God proof models

[Denny Crane]

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

 

[magnifier661]

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
-- Stephen Roberts

I win again!

Another great "Denny calls himself the winner" reaction. Another call sign of his defeat

 

[RR7]

Another great "Denny calls himself the winner" reaction. Another call sign of his defeat

Calling yourself the winner is the sign of defeat?

 

[Denny Crane]

Calling yourself the winner is the sign of defeat?

It's that logic thing.

 

[magnifier661]

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

I 100% agree with him. I would only reply; "generalizing all theist in this matter is dangerous". I would also say "then I would recommend you taking your own advice"

 

[magnifier661]

Calling yourself the winner is the sign of defeat?

Why yes... In Denny's world, things aren't what they seem.

 

[magnifier661]

It's that logic thing.

Yep the "Denny's logic thingy"

 

[Denny Crane]

These last three posts by you, taken together, are classic.

Hilarious.

 

[magnifier661]

These last three posts by you, taken together, are classic.

Hilarious.

You can't be a joker unless you can laugh at yourself. Seems like the shoe fits in your case.

 

[Further]

[video]
Flawed from the get go.

 

[MarAzul]

You missed my point. MarAzul was shocked that anyone could disagree with Göbel since he was brilliant and I was simply showing that MarAzul also disagreed with brilliant minds. It's not a pissing match, but just pointing out that disagreeing with a Nobel laureate on something he did not win the Nobel for is not foolhardy.

We are not speaking of mere Nobel laureates that you are disagreeing with in this matter.
We are speaking of the one of the world foremost logicians in history. Here is a list of the highly recognize members of this group. I don't believe any won a Nobel prize.

So when you disagree with this man it does seem like extreme temerity to do so especially when you can not explain why you disagree. To simply state some unknown Nobel laureate disagrees is laughable if not sad. Barrack Obama is a Nobel laureate and what he thinks of GÖdel is uninteresting.

Note, I do not see Further in this list or the complete list.
http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/resourcesimportantlogicians.html

 

[magnifier661]

[video]
Flawed from the get go.

That is precisely flawed. Do you think I believe it?

 

[Denny Crane]

We are not speaking of mere Nobel laureates that you are disagreeing with in this matter.
We are speaking of the one of the world foremost logicians in history. Here is a list of the highly recognize members of this group. I don't believe any won a Nobel prize.

So when you disagree with this man it does seem like extreme temerity to do so especially when you can not explain why you disagree. To simply state some unknown Nobel laureate disagrees is laughable if not sad. Barrack Obama is a Nobel laureate and what he thinks of GÖdel is uninteresting.

Note, I do not see Further in this list or the complete list.
http://www.manyworldsoflogic.com/resourcesimportantlogicians.html

 

[MarAzul]

err, OK. Most people doing research write down something that is wrong daily. I don't suppose AE wrote the theory of Relativity correctly on day one either. I don't suppose he makes as many errors as me but I sure as hell don't expect he skated completely free of errors.

I could ask why you think this is significant but I won't.

 

[Denny Crane]

err, OK. Most people doing research write down something that is wrong daily. I don't suppose AE wrote the theory of Relativity correctly on day one either. I don't suppose he makes as many errors as me but I sure as hell don't expect he skated completely free errors.

I could ask why you think this is significant but I won't.

Being a Nobel winner doesn't make you always right. Look at Al Gore and Jimmy Carter as examples.

 

[MarAzul]

Being a Nobel winner doesn't make you always right. Look at Al Gore and Jimmy Carter as examples.

I agree completely. Look at Obama.

None of the great logicians in history won a Nobel prize. Perhaps they are more reliable.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree completely. Look at Obama.

None of the great logicians in history won a Nobel prize. Perhaps they are more reliable.

Or not.

 

[MarAzul]

Or not.

I haven't seen any evidence here to support not.

 

[magnifier661]

Being a Nobel winner doesn't make you always right. Look at Al Gore and Jimmy Carter as examples.

100% agree with this as well

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree completely. Look at Obama.

None of the great logicians in history won a Nobel prize. Perhaps they are more reliable.

Bertrand Russel won a Nobel. It wasn't that hard to find at least one

 

[Further]

That is precisely flawed. Do you think I believe it?

I know you don't believe in this. What I was jokingly trying to assert was that you, like the banana man, have come up with answers that fit your narrative and so you now think they are correct. But the truth is not connected positively or negatively to your narrative.

