Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[Sparhafoc]

sure,

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4qLDO1cug

.

As I've pointed out many times - LEROY desperately wants people to take up the 'eternal' position because it's the only one he's 'prepared' for. By prepared, I mean he has, quite obviously, uncritically borrowed the output of a propaganda outlet.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Go on, science guru, detail all these ontological assumptions without which science is impossible.

when you do science you assume that you exist, that the world around you exists, that the information provided by your brain corresponds to reality, that you are not dreaming, etc.

there are all ontological assumptions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Again, discourse is polluted by abject fucking idiocy.

Ignorance and hubris - the most dangerous bed-fellows.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think I'm going to withdraw from the forum for a while, because this disgusting twat is bringing out the worst in me again.

Understandable, but that's how this runt operates - by continually shitting on the table of discourse so that no one wants to sit at the table because it's covered in shit.

As I've discussed with you before.... a successful discussion forum (I think) has to engage more with the conversations that are occurring and keep people on track. This is the internet, the native home of trolls, and if trolling takes precedence over discourse, then the entire notion of a 'discussion' forum is genetically undermined.

For example, this perfectly interesting thread has been repeatedly derailed by LEROY who is playing the exact same games he plays in other threads.

With LEROY, it's all trolling. LEROY's position is dependent on who he wants to fuck with, but the mendacious format of his argumentation crosses all threads.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think LEROY should be banned - he lies about everyone, lies about what people say, and repeatedly abuses the entire membership.

I disagree, Leroy should be allowed to be exactly the way he is. Little else could so competently further the cause of demonstrating the mind-rotting properties of religious faith.

The thing is, Bumbracket, this thread is far more interesting than a demonstration of the mind-rotting properties of religious faith, as are many other threads, and yet all of them end up being about this because LEROY brings the same behavior and same mendacious bullshit to every thread, dragging them all onto derailed topics of his manufacturing.

If not banned, then he needs a special thread for his special bullshit.

If the forum can't oblige him to engage in honest discourse, then the forum is not a discussion forum nor is it a place to learn.

I'm looking for these 2 quantities.

 

[surreptitious57]

all scientific models from all sciences (except from math maybe) makes ontological assertions

This is not true. Science only investigates observable phenomena so has nothing to say about the nature of said phenomena beyond its
physical properties. Ontology is a subject for philosophy not for science. And a small niggle. Math is not a science. It is a system of logic

 

[surreptitious57]

a beginning of the universe does not imply that there was a before time

A state of absolute nothing would have to exist if the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time. Because anything that existed before
that point would be subject to change which is measured over time. However absolute nothing can only exist very briefly at the quantum level before
quantum fluctuations violate that vacuum state. So the only way time could not have existed before the universe would be if the universe was infinite

 

[Rumraket]

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

Why would you think the past dimension of time formed by successive addition? If the past does not have a beginning, but is infinite and without an end in the past, then it would not have to ever become infinite, as there was never a time at which it was not already infinite.

So both premises 1 and 2 can be rejected. The totality of the past did not form by successive addition and become infinite, it always was infinite and was never not infinite. So there was never a transition from finite, to infinite. It was just always infinite.

So the temporal series of events can be an actual infinite.

 

[leroy]

Well done. Having read the paper in full quite some time ago, I'm fully aware of what it says.

Several things to note just from the text you've presented. First, Guth states up front that 'The question of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered

granted, no one is saying that I have the definitive answer, what Guth (and I) are saying is that the universe likely had a beginning .

nobody is claiming absolute certainty.



.

It's perfectly valid to cite this as a plausibly beginningless model.

your are misleading people, you are taking advantage of the fact that people from this forum like Sparhafoc, Mars HWN, etc. are to stupid and will grant whatever you say without questioning it.


the fact is that Guth´s model even if true, would not imply a beginignless universe, the model is neutral (at best) with regards on whether if the universe had a beginning or not, you don't disagree with this statement, you just pretend to disagree because you don't what to admit that you where wrong.

just to recapitulate,
1 I asked for a successful model that would imply a beginingless universe

2 you provided Guth et al 2001

3 this paper (model) does not even try to provide a beginingless model

therefore you are lying

despite me citing the fucking paper, namely 'some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region.

translation, there is an area of uncertainty, but all the evidence that we have to date, indicates that the universe probably had a beginning.


we have this paper form Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin that concludes that eternal inflation could have not been past eternal, so even if Guth left the door open for the possibility of a beginningless universe, these 2 brilliant scientists closed that door.

Here we have addressed three scenarios(including eternal inflation) which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

again no one is talking about being 100% certain, but that is what the evidence says

if Vilenkin is wrong, why don't you write a paper refuting his argument ?

given that you lied in your first paper, chances say that those papers do not describe a past eternal universe ether.

I didn't lie, and they do indeed deal with a past-eternal model.[/quote]

I will deal with those models, only after you admit that you where wrong about Guth

 

[leroy]

[1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

Why would you think the past dimension of time formed by successive addition?.

I didn't say that, in fact I don't even know what that means

the thing that that you where born because of some cause........agree?
that cause also had a cause (cal it cause b).........agree
cause b also had a cause......(call it cause C)......agree
etc.

you where born because of cause B, C, D, E etc.

this is just a successive addition, you count with finite numbers at least some of causes the causes that lead to your birth, therefore adding more causes would still produce a finite number of causes.

