My Apple Challenge IV

[Nathan Poe]

Cute --- but like I said --- please don't make this any harder than it is.

You don't get to choose how hard or easy this is.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have a feeling I understand it a lot better than you do, my friend. You don't know the different between it and magic --- remember?

If you understand it so well why can't you answer my questions?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll do better than that -- mate in 1:

White creates another Q ex nihilo at b8 -- Checkmate.

Of course, if we were playing by the rules of chess, the answer would be something more like:

1. Qd6 PxQ
2. Rc1#

Yup --- but what if 1. Q-d6, R-h8?

But of course, the whole point of your apple challenges is that the rules do not apply in creation, so your chess analogy, like your challenges themselves, is meaningless pseudosophic drivel.

Um --- I'd say standard rules of ex nihilo creation would apply --- wouldn't you? I don't think any rules were broken anywhere.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have a feeling I understand it a lot better than you do, my friend. You don't know the different between it and magic --- remember?

Apparantly it'll take someone smarter than either of you to explain the difference.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yup.

Well, that's chess for you.

Um --- I'd say standard rules of ex nihilo creation would apply --- wouldn't you? I don't think any rules were broken anywhere.

Considering that the "Standard rules of ex nihilo creation" are made up by you, it'd be pretty easy for you not to break any.

But humor me -- What are the "standard rules"? I would very much like a guideline to measure other ex nihilo creations, to make sure they fit the standard.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't get to choose how hard or easy this is.

I've employed Occam's Razor to make it as easy as possible. If you'd like, I can make it much harder.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have a feeling I understand it a lot better than you do, my friend. You don't know the different between it and magic --- remember?

The fact that you don't know the definition of magic doesn't mean that I don't understand the concept of creation ex nihilio.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I've employed Occam's Razor to make it as easy as possible. If you'd like, I can make it much harder.

If you actually employed Occam's Razor it would cut your head off.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that the "Standard rules of ex nihilo creation" are made up by you, it'd be pretty easy for you not to break any.

• Rule #1: Nothing created exists.
• Rule #2: God speaks --- invoking the act of Creation.
• Rule #3: What God spoke, came to be.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yup --- but what if 1. Q-d6, R-h8?

then it's mate in 3
2 Rb1 (any move by black)
3 Rb8#

 

[AV1611VET]

Yup --- but what if 1. Q-d6, R-h8?

then it's mate in 3
2 Rb1 (any move by black)
3 Rb8#

Close enough ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

• Rule #1: Nothing created exists.
• Rule #2: God speaks --- invoking the act of Creation.
• Rule #3: What God spoke, came to be.

Rule #4 kept secret until needed.

(Who would've thought that Robocop would be so useful in a theological discussion?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

Close enough ---

You're right -- I was missing the obvious 2. Qxd7#

(What I get for practiing my blind game on the problem)

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Why do you want to measure the net energy change? Do you suspect that's the answer?

Given that Cabal gave that answer and you said it was correct, yeah, sure, why not. Like I said earlier (there's that reading comp problem of yours again), it seems reasonable enough to me.

Well, of course, given that ex nihilo creation is outside the realms of science, there's no reason it has to follow any logical path, so actually the apple could be created with embedded negative mass-energy. (But if we go with science except for the ex nihilo creation, then the apple would introduce mass-energy into the system, so Cabal's answer seems sensible.)

No!

Yes! Wow, this is a productive line of reasoning.

If you'll bother to read my OP correctly, you'll see I cannot give you what you want here without answering it.

In other words, the answer I'm looking for is simply:

• The amount of mass in the universe would increase in proportion to the amount of mass in the apple.

But what you want me to do --- right from the start --- even before you write down an answer --- is set up some way to measure the amount of mass/energy before the apple was created, and after it was created.

That would give the answer away.

That's like saying:

• Okay, class, here's your final exam. Before I give it to you though, look at the last page and notice the extra credit question: 2 + 3 = ?
• Before you answer this, let me show you how to write the number "5".

Horrible analogy for numerous reasons, but regardless, the fact remains that you didn't present the question well, then got uppity when several people tried to answer in ways you weren't ready for/didn't want. You're like the professor in the urban legend: "how could you use a barometer to measure the height of a tall building?".

