Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 2:01 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 2:17 pm by Chas.)
(February 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 10:00 am)Chas Wrote: Not at all the same. Electromagnetic Theory proves all photons travel at the the same speed in a vacuum.
It is the same. It is the same because all theory is ultimately grounded in and derived from observation. The equations which derive the speed of light are still based on observations of other un-derived constants.....which leaves you with disjointed sets. There is the set of all the points of space. In that set are disjointed subsets. The set of points where permeability of free space has been measured and the sets of points where the permeability of free space has not been measured. According to your logic measuring the permeability of free space doesn't tell us anything about the permeability of free space for points of space we have not measured. The same would be true of vacuum permittivity. The value of these two constants are not derived by any theory. They are assumed to be constant based on observation. Is all of science really a sham? It would seem so if we take your thinking to its logical conclusion.
Nope. The speed of light is a constant that is intrinsically tied to all of physics, e.g. Planck' constant, electrical charge, the mass of the electron.
All of that is evidence for the speed of light being a constant. You have no such evidence for your contention.
This is yet another poor example since this is not at all parallel to your argument. In fact, this is a counter to your own argument.
Pro tip: The term is "disjoint subset".
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 2:22 pm by Heywood.)
(February 8, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Chas Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: It is the same. It is the same because all theory is ultimately grounded in and derived from observation. The equations which derive the speed of light are still based on observations of other un-derived constants.....which leaves you with disjointed sets. There is the set of all the points of space. In that set are disjointed subsets. The set of points where permeability of free space has been measured and the sets of points where the permeability of free space has not been measured. According to your logic measuring the permeability of free space doesn't tell us anything about the permeability of free space for points of space we have not measured. The same would be true of vacuum permittivity. The value of these two constants are not derived by any theory. They are assumed to be constant based on observation. Is all of science really a sham? It would seem so if we take your thinking to its logical conclusion.
Nope. The speed of light is a constant that is intrinsically tied to all of physics, e.g. Planck' constant, electrical charge, the mass of the electron.
This is yet another poor example since this is not at all parallel to your argument.
Pro tip: The term is "disjoint subset".
Any theory will ultimately rely on observed constants and not ones which are derived. Observation will always leave you with disjoint subsets because you can't observe it all. According to your logic, measuring the mass of protons in a lab on earth tells us nothing about the mass or protons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Maybe you've discovered the source of dark matter. Its not really an unknown particle, its just that protons on earth are a little light.
Do you see why I reject your thinking?
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 3:18 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 3:19 pm by Surgenator.)
(February 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Chas Wrote: Nope. The speed of light is a constant that is intrinsically tied to all of physics, e.g. Planck' constant, electrical charge, the mass of the electron.
This is yet another poor example since this is not at all parallel to your argument.
Pro tip: The term is "disjoint subset".
Any theory will ultimately rely on observed constants and not ones which are derived. Observation will always leave you with disjoint subsets because you can't observe it all. According to your logic, measuring the mass of protons in a lab on earth tells us nothing about the mass or protons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Maybe you've discovered the source of dark matter. Its not really an unknown particle, its just that protons on earth are a little light.
Do you see why I reject your thinking?
If the mass of the proton was different in another galaxy, stars will behave differently. We can observe how stars in other galaxies behave. Plus, you won't get the required density profile for dark matter is you just change the proton mass.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 4:00 pm
All photons propagate at the speed of light which is a constant throughout the universe. Any 'photon' that does not propagate at the speed of light is not a photon.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 4:14 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 4:17 pm by Heywood.)
(February 8, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: Any theory will ultimately rely on observed constants and not ones which are derived. Observation will always leave you with disjoint subsets because you can't observe it all. According to your logic, measuring the mass of protons in a lab on earth tells us nothing about the mass or protons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Maybe you've discovered the source of dark matter. Its not really an unknown particle, its just that protons on earth are a little light.
Do you see why I reject your thinking?
If the mass of the proton was different in another galaxy, stars will behave differently. We can observe how stars in other galaxies behave. Plus, you won't get the required density profile for dark matter is you just change the proton mass.
You still cannot observe every proton or even every galaxy. There is the set of all Galaxies, within that set are two disjoint subsets, the set off all observed galaxies, and the set of all unobserved galaxies. If we accept Chas's thinking then drawing conclusions about observed galaxies tells us nothing about unobserved galaxies.
If all the galaxies we observe contain dark matter, isn't it reasonable to conclude that all the galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter? I think you would find it reasonable to conclude that galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter.....but Chas should not. Chas's thinking precludes science...which is why it is hogwash.
(February 8, 2015 at 4:00 pm)IATIA Wrote: All photons propagate at the speed of light which is a constant throughout the universe. Any 'photon' that does not propagate at the speed of light is not a photon.
I agree...even though I can't observe them all. Why? Because the more I observe photons and find that they all travel at the same speed, the more likely it becomes that all of them, including the ones I can't observe, travel at the same speed.
Posts: 3817
Threads: 5
Joined: November 19, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 4:49 pm
(This post was last modified: February 8, 2015 at 4:50 pm by Chas.)
(February 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Chas Wrote: Nope. The speed of light is a constant that is intrinsically tied to all of physics, e.g. Planck' constant, electrical charge, the mass of the electron.