If the past does not have a beginning, but is infinite and without an end in the past, then it would not have to ever become infinite, as there was never a time at which it was not already infinite

we know that at least some of the past took place a finite amount of time ago, we know that you where born a finite amount of years ago.

given that finite does not become infinite, then it doesn't matter how far you go in to the past, you will never reach infinity

So the temporal series of events can be an actual infinite

if that where true then any event within the universe and the time line, would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago, including your birth and the origin of life.

as you said, once you start with infinite past, you cant have finite past,

if some causes took place an infinite amount of time ago, then all the following effects would have also taken alce an infinite amount of time ago, because in an eternal universe the origin of life and your birth would be an effect of those causes, then those effects would have had to take place an infinite amount of time ago.

do you agree with this equation?
-Infinity + any finite number = -infinity


*note the negative signs in infinity

 

[leroy]

a beginning of the universe does not imply that there was a before time

A state of absolute nothing would have to exist if the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time. Because anything that existed before
that point would be subject to change which is measured over time. However absolute nothing can only exist very briefly at the quantum level before
quantum fluctuations violate that vacuum state. So the only way time could not have existed before the universe would be if the universe was infinite

1 you are misunderstanding quantum fluctuations, you never get an absolute nothing.

2 It is possible to have an absolute nothing, what seems incoherent is to something from an absolute nothing. So I agree to say that there was nothing, and then something came in is incoherent

3 that would not be my problem, I believe that God has always excised, and God would be something. So I personally don't believe that something came form nothing.

 

[Sparhafoc]

what Guth (and I) are saying

And I stopped there.

Again, there's too much hubris in the conversation to make it worthwhile engaging.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Of course, given that LEROY doesn't read papers cited, it's not surprising that he overlooked this in the fucking abstract of the paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02128.x/full

Abstract: The basic workings of inflationary models are summarized, along with the arguments that strongly suggest that our universe is the product of inflation. It is argued that essentially all inflationary models lead to (future-)eternal inflation, which implies that an infinite number of pocket universes are produced. Although the other pocket universes are unobservable, their existence nonetheless has consequences for the way that we evaluate theories and extract consequences from them. The question of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered. It appears likely, however, that eternally inflating universes do require a beginning.

So what Guth and LEROY are saying have precisely fuck all to do with each other, and once again LEROY is lying while simultaneously calling Hack a liar.

What a surprise.

 

[leroy]

all scientific models from all sciences (except from math maybe) makes ontological assertions

This is not true. Science only investigates observable phenomena so has nothing to say about the nature of said phenomena beyond its
physical properties. Ontology is a subject for philosophy not for science. And a small niggle. Math is not a science. It is a system of logic

so what? it is still a fact that you can not do science without making philosophical assumptions, if you what to do science at least you have to assume that you exist which is a philosophical (ontological) assumption.

 

[Sparhafoc]

so what? it is still a fact that you can not do science without making philosophical assumptions, if you what to do science at least you have to assume that you exist which is a philosophical (ontological) assumption.

Philosophical assumption =/= ontological assumption

Stop pretending you have a clue when you're clearly far out of your depth.

 

[leroy]

Of course, given that LEROY doesn't read papers cited, it's not surprising that he overlooked this in the fucking abstract of the paper:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb02128.x/full

Abstract: The basic workings of inflationary models are summarized, along with the arguments that strongly suggest that our universe is the product of inflation. It is argued that essentially all inflationary models lead to (future-)eternal inflation, which implies that an infinite number of pocket universes are produced. Although the other pocket universes are unobservable, their existence nonetheless has consequences for the way that we evaluate theories and extract consequences from them. The question of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered. It appears likely, however, that eternally inflating universes do require a beginning.

So what Guth and LEROY are saying have precisely fuck all to do with each other, and once again LEROY is lying while simultaneously calling Hack a liar.

What a surprise.

we are both sayin that eternal inflation (even if true) would not imply an past eternal universe

Hack also agrees with this statement, but he wont admit it.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Before we study the relationship between this quantum state and this observed event, we must first experimentally validate whether we exist....


Said no one ever.

 

[Sparhafoc]

we are both sayin that eternal inflation (even if true) would not imply an past eternal universe

Fucking liar.

Hack also agrees with this statement, but he wont admit it.

Fucking liar.

 

[leroy]

so what? it is still a fact that you can not do science without making philosophical assumptions, if you what to do science at least you have to assume that you exist which is a philosophical (ontological) assumption.

Philosophical assumption =/= ontological assumption

Stop pretending you have a clue when you're clearly far out of your depth.

honestly are you 13yo?

I never said Philosophical assumption = ontological assumption


I said that in order to do science you have to make philosophical assumptions, some of which are ontological assumptions.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

your are misleading people, you are taking advantage of the fact that people from this forum like Sparhafoc, Mars HWN, etc. are to stupid and will grant whatever you say without questioning it.

:lol:

[1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
2. The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

Why would you think the past dimension of time formed by successive addition?.

I didn't say that, in fact I don't even know what that means

:lol:

This is what happens when one mindlessly parrots things they do not understand in the first place. Oh, wait, words mean precisely what dandan/leroy wishes them to mean - neither more - nor less.

 

[Sparhafoc]

honestly are you 13yo?

Fuck off LEROY.

I never said Philosophical assumption = ontological assumption

The fucking merry-go-round as usual.

And I never said you said philosophical assumption = ontological assumption.... you know how we both know that? Because I clearly fucking said it myself.

Of course you didn't say it - if you had said it, then you wouldn't be neck deep in the usual intellectual offal you spout.

Instead, it is my summation of the idiocy you have thrust, once again, into this conversation.

So when you wrote this....

it is still a fact that you can not do science without making philosophical assumptions, if you what to do science at least you have to assume that you exist which is a philosophical (ontological) assumption.

The fact that you needed to add the word 'philosophical' exposes the valid contention behind the smoke screen of spurious and specious splatter you splurged.

I said that in order to do science you have to make philosophical assumptions, some of which are ontological assumptions.

No.

What you said is that in order to do science you have to make ontological assumptions which shows you don't know your arse from your elbow when it comes to science.