Regarding Franko...

[Franko]

Tricky:

Some people argue that anecdotal evidence [subjective evidence] is as good [=>] as empirical evidence [logical evidence]. I disagree [not TRUE [or/same as FALSE]].

Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.

For example, one might claim (anecdotally) that gravitons have charge. However, unless that person could design an experiment that showed they had charge (or at the very least reference some peer-reviewed research), then that claim is very poor evidence.

Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?

Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter? What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron? Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default, just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.

Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims. I could care less whether You believe it or not.

As long as you agree that you don't know and agree that materialists also do not claim to know, then it is not an issue.

If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?

I guess your religion is “better” in the same way that Toast is superior to a Human Being???

Not magically. I don't believe in magic.

When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity” (which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!), and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”), but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.

Of course, if The Lexicon says nature=magic

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

then I will have to make the mental adjustment to allow for your non-standard definitions.

It is almost like you are refuting your own post.

Then Godel's math goes against one of the prime tenets of Logical Deism. According to LD, things always move from more complex to less complex (TLOP create humans create toasters). Godel is saying the opposite.

Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.

Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?

You have a kid, initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult. But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.

Bayes also contradicts LD, because another tenet of LD is that everything is fated. If everything is fated, then, to The Goddess, there is no such thing as "new information". Its all planned for in the big algorithm, right?

I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computer, and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?

Want? How can they want anything? They have no free will. Besides, the "intrinsic nature" of a graviton means that you can never turn it from evil (or good), neh?

The real question is … what is your Destiny? Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now? … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed? … Honestly?

 

[PixyMisa]

Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.

You said this, and you are wrong.

Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?

"That imbecile Pixy" here.

Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter?

Ooh! I do! I do!

What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron?

The positron (the anti-matter equivalent of the electron) has the opposite charge and magnetic moment.

Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default

Yeees. But gravity is pretty much irrelevant at small scales. It's just too weak to have any effect.

just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.

Fair enough.

Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims.

Well, LD is wrong. Like photons, gravitons do not have charge, and do not have anti-particles. There is no anti-photon; nor is there an anti-graviton.

I could care less whether You believe it or not.

Do you care about being wrong?

If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?

What religion?

Anyway, we don't know, and say so. This is better than fairy tales.

I guess your religion is “better” in the same way that Toast is superior to a Human Being?

What, more crunchy?

When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity”

Which as I have pointed out is not what science says - we are still inside the singularity.

(which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!)

Precisely.

and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”)

The evidence has been pointed out to you, Franko. Have you forgotten already?

but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion

Which it isn't

… then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.

Where's the magic, Franko?

Magic = Incomprehensible

It's only incomprehensible to you, Franko. That's not because it's magical, it's because you're stupid.

= That which cannot be logically explained

It has been logically explained to you, Franko.

= Supernatural

Now you're getting your definitions mixed up.

= beyond natural explanation

Well, that's supernatural, yes.

= illogical

Most supernatural beliefs are illogical. Maybe all of them. Including your "Logical Goddess"

= random

No. Randomness has nothing to do with magic, logic, or the supernatural.

= being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

That relates to logic, but it has nothing to do with any of the other subjects.

It is almost like you are refuting your own post.

No, he's just making an effort to think down to your level.

Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.

That's complete nonsense. Godel and Bayes have nothing to do with Darwin's theory. One might note that Darwin had been dead for fourteen years before Godel was born.

Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?

Where does Godel say this?

You have a kid

Not that I've noticed.

initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently.

Yup. Newborn babies are blobs. Keep one end full and the other end clean. But within a few months they are quite alert and interested in the world.

… Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult.

Yees.

But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.

No. Um, so what?

I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal compute

Steve Wozniak? Chuck Peddle?

and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?

Considering that he hadn't forseen the internet in 1995, by which time it had already existed for fifteen to twenty years, depending on where you draw the line, I suspect not.

The real question is … what is your Destiny?

I don't have one.

Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now?

I don't consider myself labeled as an "A-Theist" now.

… how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed?

I don't call myself an "A-Theist" now. I don't think anyone does.

 

[Tricky]

All quotes by Franko
Like I said, evidence which isn’t logical, isn’t evidence.

And like I said, evidence is not logical or illogical. It is just observations. Here's an example:

As a genetecist, you observe that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical DNA.

