(March 11, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(March 11, 2017 at 8:40 pm)comet Wrote: na, you are avoiding now.  Your opinion is meaningless without some type of measurement.  look up the definition of measurement.  Thats neil's point. 

You won't make the comparison because you have a personal opinion to protect.  Science is not concerned with how you feel about its descriptions of how the universe works.
science is not concerned with what you believe.

You are the one asserting a belief here, so you have it backwards. You believe that the universe is alive. That opinion is meaningless until you back it up. I am withholding an opinion on this until science can show that it even possibly a fact, and that hasn't happened yet.

This is exactly what Neil is saying about falsifiability. Are you sure you watched this video?

yes, you are flat out avoiding now.  I would even say running away at this point.  Neils point is measure first.  Hopefully you understand the measurement, but if you don't, thats your problem.


First: compare the biosphere's interactions to the interactions we call non life, viruses, and life.  What does its interactions line up best with?

second: Record your measurement?  

third: we will compare your reading to my reading.  

fourth: what is the most valid claim off of that measurement?

what we believe is irrelevant. 
thats neils point.

Okay, I am absolutely convinced that you didn't watch the video at this point. His argument is about falsifiability, which your claim does not contain.

(March 11, 2017 at 8:40 pm)comet Wrote: na, you are avoiding now.  Your opinion is meaningless without some type of measurement.  look up the definition of measurement.  Thats neil's point. 
You won't make the comparison because you have a personal opinion to protect.  Science is not concerned with how you feel about its descriptions of how the universe works.

Does the biosphere's interactions line up best with what we classify as non-life, virus, or life.  science is not concerned with what you believe.

What kind of measurements have we made that indicate the Universe is alive? First, I find the term of being "alive" to be vague. What is the definition of life? Is it just the state of being conscious, or does it involve additional processes?

It's your opinion that is meaningless without some type of measurement and specific definition. We haven't even made a claim about the Universe being alive or not. You have the burden of proof, not us.

(March 11, 2017 at 9:03 pm)Jesster Wrote: Okay, I am absolutely convinced that you didn't watch the video at this point. His argument is about falsifiability, which your claim does not contain.

dude, you didn't make the compassion, so everything you say is irrelevant.  science records the events around it, tries come up with mechanisms that make predictions.

Until you record the measurement, your belief is irrelevant to science.

(March 11, 2017 at 9:03 pm)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 11, 2017 at 8:40 pm)comet Wrote: na, you are avoiding now.  Your opinion is meaningless without some type of measurement.  look up the definition of measurement.  Thats neil's point. 
You won't make the comparison because you have a personal opinion to protect.  Science is not concerned with how you feel about its descriptions of how the universe works.

Does the biosphere's interactions line up best with what we classify as non-life, virus, or life.  science is not concerned with what you believe.

What kind of measurements have we made that indicate the Universe is alive? First, I find the term of being "alive" to be vague. What is the definition of life? Is it just the state of being conscious, or does it involve additional processes?

It's your opinion that is meaningless without some type of measurement and specific definition. We haven't even made a claim about the Universe being alive or not. You have the burden of proof, not us.

we can only compare unknowns to knows.  Thats what science does.  You misunderstand, I make comparisons first, then draw conclusions.

we have non-life, viruses, and life.  compare the interactions of the biosphere to one of those three.  Add more if you like, but they are good enough.  i tried to compare the biosphere to everything I know and kept coming up with the same measurement reading.   

now you can just deny anything and everything, but thats not helpful in describing how the universe works.

---

(March 11, 2017 at 9:10 pm)Jesster Wrote:

and you ran away.
well, when we can't fly, we run as fast as we can to protect a blind belief based world view.

science doesn't care what you believe.  The universe works the way it works, not what you want to believe in.

(March 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Jesster Wrote: Containing something does not mean you share those properties as a whole, though.

Quite.

Because our new arrival seems to need it explained, though: the fallacy he is committing is formally titled the fallacy of composition. Put in layman's terms, the sandwich may contain a pickle, but the sandwich is not, itself, a pickle, and descriptions of the pickle do not necessarily apply to the sandwich.

The universe contains life.

The universe is not alive.

The only constructive thing to come out of this spat is that I now want a sandwich with pickles.

Boru

(March 11, 2017 at 10:35 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 11, 2017 at 7:24 pm)Jesster Wrote: Containing something does not mean you share those properties as a whole, though.

Quite.

Because our new arrival seems to need it explained, though: the fallacy he is committing is formally titled the fallacy of composition. Put in layman's terms, the sandwich may contain a pickle, but the sandwich is not, itself, a pickle, and descriptions of the pickle do not necessarily apply to the sandwich.

The universe contains life.

The universe is not alive.

thats not the point.  The point is not "if we are alive the universe is alive."  So to keep repeating that is incorrect and not a point.  Science is about looking to support the most reasonable claim.  "atheism", the belief statement, has no say in how the universe works.  

So, lets stick with a smaller volume for the less trained.  We can look at the biosphere before we go to the larger volume of the universe.  To make a claim we need a measurement, not an opinion.  You untrained, look up the definition.

what do the biosphere's interactions, as a whole, match?
non-life
virus
life

what we believe or what we want to believe has no bearing on repeating this compassion.  Take it to anybody, anywhere, at any time and see what most people record as the observation.

neils point is that a belief statement doesn't decide the best conclusion.  In this case, the more reasonable claim is that the biosphere matches what we classify as life better than what we classify as non life.

this is so simple and eloquent to demonstrate neil's point. It forums people just to post a reply thinking it makes their point more real. Neil does not approve.

now for the next part, increasing the volume.  Is there anybody here trained in the standard model and doesn't have an ax to grind? or am I dealing with "adult children of abuse" and high school-ers only?