No, I wasn't asking you to tell me how I could measure the mass -- I was asking you to tell me things like whether or not I could have apparatus ready to go in anticipation of the ex nihilo creation. As you phrased it, the OP asks just what would be different had it already happened. Well, what would be different is that they would have been created differently. There -- very simple answer. But useless. I made the huge assumption that you were asking about something measurable (which you were, apparently -- well, maybe -- it's still hard to tell) which then leads to questions of how such a thing could be measured. The answer you were looking for doesn't help, given the set-up of the question: there's no way to tell the change in mass-energy, so it's not actually measurable. Your answer, then, is no more helpful than mine: the difference is one was created ex nihilo and the other wasn't.

For the answer you were looking for, you could have asked what physical quantity you could measure, assuming you could set up the apparatus in advance, that would allow you to tell if the apple had come into existence ex nihilo (within the apparatus), or if it had been placed there by some cunning ruse. There. That doesn't give the answer, but makes the problem clearer (for me, at least).

Now, it's still likely that someone would still have come up with some creative response... which maybe should indicate that these "challenges" have very little point to them. The real problem is that they appear to be a set-up for some clever gotcha, but no-one can work out the point of them, so come at them from whatever angle makes sense/seems like fun/occurs to them at the time. In this case, you're asking how we could measure something unscientific scientifically... that's not a good start. And apart from anything else, making everything a "challenge" just makes the entire thread confrontational from the start, making many of us ready to be obstreperous at any given opportunity. Why didn't you just open a thread that said "I think that one way to tell (blah blah apples) would be to measure the net mass-energy change (etc). Does anyone disagree? Can anyone think of another way?". Simple direct statement and question, without this inane "challenge" format. Is that really too much to ask?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that really too much to ask?

The question stands as I wrote it; and any answer other than what Cabal wrote means no extra credit for you.

HOWEVER, I would be very much inclined to cut you some slack if you leave the classroom knowing the difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Tomk80]

The question stands as I wrote it; and any answer other than what Cabal wrote means no extra credit for you.

HOWEVER, I would be very much inclined to cut you some slack if you leave the classroom knowing the difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

How would your example demonstrate that?

If there was no non-zero change in energy, the example would be sleight of hand. Sleight of hand is not what people would think of as "real" magic (ie, the magic of fairytales).

If there would be a non-zero change in energy, the example would be "real" magic, the sort performed by wizards and sourcerers in fairytales and fantasy books. It would also be "creatio ex nihilo".

There is not difference between "magic" and "creatio ex nihilo".

 

[Nathan Poe]

HOWEVER, I would be very much inclined to cut you some slack if you leave the classroom knowing the difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

As someone who actually works in the classroom, I must say it's very presumptuous for you to allude to yourself as a teacher without having anything worthwhile to teach.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So this hypothetical event, the likes of which have never been observed, could only be validated by a technique that might well be impossible to perform.

Is that it, AV?

 

[Greeble]

The question stands as I wrote it; and any answer other than what Cabal wrote means no extra credit for you.

HOWEVER, I would be very much inclined to cut you some slack if you leave the classroom knowing the difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

You still haven't told us which 'magic' you mean. Sleight of hand or the ability to manipulate energy and matter in unconventional ways. (like in fantasy stories LoTR etc)

 

[Assyrian]

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Considering that the "Standard rules of ex nihilo creation" are made up by you, it'd be pretty easy for you not to break any.
​

• Rule #1: Nothing created exists.
• Rule #2: God speaks --- invoking the act of Creation.
• Rule #3: What God spoke, came to be.

A sequence of events is not the same as Standard Rules. Unless you know how God creates ex nihilo, you can hardly claim to understand the rules.

The question stands as I wrote it; and any answer other than what Cabal wrote means no extra credit for you.

HOWEVER, I would be very much inclined to cut you some slack if you leave the classroom knowing the difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

My Latin's rather rusty, but shouldn't that be creatio per magicum? You are talking about using magic or miracle to create out of nothing, not making things out of a lump of magic.

However the difference between magic and miracle, assuming neither are slight of hand, is whether the supernatural power used is authorised and approved or not. As you are not God and as far as I know don't have the authority to create apples ex nihilo, wouldn't any apples you propose to create be created by magic?

You cannot test the universe as God created it.

Let's call up FB's points, and apply them to Genesis 1 ---

• How fast was the ex nihilo creation? Was it instantaneous?

Six days.

Reference?

Gen 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures...

Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens...

Doesn't sound very ex nihilo to me. God is using stuff he made earlier.