That is the evidence. It involves no logic. The logic comes in when you try to fit the evidence to your hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: The DNA is similar because God used a lot of the same parts during the seven days of creation.

Hypothesis 2: The DNA is similar because the humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

Both hypotheses use exactly the same evidence. How do we decide which is better? That is where you use logic to see how this hypothesis fits into the other things hypothesized by the belief system.

Tricky do you have any idea what you are even talking about; or are you just parroting that imbecile Pixy because you think She is smarter than You?

Although I am not as knowledgable about many things as Misa, especially particle physics (or even physics in general), I believe I can hold my own in a conversation with you.

Do you know what the main difference is between normal matter (“posi-matter”) and anti-matter? What is the difference between a posi-matter electron, and an anti-matter electron? Because, you see, you can’t talk about matter without also talking about gravity by default, just like you can’t talk about gravity without making reference to matter. The two are inexorably linked.

Gravity is one property of matter, however it is relatively easy to talk about other properties of matter without mentioning gravity, for example the property of matter that it occupies space. See? easily done.
If you're talking about positrons versus electrons, yes I knew what they are even before Misa explained them. If you are talking about something different, well then I really can't say. I have never come across the term "posi-matter electron" in any physics or chemistry course I have taken. Perhaps you could provide a reference. Or perhaps you merely made up the term.

Posi-matter Gravitons have a positive charge, and Anti-matter Gravitons have a negative charge. That’s what LD claims. I could care less whether You believe it or not.

Well then let's test it. Charged particles are deflected by electromagnetic fields. If gravitons, the hypothetical source of gravity, are charged, then gravity would be noticibly warped in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field. This would be a very easy experiment to test, in fact all you have to do is see if there are gravity anomalies around radio transmitters. Care to check this out? I'm betting there aren't.

If you can’t explain what happened before the “big bang”, and I can, then how does that make your religion “better”?

Because my beliefs (which aren't a religion) do not invent and claim the truth of explanations without evidence. And what happened to "I don't know"? You used to be so humble.

When you are claiming that an entire Universe appeared out of no where, and then it escaped a “singularity” (which no one has ever actually seen, and from which nothing is suppose to be able to escape – NOTHING!), and you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for this claim (other than your “good word”), but I should believe You, because your religion is more special because You like to pretend that it isn’t really a religion … then I would say you have a Magical belief system regardless of what you want to call it or pretend it IS or IS NOT.

You'll be hard pressed to prove I have claimed any such thing. In truth, I have said very little about the scientific theories on the origin of the universe because I am not well educated in that field. If is another one where I say "I don't know" a lot. And I have already accepted the fact that you will call it "magic" and you will call my beliefs "religion". You may confuse the hell out of everyone else, but I am becoming familiar with your non-standard definitions.

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

Magic is not incomprehensible, it simply isn't real, IMO. My wife claims to be able to do magic, and yes it's quite easy to comprehend, provided you accept the the assumption that it is possible to violate the laws of science. I do not accept this assumption, but if one does, the logic of magic is unassailable. Yet another case where logic is not evidence.

It is almost like you are refuting your own post.

Because I am adjusting for your odd definitions? Come on, Frank, I'm doing it for you so we won't have to argue semantics over and over again. I really do wish you would publish The Lexicon here so I wouldn't have to always guess what you mean by certain words.

Godel + Bayes = Evolution (Darwin) … just like 2 + 2 = 4.

Well then why do you insist on a model of the universe that posits decreasing complexity? You don't like Darwin either?

Godel essentially says it all, things (systems) go from simple to complex over time, but how does that contradict LD?

Because one of the things you have said time and time again is that things can only arise from things more complex than themselves. In fact I belive you have derided me a number of times for suggesting otherwise. You want me to post links? They are numerous. Or are you now arguing that toasters are more complex than humans?

You have a kid, initially as an infant that child is virtually helpless – he or she has no comprehension of this reality, they are totally unable to navigate here independently. … Okay, so lets say 20 years or so go by, and now look at that “infant”. Now they are an adult, their mind has “evolved”, it has gone from less complex as an infant, to more complex as an adult. But that doesn’t mean that YOU as that person’s parent haven’t also gotten more complex over the last 20 years.

Possibly. Or you might be dead (considerably less complex).