Yes, to Göbel or someone who accepts those axioms as truth, the model could mathematically serve as evidence. But the idea of axiom is not to represent the beliefs of an individual's, but to stand for what's an agreed upon truth. The earth is roundish, planes can fly or the moon does not emit light. Those would be axioms because "almost anyone would agree. There may be a freak here or there who doesn't believe, but just about everyone does. Led Zepplin makes the best music, Thai food is nasty or French is the sexiest language are not axioms because too many people would disagree.

Many athiests would disagree with some axions including but not limited to in axiom 3, the property of being God-like is a positive. This automatically presupposes a god to be judged. So if I believe there is no God, then God-like can not be positive (or negative). There are built in assumptions in the axioms that start from a place of accepting that there is a god.

I'll shorten the whole equation if you believe that. God exists. If God exists, then God exists. And since we know God exists, then God must Exist.

 

[MarAzul]

Bertrand Russel won a Nobel. It wasn't that hard to find at least one

Good job.

For Kurt Gödel - whose key insight demolished the cumulative efforts of a century of mathematical formalism embodied in Russell and Whiteheads' three volume "Principia Mathematica" - the laws of physics were too simple in nature to account for biological complexity in available time.

 

[MarAzul]

The following is a edited ( edited by me, a short version of the salient points) explination of Gödel view of evolution.
He does not really debunk the idea of evolution but the idea that life began unassited in this Universe.
Basically the math doesn't work. I never build anything, never have until the math works. Learned that from the man himself. Actually he may have learned it from Galileo.

Gödel also once expressed a concern about the mathematical underpinnings of evolution.
Writing to his colleague Hao Wang he noted "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components."

For Kurt Gödel - whose key insight demolished the cumulative efforts of a century of mathematical formalism embodied in Russell and Whiteheads' three volume "Principia Mathematica" - the laws of physics were too simple
in nature to account for biological complexity in available time.


Galileo demonstrated in the 16th century that no matter widely supported or accepted a theory may be, without a demonstrable mathematical foundation it will ultimately fail the test of time.


Consider the makeup of our universe:
• Approximately 1017 seconds have elapsed since the big bang.
• Quantum physics limits the maximum number of states an atom can go through to 1043 per second
(the inverse of Planck time, i.e. the smallest physically meaningful unit of time)
• The visible universe contains about 1080 atoms.

It seems reasonable to conclude that no more than 10140 chemical reactions have occurred in the visible universe since the big bang (i.e. 1017+43+80)

Following from this evolution needs to be theoretically demonstrable within 10140 molecular state transitions.


Even mathematicians occasionally underestimate probability - in "A Brief History of Time" Stephen Hawking mentions
that monkeys pounding away on keyboards will "very occasionally" by pure chance type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets.
The calculation for the sonnet "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" shows that the chance is about 1 in 10690 i.e. 10 followed by 690 zeros. [r78]
As there have only been 1018 seconds since the Big Bang and there are about 1080 atoms in the visible universe it is difficult to see where 10690 fits in comfortably.
Physical limits on monkeys and keyboards means we would have to cycle through the heat death or final
collapse of the universe in excess of 10600 times to obtain a single sonnet.

The informational complexity inherent in a sonnet parallels the informational complexity that defines a protein. Just as a sonnet is assembled from 26 letters (ignoring punctuation, spaces and capitals), proteins are assembled (by previously assembled proteins) from strings of 20 distinct amino acids ranging in length from 20 (TRP-Cage) to 26,926 (Titin).
Proteins are the "work-horse" of biological life - each cell in the human body produces about 2,000 per second, and as each protein is produced it is folded by other proteins or self-folds into a complex three-dimensional shape required to activate it's chemical function.

The most abundant proteins associated with the DNA of eukaryotes are the Histones.
As they are essential for maintaining the structural integrity of DNA and have a role in the transcription process they are structurally ntolerant to change. Histone H4 contains about 104 amino acids and differs in two or three places across a wide range of species.
The high level of invariance of Histone H4 with respect to cellular replication suggests it is a candidate for examining probabilities associated with the formation of an equivalent protein in a primeval cell on the basis of chance.

With 104 amino acids, there are 20104 ways a primeval equivalent of Histone H4 could have been arranged through chance. For convenience, we approximate 20104 by 2 x 10135

If we assume that the entire observable universe - approximately 1080 atoms - was available to manufacture the very first Histone H4 equivalent protein - at an average of 10 atoms per amino acid - we would have 1077 amino acids available. If we spent all 1018 seconds since the Big Bang cycling through all possible proteins using all the available resources of the universe
once every second we would have generated a maximum of 1095 proteins. Thus the chance of obtaining one Histone H4 equivalent protein using all the resources in the universe for a workable primeval cell would be 1 in 1040.



