the self replicating watch argument

[Skreeper]

The creation vs evolution game is over.
Creation 1 : Evolution 0

I'm not in the mood to play pigeon chess with someone who doesnt know what he is talking about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No problem. What did you think makes clocks work..tacos?

I want an answer, not a question. Put time in the Solar system, dad.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Dad, you were wondering why we find so many fossils when only a small percentage ever fossilized. A small percentage of a large number can be a large number.

 

[hecd2]

I did. They have no clue.

OK - let readers judge from this exchange whose position is reasoned and based on evidence, and whose is based on the fallacy of personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance. Who engages with the facts and who sweeps them under the carpet.Who has a clue and who has none.

(I (hecd2) point out that all the observations are consistent with the fact that the fundamental physics is substantially unchanged across the observable universe and as far back in time (13.7 billion years to the surface of last scattering) as we can see.)

No. Not so much as you thought, and no billions of years exist. You have no idea of the distance to even the nearest actual star (not the sun).

We know that the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1.302+/-0.002 pc based on a parallax measurement of 768.13 mas. But you didn't address my point, which is that the evidence is that the physics is the same throughout the observable universe. Examples below.

No. The lyman alpha line is seen only here in our time and area.

No it's not. That's precisely the point. All the transitional series of atomic hydrogen (and the other elements) are observed throughout the observable universe. The transition that results in the Lyman-alpha forest occurs in hydrogen located outside our galaxy.

How electrons behave here does not mean it is the same there.

But the spectroscopic evidence is that the electron behaves exactly the same way throughout the universe. You are allowed your own opinion, but you are not allowed your own facts. For example, one fact is that the fine structure of hydrogen which depends on electron spin-orbit coupling and the relativistic correction to the Schroedinger equation is observed to be the same throughout the universe. So how electrons behave here is exactly how they behave throughout the universe.

All constants it depends on are here. In our solar system area. That is where we see the spectral info.

But that's not where the transitions are occurring.

But even if we did assume that all the universe had the same rules, that does not mean it has the same time.

It's not an assumption that the laws opf physics are the same throughout the universe. It's an evidence based conclusion. What does your claim that the universe might have the same rules but not the same time even mean?

So whatever you see a spectral line from is from an unknown distance. It could be a few light weeks away for all we know.

That's patently untrue. Would you like to learn about how we know the distance to astronomical objects?

The existence of hydrogen means nothing there.

The very existence of hydrogen throughout the universe which behaves exactly as it does locally is evidence that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. You have shown no evidence that the laws are different elsewhere - your entire case is based on the fallacy of personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

Circular religion. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles is seen only here.

But it's not. That is the point. Wherever we look throughout the observable universe we see evidence that the fundamental charge (and the speed of light, and the impedance, pemeability and permittivity of free space, and the masses of the fundamental particles and so on) is the same throughout the universe.

False. We do not know what else affects light and causes lensing, such as perhaps time itself?

Do you have a worked up hypothesis of how time itself affects the propagation of light? A hypothesis that can be tested against observation? Because I suspect that this is just another instance of your argument from ignorance. Meanwhile, the best theory of gravity that we have, GR, makes certain predictions about the effect of gravity on light; predictions which can and have been tested, and the evidence is that the obserations match the predictions of the theory to a high degree of precision.

We do not know how far away any objects are that are giving the gravity to bend.

But we do know how far away astronomical objects are. Would you like to learn how?

We do not even know that gravity is the same out there. So something, possibly including gravity is bending light out there. That does not confirm relativity.

What confirms that GR is an accurate theory of gravity throughout the universe is the evidence provided by observations of gravitational lensing and gravitational waves which match the theory well. You haven't presented any evidence that gravity is different elsewhere, so you are relying on your fallacy of personal incredulity and your argument from ignorance.

No. Simply assigning a value to light speed does not mean anything unless we know it applies. If light took less time to move, then C simply is not the C you know. That doesn't mean that light would not be part of the space out in the far universe -- only that it did not represent what C does here in the fishbowl.

The speed of light in vacuum (for which the symbol is lowercase ''c' not uppercase 'C', by the way), is a fundamental constant of physics which appears in every foundational theory of physics. For example if c were to be significantly different elsewhere, then that would imply that other fundamental constants such as e, ε0 and μ0 would also be different (the speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations and depends on these constants), and if these were signficantly different then matter couldn't exist. The fine structure constant depends on the speed of light and is measured to be the same throughout the observable universe to a high degree of precision. All the evidence is that the speed of light is a constant throughout the universe.

You are not looking back, forget that. Yes the sun is 8 seconds away or whatever so IN the fishbowl of the solar system. Once we get outside the solar system area where we do NOT know what time is like, forget it.

Except for all the evidence that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

We could be looking at the future rather than the past for all we know!

I see. So in your desperate attempt to deny the evidence, your are perfectly happy to postulate a phenomenon that violates the principle of causation - you suggest that we can observe an event before it occurs. Good luck with that.