It is nice to see, though, that you have adopted my "infant growing up" example. I guess this also means that you now accept the evidence that matter creates consciousness (infant adds matter to its neurological system which in turn makes the child more conscious). This truly is a day to remember when you have made such major concessions about your old ways of looking at things. I'm proud of you, lad!

I don’t know? I suggest you find the guy most responsible for “inventing” the personal computer, and ask him if he envisioned every single thing (every single program) that would ever be written for Personal Computers and every single use personal computers would be put to at the moment he invented it? When Bill Gates started Microsoft all those years back, (I think he was 19 or 20) do you think he imagined the Internet EXACTLY as it is today?

Well if it was all fated then the man who is more responsible than anyone else for everything ever done on computers, (which is how you have described Gates) should have had enough info to make such predictions. If not, then it is just possible that things aren't fated. Gosh Franko. Keep going at this rate and you will be an A-Theist before you know it.

The real question is … what is your Destiny? Let’s take You for example, do you perceive yourself still labeled as an “A-Theist” 5 years from now? … how about 10 years from now? Do you think you will still be calling yourself an A-Theist on your deathbed? … Honestly?

Of course, I have never called myself an A-Theist and based on your description, I am not one. According to The Lexicon I am an agnostic. Nevertheless, I don't envision making major changes in my beliefs, though I won't say it is impossible. Heck, I might have a lobotomy and become a Logical Deist.

 

[Franko]

Tricky:
And like I said, evidence is not logical or illogical. It is just observations.

So when someone tells you that they were abducted by Aliens on numerous occasions, that is an “empirical observation” just as good as any other? – is that what you are saying Tricky??

If 1000 former guest of Crossing Over, with John Edwards all state that they “observed” John Edwards “communicating” with their dead relatives, than that evidence is just as much evidence as 2 + 2 = 4, or E = MC^2 ???

Here's an example:

As a genetecist, you observe that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical DNA.

That is the evidence. It involves no logic.

Try defining “human”, “chimpanzee”, “nearly identical” or “DNA” without Logic Tricky.

The logic comes in when you try to fit the evidence to your hypothesis.

Better late than never … ?

Hypothesis 1: The DNA is similar because God used a lot of the same parts during the seven days of creation.

Hypothesis 2: The DNA is similar because the humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

Yeah, maybe “God” was the common ancestor? … Or are Theists only allowed to believe #1 according to you Tricky?

Both hypotheses use exactly the same evidence. How do we decide which is better? That is where you use logic to see how this hypothesis fits into the other things hypothesized by the belief system.

Wait -- wait – wait … you have gotten way to far ahead of yourself. Before you can even consider “DNA”, how do you know that ANY of it is real? How do you know that YOU aren’t the only entity to exist, and chimp’s, and dogs, and cats, and all the people in this forum, and everyone you have ever seen aren’t simply figments of your imagination? Maybe there isn’t any DNA in the first place?

Gravity is one property of matter, however it is relatively easy to talk about other properties of matter without mentioning gravity, for example the property of matter that it occupies space. See? easily done.

You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves Spacetime …

If you're talking about positrons versus electrons, yes I knew what they are even before Misa explained them. If you are talking about something different, well then I really can't say. I have never come across the term "posi-matter electron" in any physics or chemistry course I have taken. Perhaps you could provide a reference. Or perhaps you merely made up the term.

Do you understand what posi-matter (+), and anti-matter (-) mean Tricky? … because when you A-Theists start playing dumb it just kind of makes my eyes glaze over.

Well then let's test it. Charged particles are deflected by electromagnetic fields. If gravitons, the hypothetical source of gravity, are charged, then gravity would be noticibly warped in the presence of a strong electromagnetic field. This would be a very easy experiment to test, in fact all you have to do is see if there are gravity anomalies around radio transmitters. Care to check this out? I'm betting there aren't.

Whatever you say Flat-Earth-boy …

Because my beliefs (which aren't a religion) do not invent and claim the truth of explanations without evidence …

What’s your evidence for “free will” then Tricky? Why are you unable to be honest regarding this point?

Atoms obey TLOP.
You are made of Atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP!

TLOP makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

You just can’t face the facts religious fanatic.

 

[PixyMisa]

You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves Spacetime

No, it doesn't. Gravity can be described as a curve in spacetime, but it's the effect, not the cause. Matter bends spacetime.

 

[Franko]

No, it doesn't. Gravity can be described as a curve in spacetime, but it's the effect, not the cause. Matter bends spacetime.

