here are a couple relevant posts

I believe it is a little bit of both.

There is no doubt that a lot of math is invention. We create various definitions and prove theorems based off of those definitions. I don't think there is any a priori discovery in something like flag manifolds. It is a mathematical concept that we have arbitrarily created in order to model certain physical phenomena and have created general definitions and proved a whole bunch of theorems within this framework. That we are discovering some fundamental truth of the universe seems farfetched.

On the flip side, there are things that are fundamental to mathematics that DO seem to be fundamental truths of the universe. Counting for instance. The concept of unity. Pythagoras. Just as one can create a list of things mathematicians have just defined that are merely abstractions or generalizations of things from nature, one can create and equally long list of things that seem like fundamental truths of the universe.

An interesting thought experiment is this "what mathematics would an intelligent alien being who existed in our universe but did not necessarily share a single other trait with humanity develop?" Would they develop the concept of unity? Would they develop a system of counting?

Pi is ubiquitous in nature, and it doesn't just apply to perfect circles. It is found in ellipses, parabolas, cones, spirals, DNA helix, and waves. It has been argued that no perfect circles can physically exist because at high enough resolution you will always find discreteness, but that doesn't change the existence of the pi ratio. I don't think you'll find much support for the argument that pi is not an intrinsic property of the universe, rather than an invented way to describe observations.

It's kind of beside the point since constants are not mathematics, they are simply properties. But conceptually I can't see how a "constant" can be invented, it just is. Humans can observe it and name it, they can't change it.

And yes, "red" is the name humans gave to a particular wavelength of light, and it is absolutely a property of that light. Humans just named it based on their observation of it, so that they could describe that perception to each other

taken from http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/mathematics-discovery-invention-569760/

In my opinion humans do make up some of the rules of mathematics just like they make up the rules of language or poker or any other game. Languages aren't any more of a scam than mathematics. Though what is dangerous is using mathematics as a means of propegating scams.  It seems there are some that think this to be the case of string theory in that it is simply misused mathematics.

Mathematics does provide absolute truths for simple things as seen above in the posts but clearly not all. That said, when you make up the rules to your own game there is going to be absoluteness just like there is in any language. By definition there are absolutes to be found in math. These rules are applied only to the game you made up and are not necessarily meant to be used to describe outside workings of the universe.

I never said anything about using mathematics as a tool to describe the natural world. I was simply stating it as it is as numbers and symbols on paper.

[roony]

That's the thing, you can use symbols on a piece of paper to represent anything, IF it doesnt occur in nature its blatantly false

No ones ever been able to prove absolute numbers exist in nature, no one's been able to prove even the basics of maths such as, quotients & denominators exist in nature, pure speculation, pure hypothetical


This is the problem with modern science, we're given theories, which is all mathematics is, a theoretical way form of approximating or calculating reality

We've been taught these theories as absolute truths, when in fact, they're purely theoretical


This the major problem with science, most of the fields, like mathematics are still stuck in the 17th & 18th century, & these absurd notions of fixed numbers & fixed rotations etc., newton pulled out of his ass lol

Nature is infinitely variable, as fractals & quantum physics have proved ABSOLUTELY, nature is absolutely infinitely variable


We need to update maths to using infinite variables, or destroy it competely & come up with something which resembles how nature genuinely works

[William]

In my opinion humans do make up some of the rules of mathematics just like they make up the rules of language or poker or any other game. Languages aren't any more of a scam than mathematics.

Wrong. Language is designed to control how we think; this is obvious if you look at the behaviour of language groups, for instance the Italians who are speechless if their hands are tied behind their backs.

[roony]

Wrong. Language is designed to control how we think; this is obvious if you look at the behaviour of language groups, for instance the Italians who are speechless if their hands are tied behind their backs.

Excellent post,

We only have 27 letters in our alphabet for a reason, surprisingly low for a sentient race, compared to the aztecs, sumerians etc.


Language like food & breathing is a method of sampling reality, a form of sophisticated verbal natural nourishment by idea's & thought

Even more important is the exchange of blood, everytime you meet someone or talk face to face, you exchange blood samples through the skin, in the form of bodily fluids

Then theres the cymatic form of communication of the sound of language on our cells & subconcious & the environment around us

[PaleoPhil]

Another article on errors by Stephan Jay Gould, possible fraud:

Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim
By NICHOLAS WADE
June 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1

[Chris]

What's your leading analysis / guess / hypothesis / theory / belief at this time?