Certainly since we do not know distances, even it it were the past you have NO idea how far in the past! Your whole model depends on time we know.

The model depends on the fact that the laws of physics and the speed of light are observed to be constant throughout the universe, and since the speed of light is finite, then it must take a finite time to travel from its source to our detectors. Ergo, any event that we observe must have taken place in the past, and how far in the past is determined by how far the light had to travel. Simples.

So yes, you have a religion with assumptions and know nothing, though you though you did. Man's wisdom is screaming foolishness, outright foolish talking to God.

None of the evidence with which you have, so far, utterly failed to engage, is remotely like religion. And yes, we do know some things. Unfortunately for you, some of the things we know are not compatible with your argument from ignorance.

 

[hecd2]

Until you can, when we take hundreds of millions of miles in our solar system, that comes with time. That means the base line for all parallax measure is time and space. NOT just space.

Uh, nope. All we need to know to make a parallax measurement is the length of the baseline and the angular difference in direction to the object. Then it's just a matter of elementary Euclidean geometry. Time is not a variable in the parallax equation. You'd get the same result if you measured the angular direction from the extremes of the baseline simultaneously, or a year apart, or a thousand years apart.

Would you like to learn how we know the distance to astronomical objects?

 

[dad]

I want an answer, not a question. Put time in the Solar system, dad.

You can't take it out. So it must be in. We can see and feel and experience the passage of time here. We see time involved in many different forces and physics.

As you might be aware, there is nowhere in our solar system area we can go where time will cease to exist. An atomic clock will still tick at the same rate, and you will still age, no matter what spot on the solar system you are in.

 

[dad]

Dad, you were wondering why we find so many fossils when only a small percentage ever fossilized. A small percentage of a large number can be a large number.

I am not wondering. I assume that the different nature that likely existed on earth in the past was such that most animals and man did not stick around long enough to leave remains or fossils.

So the number or percentage of fossils that do exist is a small fraction of life on earth, and hopelessly incomplete.

 

[dad]

OK - let readers judge from this exchange whose position is reasoned and based on evidence, and whose is based on the fallacy of personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance. Who engages with the facts and who sweeps them under the carpet.Who has a clue and who has none.

No. It is admitted by men of science that they do not even know what time is and why it works etc. We don't need a vote on the issue.

All distances to stars depend on time also existing there as it does here. That is not know. Therefore distances are not known.

We know that the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1.302+/-0.002 pc based on a parallax measurement of 768.13 mas. But you didn't address my point, which is that the evidence is that the physics is the same throughout the observable universe. Examples below.

It does not matter how an atom or light behaves here in our time and space. That is determined by our time, and laws. The parallax is not a measure of space and distance. It is also a measure of time here in our area where the baseline for a parallax is taken.

We take a huge swath of space and time and then try to put it in a math equation as just distance. No. No. No.

No it's not. That's precisely the point. All the transitional series of atomic hydrogen (and the other elements) are observed throughout the observable universe.

No. They are observed HERE. Nowhere else. The light streams in here. this here we see/interpret that light. Not there. In addition we do not even know the size or distance to the object from which we see the light here. If the star was massive, or if the star was tiny makes a difference to the math of things like what gravity we expect etc etc.

The transition that results in the Lyman-alpha forest occurs in hydrogen located outside our galaxy. But the spectroscopic evidence is that the electron behaves exactly the same way throughout the universe.

It is a bit like the 'flip' of hydrogen we see in far space. Science uses our realities and laws and physics to say that such a flip would take millions of years. If the realities THERE were different, then we cannot use ours to measure how why and when something like a flip in hydrogen happens there.

You are allowed your own opinion, but you are not allowed your own facts. For example, one fact is that the fine structure of hydrogen which depends on electron spin-orbit coupling and the relativistic correction to the Schroedinger equation is observed to be the same throughout the universe.

False. You see that still involves what happens over time!

"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is a mathematical equation that describes the changes over time of a physical system in which quantum effects.." wiki


We only see things IN TIME as we know time HERE. If a different time was involved out of our fishbowl, we would not know it. Everything HERE is in our time.

It's not an assumption that the laws opf physics are the same throughout the universe. It's an evidence based conclusion.

No, it is a religious claim. Part of behaving involves time. We see things ONLY in OUR time. That does not apply to all the universe.

What does your claim that the universe might have the same rules but not the same time even mean? That's patently untrue.

Make up your mind. You say you do not even know what something means then call it untrue! Unless you know, well...you don't know.

Would you like to learn about how we know the distance to astronomical objects? The very existence of hydrogen throughout the universe which behaves exactly as it does locally is evidence that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

It behaves HERE the way it needs to in our time. You also have no clue as to what else besides the physical may be also in deep space. You also have no idea what distances/mass/sizes are involved. Science beliefs are based mostly on ignorance and making stuff up.