So Pixychix, I am taking it that your Husband or Father is a Physicist, or a high school science teacher or something like that?

So if charge has nothing do do with Gravity, then what is Your accounting of Anti-matter?

and by the way, would gravitational charge be exactly the same as electrical charge? They are two different forces (gravity and electromagnetism) -- aren't they?

I mean, are electrons and quarks the same because they both have Spin, Mass, and Velocity?

 

[PixyMisa]

So Pixychix, I am taking it that your Husband or Father is a Physicist, or a high school science teacher or something like that?

I'm going to leave that sentence there so I can look at it. It's just such a wonderful window into the Frankoverse.

So if charge has nothing do do with Gravity, then what is Your accounting of Anti-matter?

Gravity has nothing to do with charge. Charge is a factor in the electromagnetic force, which is entirely different to gravity.

and by the way, would gravitational charge be exactly the same as electrical charge?

There is no such thing as gravitational "charge". In physics, the word charge by itself always means electrical charge.

Having sorted that out, there are two big differences between the electromagnetic and the gravitational forces.

First, gravity is always attractive, while electromagnetism can be attractive or repulsive. Consider the poles of a magnet, or the positive and negative ends of a battery. There's no antigravity. Anti-matter reacts to gravity in precisely the same way as normal matter.

Second, the gravitational force is much much much weaker than the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force is a trillion trillion trillion (about 1.2e36) times more powerful than gravity.

They are two different forces (gravity and electromagnetism) -- aren't they?

Indeed they are.

I mean, are electrons and quarks the same because they both have Spin, Mass, and Velocity?

Both electrons and quarks also have charge. But that doesn't mean that they are the same. They are very different particles. Quarks only exist within other particles (called hadrons); it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate a quark. Electrons are leptons, which is the other family of fundamental material particles.

 

[metacristi]

PixyMisa

Gravity has nothing to do with charge. Charge is a factor in the electromagnetic force, which is entirely different to gravity.......There is no such thing as gravitational "charge". In physics, the word charge by itself always means electrical charge.

My reply has nothing to do with the polemics you have here though I couldn't resist to make some comments,this topic is interesting for me as I've always been a maverick [given that science is always fallible].
From the point of view of modern science gravity is not really a force,it is a geomerical feature of the spacetime continuous [a curvature of space time due to the presence of mass].We can oppose the effects of gravity by using other known basic forces [interactions] but that does not mean 'antigravity'.There is no way in fact to obtain antigravity given the way gravity is defined today.Even if there existed forces we do not know about-for example the cosmological,very faint,'anti gravitational' force,acting at very large,cosmological,scale-seen by some as a possible explanation for the fact that space seems flat to us.


However I've stumbled once [whilst searching more info about the alleged antigravity produced by superconductors-see Podkletnovs' experiments] to a very interesting site presenting the experiments made almost 100 years ago by prof Nipher [1917].See:


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm#2


Electricity seems to produce the reverse of gravity [real antigravity] not only to simply oppose gravity! In this case gravity and electrical fields would be much closer than we consider them now.
The results are indeed puzzling because modern science only tell us that at very high energies [10^(19) ev] all known basic interactions become a single 'superforce'.Or Nipher's results defy that.

Well,if Nipher's experiments are correctly conducted,there is really a link between gravity and electromagnetism,manifest at usual energies too.
I've tried to see what the scientific community think of this experiment,is it valid or not?I've written to some scientific magazines [american included].No answers.
Probably they did not even know of this experiment.Einstein's theory was so succesfull that no one really bothered with this strange experiment.
Correct or not?That's the question.Though,from all I know now,no one proved it is incorrect.Enough to make me,at least now,to adopt a more flexible position.
Generally all scientific theories [we consider as giving us 'objective knowledge'] can be regarded as being convenient ways to explain phenomena 'working for all our practical purposes-for the moment'.However we can never claim he have reached the 'truth',in absolute.

 

[PixyMisa]

I took a look at the Nipher page. It is - at least by modern standards - junk science. There is no reason to think that his results are anything other than electromagnetic in nature. Nipher's experiments are almost trivially simple, and if there was anything to them, we would know.

As for Podkletnov, physicists are divided. Some dismiss his work as worthless, others consider it to be only mostly worthless. His results have not been independently verified. He just may have something, but it seem very unlikely.

