NationStates Jolt Archive

Everything that exists on the macro scale is the result of events on the micro scale, and on the micro scale, randomness rules. The illusion of a non-random universe is simply a result of how information gets organised, and that again came about in a completely random manner.

You need to do more study of quantum physics. While the rules and order are much different at the quantum level the rules at that level work at that level every time. Science is not observing randomness and constantly changing rules at the quantum level. They pretty much understand the rules. What they are trying to do is figure out why the rules are so much different and how natural law gets from one level to the other.

BTW, Thanks for acknowledging that the macro level is totally organized. With a little more study of science you will be there.

I don't remember archaeology being a faith.


On this entire thread I have never asked anyone to take anything on "faith". I have only talked about scientific observation.

True, but he's massively underestimating just how much shit's in this universe.

I suppose there are massive amounts of fossils that have never been dug up. Does that stop us from saying that every observation that we have today supports evolution?

I'm asking you to consider every observation from every scientist in the history of the world. I agree that we aren't even water skiing much less scuba diving, but at this point it's all we got. Just like at this point the bones we've dug up are all we've got.

From Wiki: Introduction to quantum mechanics (emphasis mine) If something can be accurately predicted it must not be random.

The term "quantum mechanics" was first coined by Max Born in 1924. The acceptance by the general physics community of quantum mechanics is due to its accurate prediction of the physical behaviour of systems, including systems where Newtonian mechanics fails. Even general relativity is limited—in ways quantum mechanics is not—for describing systems at the atomic scale or smaller, at very low or very high energies, or at the lowest temperatures. Through a century of experimentation and applied science, quantum mechanical theory has proven to be very successful and practical.

On this entire thread I have never asked anyone to take anything on "faith". I have only talked about scientific observation.

Having an emotional reaction such as "Everything seems to be in order, we must have a creator!" is not scientific, it's exactly what I said it was - emotional. It's a hope. We have no proof that this universe is what a universe created by a creator looks like, because we have no objectivity in it - this is the only universe we know. If we'd seen others with the control of having some being created by chaos and some being created by deities, we could compare and contrast, and make a judgement, but at this point, we're just guessing, and you're just hoping.

I suppose there are massive amounts of fossils that have never been dug up.This has nothing to do with what I responded to. You contested information exchange goes on and I responded. Although in hindsight, I should perhaps have said: "relative position, speed, spin, etc." From Wiki: Introduction to quantum mechanics (emphasis mine) If something can be accurately predicted it must not be random.Post Hoc mate, and besides the point entirely.

You claimed the complexity of reality cannot be random. I contested it. Now you're responding with "but complexity exists", which I in no way deny.

I think I perhaps went over your head previously, so I'll try again if you'll answer the following two questions: What do you think stops complexity from arising naturally, and how do you think complexity arises. And I do mean in the real world, not some hypothetical make-believe one.

This has nothing to do with what I responded to. You contested information exchange goes on and I responded. Although in hindsight, I should perhaps have said: "relative position, speed, spin, etc." Post Hoc mate, and besides the point entirely.

You claimed the complexity of reality cannot be random. I contested it. Now you're responding with "but complexity exists", which I in no way deny.

I think I perhaps went over your head previously, so I'll try again if you'll answer the following two questions: What do you think stops complexity from arising naturally, and how do you think complexity arises. And I do mean in the real world, not some hypothetical make-believe one.

I never said that complexity couldn't be random. I said consistency and order throughout the entire universe without an exception doesn't come from randomness. If you can show me random complexities that bring complete order then you might have a point.

There is complexity and a certain order to iron-oxide. There is complexity and far more order to an iron spearhead. That's why when we find one we assume that it was made by intelligence. It is the non random order of the universe that you refuse to consider.

I never said that complexity couldn't be random. I said consistency and order throughout the entire universe without an exception doesn't come from randomness. If you can show me random complexities then you might have a point.

There is complexity and a certain order to iron-oxide. There is complexity and far more order to an iron spearhead. That's why when we find one we assume that it was made by intelligence. It is the non random order of the universe that you refuse to consider.

Again. This is the third time from me, and others have pointed this out as well:

within chaos, there is order. Order is a form of chaos. Read this line.

Having an emotional reaction such as "Everything seems to be in order, we must have a creator!" is not scientific, it's exactly what I said it was - emotional. It's a hope. We have no proof that this universe is what a universe created by a creator looks like, because we have no objectivity in it - this is the only universe we know. If we'd seen others with the control of having some being created by chaos and some being created by deities, we could compare and contrast, and make a judgement, but at this point, we're just guessing, and you're just hoping.

We can't compare and contrast how life developed on any other planet or in any other universe. What we do is dig up fossils here and try our best to guess and develop a theory that fits what we can observe---not what we can't. Until someone comes up with a better theory than evolution or until someone finds a bone that doesn't fit, it will be our working model. Who knows, maybe someday we will find life on another planet or another universe that doesn't fit the theory so we'll have to throw it out. In the mean time we can only observe what we can observe.

