|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 13:35:59 [Permalink]
|
No... it's the number of particles in the universe (10^80) times the number of state changes that can occur in a second (10^45 = number of planck times in a second) times the age of the universe (of the order of 10^17 seconds ~ 13.7 billion years, not 10^25 seconds), and multiplied that by something of the order of 100 million = 10^8 (not 1 billion as Wikipedia said, which I used before).
But this still has nothing to do with anything. This is not every possible event, because each individual state change can itself be one of very many different possibilities, so this number means very little in reality. We're speaking of probabilities, not number of possible events -- and therefore showing the 10^150 and saying it's impossible because this covers all the matter does not mean these events couldn't occur. If we had something that did cover every possible event, that argument would make sense, but we really have no way of quantifying this, but 10^150 would be the very minimal bound times 10^8. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/18/2012 13:43:55 |
 |
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
 Posted - 12/18/2012 : 13:40:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Thats unmitigated bullshit. He wants to call a bit (a known entity of computer science as a single base 2 digit) as a standard base 10 entity. You cannot subdivide an on/off condition. While strings of bits can express a maximum number (1,3,7,15), the individual bits may not be subdivided. You would still need to express 10 as a four bit number. The fact that there are combinations that express higher numbers is immaterial. It is still 4 bits. And the basis for hexidecimal expressions of bytes/nibbles.
The computers aren't the problem. Shannon's assumption is. |
No, Shannon was right in what he was saying. Shannon was bright enough to know that to transmit seven decimal digits (for example) would require 24 full bits (not 7×3.333=23.331), because bits aren't subdividable. He was just making a statement about the approximate conversion of decimal digits to bits for those not in the know. He wasn't a crank.
Besides which, Shannon worked in information theory. In that field, the information content of a decimal digit really is only about 3.33 bits, since six of the sixteen microstates possible with four bits would go unused, and thus never contain information. Basically Shannon was saying that the information content of any message, measured in bits, is the base-two log of the total number of possible microstates (if all microstates are equally probable) of the message. If you want to measure it in digits, you take the base-10 log. And the two measurements are equivalent given a transforming factor of about three and a third.
JerryB introduced the "one decimal digit equals 3.3 bits" thing for no good reason at all other than to show off that he knows a little something about bits and digits, but still he fucked up in the details. And he's trying to mock you because he's not interested in teaching anyone here anything about what he knows, he's only interested in arrogantly asserting his (not) superior knowledge to strangers on the Internet. His life must be pretty dull if this gets him off.
|
Except he conflates a computer bit with an informational bit (as proposed by Shannon here). While the only possible states does not use up the entire 0-F range of 4 bits, (using instead the range 0-9) a positional bit can either be on or off. In the case of 9, the bitstream looks like 1001. Under concepts discussed in James Kowal's "Structured Systems Development and Design", the length is still 4 bits and a bit is not subdividable into fractional bits.
Under computer science, the proposal of a fractional bit is absurd on it's face. The fact that Jerry here claims we should throw away our computers if Shannon is wrong (and from a computer science perspective, he is) shows ignorance in that area. Now, if he wants to identify a computer science source that claims the use of fractional bits, I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. However, I have extensive acedemic and practical experience with the concept of computer science bits, and this kind of informational "we don't count the parts we don't use" crap doesn't fly. In information systems, if we store a bit, it takes up the same space if it's a one or a zero.
|
No, I don't conflate anything with ANYTHING......
I gave you Shannon's definition, not mine.....:
"The choice of a logarithmic base corresponds to the choice of a unit for measuring information. If the base 2 is used the resulting units may be called binary digits, or more briefly bits, a word suggested by J. W. Tukey. A device with two stable positions, such as a relay or a flip-flop circuit, can store one bit of information. N such devices can store N bits, since the total number of possible states is 2N and log2 2N =N."
That is EXACTLY what I mean by bits...Nothing more...nothing less.....How you guys seem to have so much trouble grasping these concepts is above me, I guess....
I spend so much time in here trying to explain algebra and simple concepts like bits and what a theory of science is, that there is really little time left for intelligent discussion..... |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 13:42:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
I want to talk about "Borel's law" some more, because, well, it's not a real thing in probability. Its very statement is self-contradictory:
"Any event whose odds are worse than 1 to 10^150 has probability zero."
This means for 0 < x < 10^-150
P(event with probability x) = 0
But, by definition
P(event with probability x) = x > 0
It's logically false, and so impossible to argue otherwise.