 

[wraith]

You have no point.

I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?

You like the idea of a 4 sided tri...
if you benefit from this, then I wont stop you

And you are clearly wrong. First, you can't get the info, and second, even with the info you can't make a deterministic prediction.

Just because I cant get all the info, doesnt mean ultimately, that the process in which you make decisions is not deterministic.

The only way that I can be wrong about this is if you run red lights at random

....and we all know that you do

Another way to what?

another way of functioning...
I see MPB
what are they others?

I remember. And this simply shows once more that you have no idea what the laws of physics are, what consciousness is, and what the relationship between the two is. You are quite remarkably full of anti-knowledge.

...from reading your posts, lets just say that you are loonied up

Infinitely many.

just provide your reasoning thanks pix

you obey TLOP
yet you have an infinite supply of options?
RIGHT....go on!

No mind no choice.

ahhh you obey TLOP
...what makes the atoms in your brain more special in their behaviour that gives you more "free-will" than the moon?

Because, my dear mindless zombie, that is what a mind does!
Not having one yourself you find this difficult to comprehend.

Thats what a mind does.
Thats your answer is it?

Why do stars shine?
Thats what stars do!

The mind is a system of information. It is not made of atoms. It arises from the brain. That is made of atoms. And yes, like all atoms, like all matter and energy, the atoms in my brain obey the laws of physics.

So is this system of information independent from the atoms?

Wrong. I choose. I have free will.

To have more free-will you would have to be outside the control of TLOP.
Youre system of information would have to be independent from the atoms which obeys TLOP

It seems to me that you want both...sorry Mista....cant do that

 

[PixyMisa]

You like the idea of a 4 sided tri...
if you benefit from this, then I wont stop you

You really don't like answering direct questions, do you? OK, here we go again:
I believe I have free will. If there is neither free will nor the illusion of free will, what is it that I believe I have?

Just because I cant get all the info, doesnt mean ultimately, that the process in which you make decisions is not deterministic.

No. Non-determinism is a seperate issue. And as I have noted, it is a well-established part of the laws of physics.

The only way that I can be wrong about this is if you run red lights at random
....and we all know that you do

Having memory problems again? I have never, not once in my life, run a red light. Unlike you, Mister Hardened Criminal.

Oh, and you still don't know what random means.

another way of functioning...
I see MPB
what are they others?

I'm not sure that the argument of free will is related to the functioning of consciousness. I would think it works the other way around.

...from reading your posts, lets just say that you are loonied up

Everything I have said - except for the bunnies - could be independently verified if you ever cared to learn anything. Since you don't, you will remain a treasured anti-knowledge resource. If your country ever goes to war against a nation with any semblance of civilisation or learning, they may drop you in beforehand to paralyse the intellectuals with your barrage of antifacts and illogic.

just provide your reasoning thanks pix

I can choose. Choices lead to more choices. Ta da. Approximately infinitely many options.

you obey TLOP
yet you have an infinite supply of options?

Approximately. Yes.

RIGHT....go on!

Err, that's it, really. I obey the laws of physics, and have approximately infinitely many options. (Actually, the number is almost certainly finite, but is certainly uncountable.)

ahhh you obey TLOP

Yep. That's about the fiftieth time I've confirmed that for you.

...what makes the atoms in your brain more special in their behaviour that gives you more "free-will" than the moon?

The atoms are the same. The arrangement is different.

Thats what a mind does.
Thats your answer is it?

Well, yes. After all, that is what a mind does.

Why do stars shine?

"Why" is not a relevant question. "How" is relevant.

Thats what stars do!

True enough. But we can also talk about nuclear fusion if you like. The carbon cycle. No, the other carbon cycle.

So is this system of information independent from the atoms?

Nope.

To have more free-will

What's "more" free will? I have free will. I don't need "more".

you would have to be outside the control of TLOP.

Why?

Youre system of information would have to be independent from the atoms which obeys TLOP

Why?

It seems to me that you want both...sorry Mista....cant do that

Why not? I've been entirely successful at having free will and obeying the laws of physics so far.

 

[Tricky]

So when someone tells you that they were abducted by Aliens on numerous occasions, that is an “empirical observation” just as good as any other? – is that what you are saying Tricky??

I forgot who I was talking to. My fault. By observations, I meant testable, independantly repeatable observations. I did mention earlier about the poor quality of anecdotal evidence a very short time ago, but I was foolish to think that you could remember that.