The bottom line here is the Universe is a puppy in time compared the the time required.

As noted in the prologue Kurt Gödel once observed that "The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." With customary precision Gödel elaborated that unless the complexity of living bodies was innate to the material they were derived from, or present in the laws governing their formation, the laws of physics were fundamentally too simple to account for biological complexity within available geological time. [r12]

Biologists pay tribute to Gödel the mathematician, but believe it unnecessary to pay much attention to Gödel's comments on evolution. After all, they point out, Gödel was not trained as a biologist.

Whether Kurt Gödel ever reciprocated this insight is not recorded.

The ultimate irony would be to spurn the opportunity for a friendship with your Creator - one transcending the limitations of naturalism - on the basis of a theory of origins that still awaits a quantitative mathematical foundation after 150 years.

It's worth checking the mathematics before our time in this universe is up.



Full version
http://www.darwinsmaths.com/

 

[magnifier661]

I know you don't believe in this. What I was jokingly trying to assert was that you, like the banana man, have come up with answers that fit your narrative and so you now think they are correct. But the truth is not connected positively or negatively to your narrative.

Yes, to Göbel or someone who accepts those axioms as truth, the model could mathematically serve as evidence. But the idea of axiom is not to represent the beliefs of an individual's, but to stand for what's an agreed upon truth. The earth is roundish, planes can fly or the moon does not emit light. Those would be axioms because "almost anyone would agree. There may be a freak here or there who doesn't believe, but just about everyone does. Led Zepplin makes the best music, Thai food is nasty or French is the sexiest language are not axioms because too many people would disagree.

Many athiests would disagree with some axions including but not limited to in axiom 3, the property of being God-like is a positive. This automatically presupposes a god to be judged. So if I believe there is no God, then God-like can not be positive (or negative). There are built in assumptions in the axioms that start from a place of accepting that there is a god.

I'll shorten the whole equation if you believe that. God exists. If God exists, then God exists. And since we know God exists, then God must Exist.

You've got this backward. It's not "do you believe there is such things as being God". It's using the axiom what would be God. So the equation is not God exists, therefor he exists. It's "because there are positives, and God is considered positive, and this positive is everywhere, then God exists".

The modal of Godel would not work under your axioms.

 

[Denny Crane]

MarAzul,

Does your CPU have more than one core? If you have a dual core CPU, it can do the same computation in each core, meaning you can do two computations in the time a single core would take to do one.

How many "cores" is the universe? Your argument assumes one.

But there isn't just one. There is one "core" for each hydrogen atom. A trillion trillion trillion cores.

That's why your argument makes no sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

You've got this backward. It's not "do you believe there is such things as being God". It's using the axiom what would be God. So the equation is not God exists, therefor he exists. It's "because there are positives, and God is considered positive, and this positive is everywhere, then God exists".

The modal of Godel would not work under your axioms.

No. He got it right. REALLY right.

 

[magnifier661]

No. He got it right. REALLY right.

The ongoing joke in this forum is for you not to agree. It nullifies the unbiased portion of the debate.

 

[Denny Crane]

The ongoing joke in this forum is for you not to agree. It nullifies the unbiased portion of the debate.

Good for you and those who think so.

I agreed with Further, so there goes that theory.

The thing is, NOBODY who's posted in this thread agrees with you. Why is that?

 

[magnifier661]

MarAzul,

Does your CPU have more than one core? If you have a dual core CPU, it can do the same computation in each core, meaning you can do two computations in the time a single core would take to do one.

How many "cores" is the universe? Your argument assumes one.

But there isn't just one. There is one "core" for each hydrogen atom. A trillion trillion trillion cores.

That's why your argument makes no sense.

Wow you got it wrong again. The argument accounts for all matter in the universe; which means the universe as a whole. Your response acts as though each hydrogen atom has the entire framework of the universe at its disposal all simultaneously. That is false. Your axiom is false because the computer with "dual cores" have two full banks of the same possibilities. Each hydrogen atom doesn't.

Nice effort though

 

[Denny Crane]

Wow you got it wrong again. The argument accounts for all matter in the universe; which means the universe as a whole. Your response acts as though each hydrogen atom has the entire framework of the universe at its disposal all simultaneously. That is false. Your axiom is false because the computer with "dual cores" have two full banks of the same possibilities. Each hydrogen atom doesn't.

Nice effort though

You don't need the entire framework of the universe.

If you want to consider water, you don't need to wait for 2 hydrogens and one oxygen to join before the next ones can join. You might get bazillions of them joining at the very same instant.

And you abuse the term axiom.