"Borel's law" is merely a rule of thumb for within a particular context. |
I think you are wanting to go to this formula, if it helps:
Let p be the probability of Event E's occurrence during any one opportunity for it to occur. (1 - p) will, therefore, be the probability that Event E doesn't occur during any one opportunity for it to occur. So, given N different opportunities for Event E to occur, the probability that Event E will not occur during any of those N opportunities, is (1 - p)N. And therefore, the probability that Event E will occur at least once during those N opportunities for Event E to occur, is (1 - (1 - p)N)
I'm afraid you didn't really show anything, logically or mathematically as far as I can see. You might want to expand or clarify.....
|
This is irrelevant, I'm not talking about a series of times where a single event can occur, I assume you're saying (1-p)^N, which is true, but it also assume each possible occurrence of E is independent. Suppose we make this assumption and, yes, we have 1 - (1-p)^N, which is not zero for 0 < p < 10^-150, and so it's still contradictory.
The statement "event E cannot happen" is P(E) = 0
The statement "event E has odds 10^150 + 1 to 1" is P(E) = 1/[10^150 + 1]
The statement "event E has odds and 10^150 + 1 to 1 and therefore event E cannot happen" is
P(E) = 1/[10^150 + 1], therefore, P(E) = 0, which is contradictory.
One may argue the axiomatization of probability is flawed and therefore this is invalid, but I don't believe Dembski is arguing this. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/18/2012 13:48:16 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 13:57:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
No... it's the number of particles in the universe (10^80) times the number of state changes that can occur in a second (10^45 = number of planck times in a second) times the age of the universe (of the order of 10^17 seconds ~ 13.7 billion years, not 10^25 seconds), and multiplied that by something of the order of 100 million = 10^8 (not 1 billion as Wikipedia said, which I used before). |
So what is your point..... <:0)
If I just give in and agree with you, then the number becomes smaller and you lose the argument by an even bigger margin......
| But this still has nothing to do with anything. This is not every possible event, because each individual state change can itself be one of very many different possibilities, so this number means very little in reality. |
References, please...I don't believe this, as there can be no time for any of that to happen. Please show me there are smaller increments of time other than plank time......of course, then we'll just redo the math and you will still find an upper probability boundary.
I REALLY believe that you guys just like to argue...I could come in here, state ID is horsehockey and you would ALL be on me claiming it to be a science on the level of Boltzmann thermodynamics...I feel sorry for your wives...LOL
| We're speaking of probabilities, not number of possible events -- and therefore showing the 10^150 and saying it's impossible because this covers all the matter does not mean these events couldn't occur. If we had something that did cover every possible event, that argument would make sense, but we really have no way of quantifying this, but 10^150 would be the very minimal bound times 10^8. |
If you really think this, then you truly don't understand this part of the discussion. The number of POSSIBLE EVENTs for natural creation of life as we know it is THE VERY SUBJECT.
And where did you get 10^8.
If you don't begin to explain this stuff, I'm going to have to assume you are just lost.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 14:11:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
You are saying that the universe was designed, therefore any PART of that universe is designed. It's like stating that a car is designed, therefore the bug splattered on the windshield is too..... |
Wrong. The bug is external to the system that is the car. Therfore it can not be considered, when viewing the car and its parts as designed.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 14:52:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
He took the estimated number of the particles in the universe (that's the maximum number of 'things' possible to 'react' or go through any changes of state...)... |
That is a false statement. He began with the estimated number of Baryons only in the observable universe only. The total number of particles is much, much higher. He did not include photons or guage bosons, for example. Why not? They are capable of state changes. Conglomerations of Baryons (atoms) are also capable of changing states independent of the states of the Baryons that make them up. So are groups of atoms (molecules). You haven't tried to defend Dembski's reasoning for why he began with only a count of the Baryons when the total number of things in the universe which are capable of going through state changes is so very much larger, and so I can conclude it was an arbitrary choice, not grounded in science or logic.| ...multiplied those total possible reacting particles by the maximum number of times they COULD have reacted, given that reactions must occur within time (that would be plank time (which can occur 10^45 times per second)... |
Hypothetically. Nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate Planck time as a lower limit, and not a few scientists believe that space-time is NOT quantized, but is instead continuous (in which case, there is no smallest division of time). Therefore, as far as Dembski's UPB is concerned, the selection of Planck time must also be seen as arbitrary. Why not 1046 or 10200 or even 101,000,000 times/second, if the hypothesized Planck-time limit is false?| --then multiplied THOSE numbers by the estimated age of the universe (10^25 seconds). |
Which is an error of 11 centiDembskis, and uncorrected by Dembski or you, yet you claim the result of the multiplication is scientific and logical.| It's quite simple math and very elementary logic. |
It's oversimplified nonsense is what it is.| IOW, how could something POSSIBLY occur over that number of 10^150.....there EXISTS no possible matter to do so, nor was there TIME in existence for anything to do so. |
It's BECAUSE (do all-caps help?) the number is arbitrarily and artificially too large.| I'm afraid that your gedanken following this area of the discussion makes little sense to me... |
That's a shame. It was simple math and logic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 14:54:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
And quite frankly, I don't remember this forum being THIS illiterate in logical fallacy, but they keep coming post after post..... |
That describes your own straw men, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 15:00:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
| But this still has nothing to do with anything. This is not every possible event, because each individual state change can itself be one of very many different possibilities, so this number means very little in reality. |
References, please...I don't believe this, as there can be no time for any of that to happen. Please show me there are smaller increments of time other than plank time......of course, then we'll just redo the math and you will still find an upper probability boundary. |
I don't think that you do.