If 1000 former guest of Crossing Over, with John Edwards all state that they “observed” John Edwards “communicating” with their dead relatives, than that evidence is just as much evidence as 2 + 2 = 4, or E = MC^2 ???

No, because if it were, then not only John Edward (Not Edwards - he's the guy running for president) should be able to communicate with the dead, but anybody should with proper instructions.

Try defining “human”, “chimpanzee”, “nearly identical” or “DNA” without Logic Tricky.

It is easily done, Franko. Dictionaries don't require logic. At least they require no more logic than to say "If the person reading this dictionary can understand the language it is written in, then this is the definition of "chimpanzee".

The logic comes in when you compare humans and chimpanzees. For example, one might compare gravitons to souls and state that one graviton = one soul. Then it is a simple matter to show the logic behind that statement. Its... uh... dang, I must have misplaced that logic. Could you lend me some of yours?

Yeah, maybe “God” was the common ancestor? … Or are Theists only allowed to believe #1 according to you Tricky?

While theists can believe 1 or 2 (or a wide variety of other explanations based on the same evidence), atheists cannot believe 1 since it would lead to a logical paradox. I only gave you two hypotheses. There could be others which utilize the same evidence but different logic.

Wait -- wait – wait … you have gotten way to far ahead of yourself. Before you can even consider “DNA”, how do you know that ANY of it is real? How do you know that YOU aren’t the only entity to exist, and chimp’s, and dogs, and cats, and all the people in this forum, and everyone you have ever seen aren’t simply figments of your imagination? Maybe there isn’t any DNA in the first place?

That is absolutely ludicrous. If somebody asks you "Where are you from?" do you launch into your theory of the origin of the universe? Well, maybe you do.

You have heard of Spacetime haven’t you Tricky? Gravity curves Spacetime …

Even if this were true, it still doesn't support your proposition. As it turns out, warping of spacetime is yet another property of matter that can be discussed without mentioning gravity.

Do you understand what posi-matter (+), and anti-matter (-) mean Tricky? … because when you A-Theists start playing dumb it just kind of makes my eyes glaze over.

I have a basic knowledge. I do not claim to extensive knowledge. However, if I were to study it, I could learn, provided I chose reputable sources to take my knowledge from. I suppose that your eyes must have glazed over when someone tried to explain quantum mechanics to you.

Whatever you say Flat-Earth-boy …

Interesting that you don't comment at all on the validity of the experiment. Or are you now saying that gravitons have charge, but it is unlike the charge on any other particles?

You're so cute when you're painted into a corner like this. You immediately abandon trying to defend your position and start with the insults.

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

Can you answer this question? If not, you want to admit you were wrong about gravitions being "charged"? Or have your eyes glazed over by now?

What’s your evidence for “free will” then Tricky? Why are you unable to be honest regarding this point?

Please do not accuse me of being dishonest. I am trying very hard to have a civil discussion.

Here is some of the evidence

wraith said
I chose 33. No particular reason

Since I define free will as the ability to choose between availble, perceivable options, this is evidence for free will. This experiment is repeatable by others. Pick a number between 1 and 100. If you can do that, you have free will.

You just can’t face the facts religious fanatic.

You mean like the "fact" that gravitons are charged? Yeah, I will admit I have a hard time accepting what you call "facts". However, I suppose somewhere in The Lexicon there is an entry that says.
Fact - Somthing that Franko believes
I will have to add that one to the list of words I must translate when reading your wisdom.

 

[Franko]

Tricky (A-Theist) said:

Dictionaries don't require logic.

Whew!

I am a bit pressed for Time at the moment, but Trixy this one is right up there with:

TOAST is more complex then a HUMAN BEING. (Trick, on this forum a few months back)

Dictionaries don’t require Logic??? You mean A-Theist dictionaries don’t require logic. Dictionaries for people who want to be logical (sane) require logic. It’s a necessity.

 

[Tricky]

Whew!
Dictionaries don’t require Logic??? You mean A-Theist dictionaries don’t require logic. Dictionaries for people who want to be logical (sane) require logic. It’s a necessity.

I guess there is a Lexicon entry for "logic" too. Care to tell us your definition of "logic" Franko?