What we can observe is there has never been found anything in the universe that shows that it came into being in a random fashion. It would only take that one "bone" (discovery) that was random that would disprove the theory and justify your argument that the universe came into being as a random action. On the other hand, every time that any scientist makes an observation that isn't random (every time a new bone is dug up that fits evolution) the theory of an ordered universe gets stronger.

You want to say I'm wrong----Go find a random bone among scientific observation.

Again. This is the third time from me, and others have pointed this out as well:

within chaos, there is order. Order is a form of chaos. Read this line.

I haven't counted them, but I have agreed that some order can be shown in chaos----but not complete order.

Shake up a sack of iron oxide and pull out a spear head.

I haven't counted them, but I have agreed that some order can be shown in chaos----but not complete order.

Shake up a sack of iron oxide and pull out a spear head.

No, you didn't read the line.

Order is a form of chaos.


I didn't say "some order", or "some chaos", I said order - as in, everything that makes sense to you - is a form of chaos, as in, everthing that doesn't make sense to you.

I never said that complexity couldn't be random. I said consistency and order throughout the entire universe without an exception doesn't come from randomness.Yes, so you keep asserting, and yes, consistency and order are still misnomers. Like it or not, you're talking about complexity.If you can show me random complexities then you might have a point.Look around you. Everything your eyes can interpret can be reduced to random events. I think what has you thrown is the sheer scale of what we're talking about. Because:There is complexity and a certain order to iron-oxide. There is complexity and far more order to an iron spearhead. That's why when we find one we assume that it was made by intelligence. It is the non random order of the universe that you refuse to consider.While none of these three are in any way random, that they came to exist at all, was random. There's no way it could have been intended, at least not for this particular reality, because those tiny little things that gradually made them possible, cannot, and have never been able to, contain that sort of information.

That the extreme levels of complexity you're talking about isn't subject to rapid change, and thus appear fairly consistent in your very narrow view, time-wise, makes perfect sense. You might as well say that the structural integrity of a skyscraper is perfect, because only one atom changes every second, and thus from a human point of view, won't ever have any influence on the structural integrity of said skyscraper.

Again. I think the scale's got you thrown more than anything. And really mate, you're still not addressing what I've been saying. You're still going "But this is really complex", and you're right. It really is. It just doesn't mean it didn't happen at random ;)

*snip awesomeness*

You'd be one of my first picks in kickball.

No, you didn't read the line.

Order is a form of chaos.


I didn't say "some order", or "some chaos", I said order - as in, everything that makes sense to you - is a form of chaos, as in, everthing that doesn't make sense to you.

Shake up a sack of iron oxide and come out with a spear head then. If your contention is all order---Complete Order can come from chaos.

Shake up a sack of iron oxide and come out with a spear head then. If your contention is all order---Complete Order can come from chaos.

Stop talking about order as if it's a separate entity from chaos. It's the same thing, one is part of the other.

In order, this order we exist in right now in this moment, we cannot shake iron oxide and get a spear. This does not mean that in other areas of chaos, this would not prove to create a tank in a bag.

cannot, and have never been able to, contain that sort of information.


You're right. The little bits of energy that went north and the little bits of energy that went south could not possibly have contained enough information to tell each other how to form a hydrogen atom just exactly like every other hydrogen atom in the universe. A different type of "complexity" perhaps but not enough information to do exactly the same thing.

By Jove I Think He's Got It!

(Now if he will get past his stubbornness and accept what his mind just told him.)

Stop talking about order as if it's a separate entity from chaos. It's the same thing, one is part of the other.

In order, this order we exist in right now in this moment, we cannot shake iron oxide and get a spear. This does not mean that in other areas of chaos, this would not prove to create a tank in a bag.

I think you need to go back and study chaos theory.

The final line is "there is no such thing as chaos."

Everything that looks like chaos is actually following all of the orderly rules of the universe. All of those orderly rules apply everywhere.

It is our limited understanding of those rules that makes things look like chaos. In fact everything in the universe is following very specific laws. As these consistent (not random) rules are followed, order comes into being. It is the consistent laws that bring about the order---Not the random shaking of the bag.

I think you need to go back and study chaos theory.

The final line is "there is no such thing as chaos."

Everything that looks like chaos is actually following all of the orderly rules of the universe. All of those orderly rules apply everywhere.

It is our limited understanding of those rules that makes things look like chaos. In fact everything in the universe is following very specific laws. As these consistent (not random) rules are followed, order comes into being. It is the consistent laws that bring about the order---Not the random shaking of the bag.

Chaos theory is moreso philosophy and loose guess than it is actual science. I would argue that the exact opposite is true, that our limited knowledge is what makes it seem like order, when in reality it is chaos.