Let's go to a lower level and see where errors may be occurring in my understanding or yours: I don't know physics well but I do know probability very well. I am assuming this:
1. A state change in the universe can occur during each Planck time
2. Any of 10^80 particles can change during each Planck time
3. At one Planck time, some subset of the 10^80 particles make a change.
Is this correct?
| And where did you get 10^8. |
Because the estimated age of the universe is 13.7 billion years = 4 * 10^17 seconds. I am taking out the constant multiplier as is typical, so multiply 10^17 with 10^80 and 10^45 and we get 10^142. 10^8 is the missing factor to get 10^150. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 15:01:51 [Permalink]
|
| Perhaps physicists are not calling trajectories of a random process "events," as would be common among mathematicians, but the example using coin flips would suggest they do. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 15:08:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Hypothetically. Nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate Planck time as a lower limit, and not a few scientists believe that space-time is NOT quantized, but is instead continuous (in which case, there is no smallest division of time). |
If spacetime isn't quantized, we open up the possibility of continuous random variables, where P(X = x) = 0 for any x, literally. Positive probabilities could only be associated with ranges like P(X is in [a,b]) > 0 (or similar X belonging to some multidimensional sets), which, as with any math, depends on its axiomatization being correct. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/18/2012 15:09:34 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 15:24:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
| But this still has nothing to do with anything. This is not every possible event, because each individual state change can itself be one of very many different possibilities, so this number means very little in reality. |
References, please...I don't believe this, as there can be no time for any of that to happen. |
It's not time that's a factor. Dembski's calculation only holds if Baryons can be in only one of two states, which means he can simply count "state changes." But if a Baryon can be in one of four states, then a "state change" would require two bits, not one. If a Baryon could be in any one of a million states, then each of the 1080 particles could "change state" in 106 ways, but you won't find any such multiplier in the UPB calculation because Dembski just arbitrarily ignored the possibility.| Please show me there are smaller increments of time other than plank time... |
Nope, you're the one arguing that such a limit exists. Nobody here has any burden of proof to demonstrate that your invisible pink dragon doesn't exist, you need to prove that it does. Of course, it appears that what you really have is a gross layman's misunderstanding of what "Planck time" means, in which case you will be unable to defend your assertions.| ...of course, then we'll just redo the math and you will still find an upper probability boundary. |
No, we won't, because we can just make the deck of cards larger.
Actually, that might be a good way to get an actual, practical, universal probability bound: how many cards could have been dealt over the age of the universe? If we set the deal rate at one/second (arbitrary but convenient), 1017 cards could have been dealt. So I propose a UPB of 1/(n!) where n is the number of cards that could be dealt. 1/(1017!) is really tiny. Hell, if there were only a million cards in the deck, the UPB would be on the order of 10-5,565,707. I hereby declare Dembski's calculation to be off by at least 5,565,557 orders of magnitude.| I REALLY believe that you guys just like to argue...I could come in here, state ID is horsehockey and you would ALL be on me claiming it to be a science on the level of Boltzmann thermodynamics... |
No, it'd be a really short thread. We like to argue against nonsense, not in favor of it.| If you don't begin to explain this stuff, I'm going to have to assume you are just lost. |
The fact that you require an explanation for Mach's simple math means that you are lost. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 16:24:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not time that's a factor. Dembski's calculation only holds if Baryons can be in only one of two states, which means he can simply count "state changes." But if a Baryon can be in one of four states, then a "state change" would require two bits, not one. If a Baryon could be in any one of a million states, then each of the 1080 particles could "change state" in 106 ways, but you won't find any such multiplier in the UPB calculation because Dembski just arbitrarily ignored the possibility. |
I'm not sure I understand about the baryon states, but this number of ways a state could change is something I was trying to get at which would make probabilities tremendously smaller.