However, I would appreciate if you do not use this as an excuse for a diversion because you do not wish to answer my question:

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

 

[hammegk]

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

Can you answer this question?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

Note the relative strengths. That 10^-39 difference may be tough to measure.

 

[PixyMisa]

Note the relative strengths. That 10^-39 difference may be tough to measure.

That's actually the relative strengths of the strong and gravitational forces. The electromagnetic force is two orders of magnitude smaller, so it's more like 10e-37. (I got slightly different numbers earlier, but it doesn't really matter.)

Anyway, if electromagnetism affected gravity - which would certainly happen if gravitons had charge - the effects would be dramatic to say the least, since the elctromagnetic force is vastly stronger than gravity.

Gravity does affect electromagnetism, by the way; light is bent by gravity, and electrons are subject to gravity too.

 

[Franko]

Tricky,

I guess there is a Lexicon entry for "logic" too. Care to tell us your definition of "logic" Franko?

For now, let’s just say that the “Logic” has the opposite definition of this term in the LD vocabulary …

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

I just made this same point to Elephant and Whithead a day or so ago (I can’t remember which thread). I was saying that Logical means you could ultimate reduce it down to True or False. If you can write a computer program to do it – computer programming ultimately nothing more than zeros and ones [trues and falses] – then it is “logical”.

However, I would appreciate if you do not use this as an excuse for a diversion because you do not wish to answer my question:

Tricky – speaking of diversions -- what does ANY of this have to do with your reason for believing in things with no evidence for those beliefs?

Tricky (A-Theist):

1) What is your evidence for “free will”? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief, so NO EVIDENCE = TRUE).

2) What is your evidence that no “god” exist? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief so NO EVIDENCE = FALSE).


Franko (Logical Deist):

1) What is your evidence that no “free will” exist?
Answer: Atoms obey The Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the Laws of Physics.
(so EVIDENCE “free will” = FALSE, means “free will” = False).

2) What is your evidence for “god”?
Answer: TLOP (“God”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

There is a logically equivalent relationship between YOU and CAR, and TLOP and YOU. In the same way that YOU by logical necessity must be more conscious and more complexly organized to make and/or control CAR, TLOP must by logical necessity be more conscious and more complexly organized than YOU. If you are claiming this analogy is FALSE, then essentially you are claiming that YOU can explain how a CAR can be more conscious then YOU, because in order to explain how YOU are more conscious then TLOP you have to do the same exact thing.
(so EVIDENCE “Goddess” = TRUE, means “Goddess” = True).

My beliefs are Logically consistent A-Theist, yours are not. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that somehow you can lie, or obfuscate, or insult and magically alter this logically obvious fact?

 

[hammegk]

Anyway, if electromagnetism affected gravity - which would certainly happen if gravitons had charge - the effects would be dramatic to say the least, since the elctromagnetic force is vastly stronger than gravity.

Err, might depend on the value of graviton charge might it not? Aren't quark non-integer charges interesting? You state graviton charge must be zero, but if it were a teeny tiny value, would anyone know? Answer: no they wouldn't. Agnosticism, anyone?

Gravity does affect electromagnetism, by the way; light is bent by gravity, and electrons are subject to gravity too.

Did someone say not?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky,For now, let’s just say that the “Logic” has the opposite definition of this term in the LD vocabulary …

LOL. Well that answers a lot. When you use the word "logic" you actually mean "the opposite of logic". So by the standard dictionary, your religion is Illogical Deism. Thanks for clearing that up.

Magic = Incomprehensible = That which cannot be logically explained = Supernatural = beyond natural explanation = illogical = random = being both True and False or neither True and False simultaneously

Yes, you already gave us The Lexicon definition of "magic". I have already made the adjustment to understand that whenever your say "magic" you mean "anything Franko doesn't understand." Carry on.

I just made this same point to Elephant and Whithead a day or so ago (I can’t remember which thread). I was saying that Logical means you could ultimate reduce it down to True or False. If you can write a computer program to do it – computer programming ultimately nothing more than zeros and ones [trues and falses] – then it is “logical”.