I've heard all the theory's (alien, creation, and evolution). Do I think there is a possibility for each and everyone of them? Sure, why not. We could be debating this topic for eternity, and still not be convinced 100%. I think our origins are way above our own comprehension, and knowledge. It's in our DNA too question, think, and reason. I don't feel like it's important to question how we got here, or why we're here, or what's our purpose. Life is way too short to find all the answers, to all of our complex questions. If there is a higher power out there, it's way beyond what we can even imagine/comprehend.

[CitrusHigh]

Try out the law of attraction Chris, that should help you connect with god. Try to manifest something peculiar that you can't rationalize away. If you can take a moment to believe in the concept and do 2 minutes of visualizations each day, soon you'll start to see your manifestions show up in your life and that will help convince you beyond the shadow of a doubt about the existence of a source field/god/Infinite/unity consciousness. Once you have that, then you can start to use that connection to get the answers you're looking for.

It is certainly not essential to know how we got here, but it would be fun to know and know and most would agree that knowledge is power. It's just about making informed decisions and living rightly. Also, if we could nail down our origins with some goodly proof, we could squash limiting modes of thought and institutions like organized religion, duality, and us vs. them mentality. People could wake up and realize we're connected with everyone and everything else, and our similarities are more important and more powerful than our perceived differences.

Right now I think we were probably manipulated by some, more evolved species and it's both creation and evolution. God was probably the source of the big bang, and then stepped back to allow things to unfold naturally, or maybe injected 'life' (mind) in to her creation.

I find it bemusing when people claim we can't know or meaningfully connect with god in the present, and always brings to mind the quote ..

George Bernard Shaw: 'People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.'

You can connect and at least get an inkling of god, if not full comprehension, here in this lifetime, but you have to do it yourself, you cannot allow organized religion to rob you of that connection. The reason there's a connection is because we are the mini-me's of god. Little baby gods. In other words, we are all part of god, but we are not ALL that god is. God is everything that 'is' anywhere in this dimension and all others. This is why we have the ability to make our realities. Why we can influence the world through our thoughts, beliefs and actions. In otherwords that pretty well makes us gods or demi-gods or whatever you want to call someone with the ability to manifest things, circumstances and people.

[TylerDurden]

Another article on errors by Stephan Jay Gould, possible fraud:

Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim
By NICHOLAS WADE
June 13, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html?_r=1

Gould has routinely been discredited as a Marxist-type pseudo-philosopher   by more genuine scientists. I'm not surprised. The above is obviously not an "error" though, but deliberate bias/fraud.

[PaleoPhil]

Yes, I was tipped off about Gould's Marxist bias decades ago, so I suspect the same. He's dead anyway, so the reasons for why his data and findings are generally so unreliable is academic (sorry about the pun  ) at this point anyway and his kneejerk leftwing supporters will of course say that fraud can't be proven  , as some already have, though of course they won't acknowledge that it can't be proven that he didn't commit fraud either. Predictable one-sidedness.

I've argued with a leftwing Gould supporter in the past who didn't believe my accusations of his extreme Marxist bias. It would be nice to have something to prove my points, such as a journal or letter being found where he acknowledged his deceipt, but I doubt that he was that stupid. If you come across anything particularly convincing of his fraud, please let me know. Unfortunately, circumstantial evidence is not likely to be sufficient to convince the leftwinger.

I wonder what excuses the politically correct libtards will come up with to explain away the larger average skull/brain sizes of North/Northeast Asians, Northwestern Europeans, and Eskimos now that Gould's arguments and data have been blown out of the water.

[Chris]

Try out the law of attraction Chris, that should help you connect with god.

Thanks for your suggestion Thoth. I'm definitely more of a spiritual person than a religious one. I'll check out the "Law of Attraction". Thanks!

[TylerDurden]

There is no doubt that Gould was a fraud, given the data:-

http://menghusblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/stephen-jay-gould-myth-and-fraud/

[PaleoPhil]

Well, the journal Nature is not convinced of intentional fraud yet (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/474419a.html), so I doubt that a radical leftwinger will be, unfortunately. As more scientists study the data and others investigate other of Gould's work, I don't doubt that his work and opinions will be further discredited.