This is yet another poor example since this is not at all parallel to your argument.
Pro tip: The term is "disjoint subset".
Any theory will ultimately rely on observed constants and not ones which are derived. Observation will always leave you with disjoint subsets because you can't observe it all. According to your logic, measuring the mass of protons in a lab on earth tells us nothing about the mass or protons in the Andromeda Galaxy. Maybe you've discovered the source of dark matter. Its not really an unknown particle, its just that protons on earth are a little light.
Do you see why I reject your thinking?
Reject away, but your example isn't very good.
The difference lies in the fact that the speed of light being constant is supported by evidence.
You have no evidence that biological evolution requires an intellect.
In fact, it has been shown that it doesn't. Evolution automatically follows as the inevitable result of imperfect replication of replicators.
Your argument seems to be with abiogenesis.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Posts: 1065
Threads: 6
Joined: June 19, 2014
Reputation:
15
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm
(February 8, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 3:18 pm)Surgenator Wrote: If the mass of the proton was different in another galaxy, stars will behave differently. We can observe how stars in other galaxies behave. Plus, you won't get the required density profile for dark matter is you just change the proton mass.
You still cannot observe every proton or even every galaxy. There is the set of all Galaxies, within that set are two disjoint subsets, the set off all observed galaxies, and the set of all unobserved galaxies. If we accept Chas's thinking then drawing conclusions about observed galaxies tells us nothing about unobserved galaxies.
If all the galaxies we observe contain dark matter, isn't it reasonable to conclude that all the galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter? I think you would find it reasonable to conclude that galaxies we can't observe also contain dark matter.....but Chas should not. Chas's thinking precludes science...which is why it is hogwash.
You cannot claim a disjoint set until you show at least 1 case of a disjoint set. Take the set of all protons, what subset of proton's property can you show that other protons do not have. All the protons that have been observed have the same charge, same rest mass, same spin, etc... So arguing that there is this place where the proton has different properties just because we haven't check everywhere is begging the question fallacy.
Your evolution set does have disjoint subsets, e.g. replicated vs self-replicators. Hense, valid criticism is applied when you attribute some properties from one subset to all subsets.
Posts: 4196
Threads: 60
Joined: September 8, 2011
Reputation:
30
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 8, 2015 at 5:41 pm
(February 8, 2015 at 4:14 pm)Heywood Wrote: (February 8, 2015 at 4:00 pm)IATIA Wrote: All photons propagate at the speed of light which is a constant throughout the universe. Any 'photon' that does not propagate at the speed of light is not a photon.
I agree...even though I can't observe them all. Why? Because the more I observe photons and find that they all travel at the same speed, the more likely it becomes that all of them, including the ones I can't observe, travel at the same speed. Reread that statement. It has nothing to do with observing them all. It has to do with the properties defined for a single photon and anything that has those same properties is a photon. If it does not have those properties, it is not a photon. All photons travel at the speed of light, by definition. That is one of the properties of a photon and if it does not travel at the speed of light, it is not a photon. It does not matter how many we observe. All the ones that we have not observed do travel at the speed of light or it is not a photon. Redundant enough for you?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
Posts: 2737
Threads: 51
Joined: March 7, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 13, 2015 at 6:44 am
(February 8, 2015 at 4:59 pm)Surgenator Wrote: Your evolution set does have disjoint subsets, e.g. replicated vs self-replicators. Hense, valid criticism is applied when you attribute some properties from one subset to all subsets.
Negative Surgenator.
In order for two sets to be disjoint, they must not share any elements. If two sets share elements, they are not disjoint. Replication, selection, and change are common elements of Heywood systems and biological evolution. Biological evolution is not disjointed from Heywood systems.
By pointing out that biological evolution employs reproduction as its means of replication all you do is show that Heywood systems can utilize reproduction.....which I am happy to concede as obvious is obvious.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 13, 2015 at 9:52 am
(This post was last modified: February 13, 2015 at 10:01 am by bennyboy.)
(February 13, 2015 at 6:44 am)Heywood Wrote: In order for two sets to be disjoint, they must not share any elements. If two sets share elements, they are not disjoint. Replication, selection, and change are common elements of Heywood systems and biological evolution. Biological evolution is not disjointed from Heywood systems. You are still doing goofy stuff with logical inheritance. The different evolutionary "sets" you are talking about do share elements-- but only elements which define their parent. Here's what you're doing:
All "things made by man" are part of the Big Set called "things." Therefore, the more "things made by man" I have, the more evidence I have that all "things" are "things made by man." I can then insist that an asteroid flying through space, the origin of which I am ignorant, is more and more likely a "thing made by man" based on the number of things people have made. The problem is that it can't-- because the thing in question (an asteroid) predates the mechanism which you are trying to attribute to its creation (human intellect).
You could say it is true that all things observed to be created by man are made by intellect. However, to define the context properly, you have to say that they are made by "organic lifeforms, on Earth, within the span of human history." Evolution, however, does not fit that fully-defined set definition, and does not apply. And the reason should be apparent: evolution predates all of the organic lifeforms known to be capable of "implementing" systems, evolutionary or otherwise.
|