Yes, I was watching. The set-to of you against UCE has been truly entertaining.
But your belief that everything can be reduced down to True and False is patently ridiculous. Certainly you can code many things into binary responses, but you need a large number of these binary numbers in order to ascertain anything. Recalling the fuzzy logic discussion of a couple of days ago, how would a single binary response answer the question, "Is Joe tall?". It can't possibly. You would have to have a lot of binary questions, like "is Joe taller than Dan"? Is Joe taller than Pete? etc. Though the answer to each of these questions might be a yes/no response (assuming you have the ability to measure height perfectly. Can't have any ties), the answer to the question requires a large set of binary responses. More than two. You would then have to derive a mean height from these numbers such that you could see if Joe was taller than the mean (or whatever number you have designated as "tall".)
So you cannot answer the question "Is Joe Tall" by a true/false response.

Tricky – speaking of diversions -- what does ANY of this have to do with your reason for believing in things with no evidence for those beliefs?

I don't. But obviously you do. Which is why you create this diversion instead of answering the question:

Why isn't gravity affected by the presence of an electromagnetic field?

There are a number of other things you believe with no evidence, and I can list a few if you like.

Tricky (atheist)
1) What is your evidence for “free will”? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief, so NO EVIDENCE = TRUE).

I've shown you the evidence time and time again, and even designed an experiment whereby you chould gather evidence of your own. But you knew this.

2) What is your evidence that no “god” exist? Answer: NONE (Tricky has NO evidence for this belief so NO EVIDENCE = FALSE).

I say there is no evidence that god exists. How in the world am I to provide evidence of no evidence? But you knew this.

Franko (Logical Deist):
1) What is your evidence that no “free will” exist?
Answer: Atoms obey The Laws of Physics.
You are made of Atoms.
You obey the Laws of Physics.
(so EVIDENCE “free will” = FALSE, means “free will” = False).

Except that you have given no evidence that free will violates the laws of physics. None. Not one ort. In fact, you continue to ignore the evidence for free will provided to you. Thus, you not only require no evidence for your beliefs, you believe things for which there is evidence against.

2) What is your evidence for “god”?
Answer: TLOP (“God”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

And again, you have not given evidence for a creator, nor can you find an error in this piece of logic:

Everything real requires a creator
The Progenitor Solipsist is real
The Progenitor Solipsist has a creator

Yeah, I know logic isn't evidence. But since you quote it as if it were, perhaps you will accept this logic or at least tell me where it errs. I do not claim it is evidence.

There is a logically equivalent relationship between YOU and CAR, and TLOP and YOU. In the same way that YOU by logical necessity must be more conscious and more complexly organized to make and/or control CAR, TLOP must by logical necessity be more conscious and more complexly organized than YOU.

Weren't you just telling me how Godel says that systems move towards increasing complexity? Now you claim the opposite? Get your story straight, Franko. It's a good thing you aren't on trial for your life here. You'd be on death row faster than Halle Berry leaves an accident scene.

If you are claiming this analogy is FALSE, then essentially you are claiming that YOU can explain how a CAR can be more conscious then YOU, because in order to explain how YOU are more conscious then TLOP you have to do the same exact thing.
(so EVIDENCE “Goddess” = TRUE, means “Goddess” = True).

As explained earlier, there is no evidence that TLOP are conscious. There is a vast amount of evidence against it. Every consciousness ever observed has been associated with a brain. TLOP does not have a brain. More of your evidence-less beliefs.

My beliefs are Logically consistent A-Theist, yours are not. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that somehow you can lie, or obfuscate, or insult and magically alter this logically obvious fact?

Please don't call me a liar. I have already apologized for calling you one in the past. If you want to flame me, let's move it to the Flame Wars. I wouldn't want to offend Sou or Girl 6.

 

[PixyMisa]

Err, might depend on the value of graviton charge might it not? Aren't quark non-integer charges interesting? You state graviton charge must be zero, but if it were a teeny tiny value, would anyone know? Answer: no they wouldn't.

Wrong. Any charge at all on the Graviton would have significant impact on the nature of the universe.

If a graviton carried an electric charge, that charge must come from somewhere. While charge by itself is not conserved, it is conserved as part of a larger principle known as CPT Invariance. So if a proton emits a charged graviton, either

• Its charge must change - which does not happen.
• Its parity must change - which does not happen, or
• Its movement in time must change direction... which does not happen.[/list=a]If gravitons carried any electrical charge, protons and electrons would no longer necessarily have equal and opposite charges, and matter would disintegrate.

  Agnosticism, anyone?

  No thanks, I just ate.

  Did someone say not?

  Just making sure. You did have the relative strengths reversed, for a start.