Evolutionary Universal Laws

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 3 months ago #6446 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

Jan,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I believe the Universe does not deal in a beginning nor an end otherwise we retain the problem of creation and destruction.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

So now we can reduce the problem to on of existance withut a creation. I don't see that as a solution at all. If you haven't please look for my thread on Origin of Existance and 0--->(+n)+(-n)

Knowing to believe only
half of what you hear is
a sign of intelligence.
Knowing which half to believe
can make you a genius.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jan
Topic Author
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6523 by Jan

Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]: So now we can reduce the problem to on of existance withut a creation.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Yes, but is it really so hard to grasp? <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]

don't see that as a solution at all. If you haven't please look for my thread on Origin of Existance and 0--->(+n)+(-n)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Sorry, I'm unable to locate your thread, please point me to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]: 0--->(+n)+(-n)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Surely this only makes sense if it occurs simultaneously?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6525 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
To Jeremy,

You said:
"So you are saying that evolution is absolute? That is a contradiction of meaning."

Hummm.. I do not see where I said absolute. As far as I know science has come to the agreement that Evolution is real, so it must be a set Law.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You said that evolution was the only UNCHANGING principle, that makes it absolute, that is what I meant.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Again through theories like the big bang, it has been stated that there was an Evolution of processes that lead to Atoms. That is how Evolution works. The next step follows the must simplest and logical path. For the Universe to Evolve within the smallest parameters seems very logical to me. Why would it take any other path. Also remember we are only looking at the Macro side of the Universe, we are very inexperienced in the workings of the Micro side.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I think we are getting bogged down in a subtle distinction about the word "change". Something that evolves by evolution does not have changing laws but changing forms created by laws that themselves are not changing or have not been shown to change.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You are basing change on our reference of time. I feel the Universe does not deal in time, only in outcome. It is like watching a tree for a day and saying it did not change, when we know through science that it did very much.
Is not the word mutating another way of saying Evolving?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The tree is changing but the laws making it change are not. We observe galactic evolution but the laws governing that evolution have shown no sign of altering significantly. Mutation is change of form but not the change of the underlying laws governing the mutation.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

You said:
"In any mathematical/logical system one must assume the axioms in order to derive anything else. Fundamental physical laws are axiomatic and do not need an explanation for the origin, they simply are. This may be unpalatable to you but it is unavoidable, our knowledge base must always assume something as true without a previous proof. The usefulness of the derived results determines the wisdom of our choice of axioms."

I find this true for a Fundamentalist thinker. Unfortunately I am a pioneer thinker, I am thinking into the future to try and understand the past. To me, all fundamentalist talk of the Universe through the works of others. I talk with the knowledge of others about things that go beyond the norm.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I don't know what you mean by "fundamentalist" thinker. If you mean that I believe that systems of logic must have axioms then I agree. Is a "pioneer" thinker one who proposes things that he expects to have accepted without proof or evidence?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Remember you can not use the knowledge I agree with, to argue against a theory that wants to expand upon the minimum we know today. That does not seem very logical.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Would you prefer that I argue using knowledge that you disagree with? You cannot propose new principles without providing evidence of some kind that they exist or are necessary.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 3 months ago #6526 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I certainly agree, axioms are very important to get going, but we should not rule out the possibility that axioms probably need to be amended with increasing knowledge. It is generally believed that certain physical "laws" are not changing, but this conclusion can only be drawn from the mindset and experimental sophistication we have at this moment.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I did not mean to imply that physical theory or fundamental principles are written in stone. We observe the universe and have to constantly move the line around. We need to be clear here about what is meant by the idea of physical laws "changing". Does the proposer mean that physical constants are varying over time or does he mean that a law such as E=hv is slowly changing to E= hv^2? If the latter then if the change occurs in some predictable way over time then we can write a new equation that takes the time variable into account. If so, then this new law is UNCHANGING and non-evolutionary. A truly evolving law in the sense that PopScience seems to mean is an inherently unpredictable change i.e. chaos. I hope he can clarify this point for us.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.256 seconds