Chaos theory is moreso philosophy and loose guess than it is actual science. I would argue that the exact opposite is true, that our limited knowledge is what makes it seem like order, when in reality it is chaos.

Then give me your definition of "chaos". Remember you have to do it in such a way that there is no observed randomness.

Then give me your definition of "chaos". Remember you have to do it in such a way that there is no observed randomness.

I already told you. Chaos is everything. It's the very fabric of the universe - order is one aspect of chaos. In chaos there is observed randomness and observed order and everything in between and beyond.

I already told you. Chaos is everything. It's the very fabric of the universe - order is one aspect of chaos. In chaos there is observed randomness and observed order and everything in between and beyond.

I see! You don't want to use the word "God" so you use the word "Chaos" instead. I didn't know we were just disagreeing on semantics or nomenclature. Man, we could have finished 10 pages ago. Well, it's been fun!

You're right.Progress at last. The little bits of energy that went north and the little bits of energy that went south could not possibly have contained enough information to tell each other how to form a hydrogen atom just exactly like every other hydrogen atom in the universe. A different type of "complexity" perhaps but not enough information to do exactly the same thing..... Or not. And for the record, Chaos Theory has F-all to do with what Szanch and I have been trying to explain to you. It isn't applicable to undefined initial conditions. And that too, isn't subject to your personal opinion or religious baggage.

Either way though, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here, because I'm done with repeating myself. It's a waste of time and energy for the both of us.

Progress at last. .... Or not. And for the record, Chaos Theory has F-all to do with what Szanch and I have been trying to explain to you. It isn't applicable to undefined initial conditions. And that too, isn't subject to your personal opinion or religious baggage.

Either way though, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree here, because I'm done with repeating myself. It's a waste of time and energy for the both of us.

Make sure you tell your wife you have a better understanding. I imagine she'll react well. Have fun!

I see! You don't want to use the word "God" so you use the word "Chaos" instead. I didn't know we were just disagreeing on semantics or nomenclature. Man, we could have finished 10 pages ago. Well, it's been fun!

It would seem to be the same thing, but it's not. It's not what created the universe, it's simply what it's made of. Chaos is not a singular entity.

It would seem to be the same thing, but it's not. It's not what created the universe, it's simply what it's made of. Chaos is not a singular entity.

And yet, Chaos was able to create a universe with no exceptions. If you don't want to admit your own thoughts and if you want to argue the definition of words I guess that's your privilege. A word is but a symbol. Call it God, Allah, Creator, Creation, or Chaos, it makes no difference to the definition that you gave.

And yet, Chaos was able to create a universe with no exceptions. If you don't want to admit your own thoughts and if you want to argue the definition of words I guess that's your privilege. A word is but a symbol. Call it God, Allah, Creator, Creation, or Chaos, it makes no difference to the definition that you gave.

You just directly ignored something I specifically said.

I said it's NOT God. It did NOT create, it simply is what has been created. Then you turn around and say "Chaos was able to create..." - I'm done with you, I'm done. You don't want to listen, this is pointless.

You just directly ignored something I specifically said.

I said it's NOT God. It did NOT create, it simply is what has been created. Then you turn around and say "Chaos was able to create..." - I'm done with you, I'm done. You don't want to listen, this is pointless.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

I was a Catholic for a long time, and when I started going to college, I started studying different religion, and I realize how many religions there are in the world and to say that Christianity is the one true way to Heaven just didn't register with me, it just sounded bogus. So I'm an Agnostic.

Religion never made sense to me because it is contradicted by reality. Even as a small child I knew that life after death wasn't possible. Went to a Christian high-school, but it pretty much just a regular school with a slightly more expensive uniform and some religion classes you could waste time in. All my friends were generally intelligent and as such never believed in anything we were "taught". I honestly don't know how someone can actually believe in a book written thousands of years ago by God knows who and rewritten and translated hundreds of times since. It never made sense to me to believe in that. But hey, some people want to, so good for them. Well, not good for them, but whatever.

I was a Catholic for a long time, and when I started going to college, I started studying different religion, and I realize how many religions there are in the world and to say that Christianity is the one true way to Heaven just didn't register with me, it just sounded bogus. So I'm an Agnostic.

I think this is true of any thinking college student. So much information that you've never heard before. So much freedom to think that you've never had before. So many different directions. So many different religions.

Study. Learn. Not just of one idea, but of all ideas. You will find a common theme that transcends all of the conflicts---not only the conflicts of religion, but also the conflicts that unthinking people have between all knowledge.

Not going to happen. If Atheists ever founded a town then we'd start by fighting a bloody civil war over whether it should be called Atheismville or Atheopolis, then a few people would found a new religion out of sheer contrariness, and eventually everyone would get bored and wander off to find tacos. Herding cats is nothing compared to organising Atheists.

I speak from experience.

*nods*

The town's name bit was a reference to the South Park episode and the herding cats bit was a reference to a speech Dawkins gave at a university? Am I right?