Also, isn't it possible for any subset of the 10^80 particles could change state during a Planck time?
In this case, even if a "state change" is a binary decision, we also have different events by each distinct subset of these particles: i.e. any member of its power set, which has 2^(10^80) elements, so we would need to multiply not by 10^80, but by 2^10^80 which is of the order of 10^240.
And yet this is still assuming binary state changes, but I don't understand how this binary change is relevant, I assume there are lots of different ways for it to change, like maybe the 10^6 you mention (meaning we go 10^250*(10^6)^10^250 = 10^15250).
I don't understand this well, but if quantum mechanics actually implies that a particle can jump anywhere in a Planck time, and assuming space is quantized, we'd need to make it more like every possible quanta of space for each subset, and multiply by any possible value of momentum (if I'm right to think location and momentum can give us everything we can know), which will be much more than 10^6 (and "more" in a much more astronomically high sense than even the 10^150 number since we'll be taking large exponents of it). This last paragraph being very provisional because as I said I don't know physics well. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 12/18/2012 16:29:32 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 16:28:59 [Permalink]
|
| That is a false statement. He began with the estimated number of Baryons only in the observable universe only. The total number of particles is much, much higher. He did not include photons or guage bosons, for example. Why not? They are capable of state changes. Conglomerations of Baryons (atoms) are also capable of changing states independent of the states of the Baryons that make them up. So are groups of atoms (molecules). |
OK, this seems pretty valid for discussion. I'll play. Please tell us how you define a Baryon......
Explain why you think we should include non-baryons and how we would do so. Especially since it's known that from the quantum perspective they pop into and out of existence; AND through superpositioning they are both everywhere and nowhere at the same moment in time (in fact, cancling each other out even when it comes to existence). How do we relate time to them. More specifically, how would we relate plank-time......
State how you define the "unobservable" universe. What is it, where is it, how big is it, what does it contain, how many particles do you believe to be in it as opposed to the 'observable' universe.....Are those particle baryons or non-baryons?
Here's what I'm hoping you'll discover as you ruminate on this...a clear distinction between two fields of study in our universe (yet they are one): classical physics vs. quantum mechanics.........
| You haven't tried to defend Dembski's reasoning for why he began with only a count of the Baryons when the total number of things in the universe which are capable of going through state changes is so very much larger, and so I can conclude it was an arbitrary choice, not grounded in science or logic. |
Then you would have come to an inaccurate conclusion....Dembski had to stay in the field of classical, Einsteinian physics for any of this to have meaning.....He seems to grasp this, you seem not to....how do you calculate much of anything considering quantum particles? Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle helped us out with that one... <:0)
| Hypothetically. Nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate Planck time as a lower limit, |
And hypothetically, no one has ever even SEEN a blackhole, traveled faster than the speed of light or witnessed a singularity...You might as well go ahead and throw out Einstein and Hawking's work while you're on it.......Same logic.
| and not a few scientists believe that space-time is NOT quantized, but is instead continuous (in which case, there is no smallest division of time). Therefore, as far as Dembski's UPB is concerned, the selection of Planck time must also be seen as arbitrary. Why not 1046 or 10200 or even 101,000,000 times/second, if the hypothesized Planck-time limit is false? |
You will assume any hypothetical or discard any area of theoretical physics that disagrees with your religious beliefs...That's what you're doing now.
Oh, Dembski utilized Plank-time? Dave: then there is no such thing as Plank-time.
Plank time: "One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time
Oh, but Dembski used it? Then photons can probably travel FASTER than the speed of light now....This treads on my religious beliefs....I must discard it.......
Science deniers have infiltrated academia, yet they stay so confused that they THINK it is us. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 18:01:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Why is it you think I would know this or care about what one guy says on a PBS television show? |
That was from the Discovery Institute, the main ID think tank. Get a grip.
| But what is it you want from me, to argue now that this is a theory of science based on the argument from authority fallacy or something? |
You wanted I reference, I gave you a reference. And I'm the one committing a fallacy? [Yoda]Comprehension problems runs deep in this one...[/Yoda]
| Well, I don't agree with you that this is a theory of science at all...How was it taken through the scientific method from hypothesis to theory by scientific experimentation. |
It ISN'T a theory of science. Which was the whole point of the Sober paper - which you'd known had you understood it. I've told you what IDists claim is a theory and supplied a paper that shows why it isn't. Why is this so hard to understand?
| And quite frankly, I don't remember this forum being THIS illiterate in logical fallacy, but they keep coming post after post..... |
Yes, every time you post...
| What Sober would also say (but doesn't in this paper) is that one can't talk about anything being more likely than anything else under ID. |
What on earth does this mean??? |
It means that one talk about likelihoods under ID.
| Well, lol...you're fighting tooth and nail to convince me of something called a theory of ID, I just assumed you would place it somewhere with the other great theories of science........ |
In spite of me supplying a paper that shows why ID is not science? The paper you did not understand? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/18/2012 : 19:13:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
OK, this seems pretty valid for discussion. I'll play. Please tell us how you define a Baryon......
Explain why you think we should include non-baryons and how we would do so. Especially since it's known that from the quantum perspective they pop into and out of existence; AND through superpositioning they are both everywhere and nowhere at the same moment in time (in fact, cancling each other out even when it comes to existence). How do we relate time to them. More specifically, how would we relate plank-time......
State how you define the "unobservable" universe. What is it, where is it, how big is it, what does it contain, how many particles do you believe to be in it as opposed to the 'observable' universe.....Are those particle baryons or non-baryons? |
Those are good questions for you to answer. You're the one suggesting that Dembski's numbers are all the factors needed to know how many possible state changes there could have been since the beginning of the universe. How did Dembski define the unobservable universe and why did he choose to ignore it in his calculation? Send him an email or two and find out.| Here's what I'm hoping you'll discover as you ruminate on this...a clear distinction between two fields of study in our universe (yet they are one): classical physics vs. quantum mechanics......... |
The distinction is a complete non-sequitor given that the question is whether or not Dembski's UPB is scientific and logical.| Then you would have come to an inaccurate conclusion....Dembski had to stay in the field of classical, Einsteinian physics for any of this to have meaning... |
Why?| ...He seems to grasp this, you seem not to....how do you calculate much of anything considering quantum particles? |
Quantum physicists calculate zillions of things in their field every day. Are you claiming that they're all wrong to even try?| Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle helped us out with that one... <:0) |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!| Hypothetically. Nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate Planck time as a lower limit, |
And hypothetically, no one has ever even SEEN a blackhole, traveled faster than the speed of light or witnessed a singularity...You might as well go ahead and throw out Einstein and Hawking's work while you're on it.......Same logic. |
Huh? That's just bizarre. The existence of singularities and the limit of light speed are predicated upon tons of empirical evidence and experimentation. Your claim is that Planck Time represents the tiniest snippet of time possible, and so it's scientific and logical to include that fraction of a second in the UPB calculation instead of some other number. I'm asking you to defend that choice in some way, because the UPB is not predicated upon tons of empirical evidence or experimentation. Your answer makes no sense at all.| and not a few scientists believe that space-time is NOT quantized, but is instead continuous (in which case, there is no smallest division of time). Therefore, as far as Dembski's UPB is concerned, the selection of Planck time must also be seen as arbitrary. Why not 1046 or 10200 or even 101,000,000 times/second, if the hypothesized Planck-time limit is false? |
You will assume any hypothetical or discard any area of theoretical physics that disagrees with your religious beliefs...That's what you're doing now. |
No, I'm asking you to defend your choice of numbers.| Oh, Dembski utilized Plank-time? Dave: then there is no such thing as Plank-time. |
Idiotic, transparent straw man.
Dembski: let's use Planck time in this calculation.
Dave: Why?
That's accurate.Plank time: "One Planck time is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to one Planck length. Theoretically, this is the smallest time measurement that will ever be possible"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time |
Thank you for providing the evidence that you were wrong about what "Planck Time" means.| Oh, but Dembski used it? Then photons can probably travel FASTER than the speed of light now....This treads on my religious beliefs....I must discard it....... |
Same stupid straw man. Why do you insist upon embarrassing yourself like that?| Science deniers have infiltrated academia, yet they stay so confused that they THINK it is us. |
I'm not denying the science. I'm not denying the scientific definition of Planck Time, and I'm not denying the current state of the science of time measurement.
I'm denying that using Planck Time in the calculation of the UPB is, as you claimed, scientific and/or logical. I'm arguing with you about your interpretation of the science, Jerry. The fact that you run and hide behind Wikipedia definitions you clearly don't understand or make preposterous insinuations like that questioning Planck Time as a lower limit for events is like denying Einstein's and Hawkings' work just makes you look like a complete coward.
Take a stand, Jerry. Defend your own statements. Stop pretending that your arguments are just like those of famous scientists or that your religious heroes are infallible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Our creator was a computer