You have shown no evidence that the laws are different elsewhere

Firstly, who really cares?


The issue is not whether man from the fishbowl can determine whether objects in unknown time and space of unknown distance and size seem to behave a certain way observed here.

The issue about nature is ON EARTH a long time ago. That matters. You do not know what nature and forces and laws existed here. The issue is space is the billions of years of time you claim. Not so much what the laws seem to be there.


Shortened for breivity

 

[xianghua]

If that math works, fine.

i actually refer to "cat" species. but ok.

 

[Speedwell]

i actually refer to "cat" species. but ok.

"Cat" is not a species.

 

[xianghua]

No, not necessarily.

To clarify why I included the bicycle, the whole point is to have a deliberate outlier (i.e. a 'vehicle' that is characteristically distinct from everything else) to use as the parent clade or root of the whole tree. If I selected a different vehicle as the root, then the derived tree would be using that particular vehicle's characteristics as the starting point instead. Consequently, the bicycle could show up in different places in the tree depending on which characteristics I build the tree on.

its clear that we will get the bicycle "out of place" if you will choose all those 14 traits. right?

There are other trucks includes as well (Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tacoma) which show up in different places depending on the tree. They don't, however, show up as being more related to the Mack Truck as compared to some of the other vehicles.

i wonder what will happen if you will use a single company products. i also wonder what will happen if you will use say 100 traits. i think that eventually we will get a tree were trucks will almost always be out of the cars group. we cant realy say that a tipical truck is more similar to a tipical car then to other trucks in general. its just not make any sense.

 

[xianghua]

"Cat" is not a species.

this is why i used quotation marks.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can't take it out. So it must be in. We can see and feel and experience the passage of time here. We see time involved in many different forces and physics.

Name one.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

The creation vs evolution game is over.
Creation 1 : Evolution 0

I didn't know we got to make up scores.
In that case,
Religious book:0 Science:99

 

[hecd2]

No. It is admitted by men of science that they do not even know what time is and why it works etc. We don't need a vote on the issue.

What are you afraid of? Whether you like it or not, people will judge who in this thread has the evidence on their side and whose is using the argument from ignorance. Who has a clue and who hasn't.

All distances to stars depend on time also existing there as it does here. That is not know. Therefore distances are not known.

This is completely wrong. Time does not enter into the parallax equation. Parallax is independent of time and depends only on positions and distances. You are so deperate to deny our knowledge that you postulate things that violate the principle of causality. You can produce no evidence for your position and your entire position is based on wilful ignorance and error.

It does not matter how an atom or light behaves here in our time and space.

It matters that atoms throughout the universe are observed to behave in the same way. It's the transitions that occur"out there" that give rise to the spectra and the fine structure that we see. That is a fact. You are not entitled to your own facts.

The parallax is not a measure of space and distance. It is also a measure of time here in our area where the baseline for a parallax is taken.

No it is not. That is also a fact. Time does not appear in the parallax equation. You are not entitled to make up your own facts.

I have offered to teach you how we know the distance to astronomical objects, but you seem determined to continue in wilful ignorance. Well your major argument is the argument from ignorance, so I suppose you wouldn't want to risk undermining that.

We take a huge swath of space and time and then try to put it in a math equation as just distance. No. No. No.

Parallax does not depend on time. That is a simple fact.

No. They are observed HERE. Nowhere else. The light streams in here. this here we see/interpret that light. Not there.

That's true, but what we observe is determined by interactions and events out there not here. When we look at hydrogen in the universe, wherever it is, it looks the same. The same structure, the same fine structure, the same hyper-fine structure. What we observe here is what is happening out there.

In addition we do not even know the size or distance to the object from which we see the light here. If the star was massive, or if the star was tiny makes a difference to the math of things like what gravity we expect etc etc.

Argument from ignorance, and an argument which is wrong. We do know the distance and size of stars and other astronomical bodies. You could learn how we know, but your defence mechanism is wilful ignorance, so you won't.

It is a bit like the 'flip' of hydrogen we see in far space. Science uses our realities and laws and physics to say that such a flip would take millions of years. If the realities THERE were different, then we cannot use ours to measure how why and when something like a flip in hydrogen happens there.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.

False. You see that still involves what happens over time!

"In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation is a mathematical equation that describes the changes over time of a physical system in which quantum effects.." wiki


We only see things IN TIME as we know time HERE. If a different time was involved out of our fishbowl, we would not know it. Everything HERE is in our time.

But, the fine structure of hydrogen is observed to be the same throughout the observable universe, and so we can conclude that the state evolution of the hydrogen atom in transition is the same there as here, but we are looking at hydrogen out there, not hydrogen here. That's a fact and you are not entitled to your own facts.

No, it is a religious claim. Part of behaving involves time. We see things ONLY in OUR time. That does not apply to all the universe.

But we observe the fact that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe - we see that everything out there behaves just as it does here, for the reasons and based on the evidence that I have explained and with which you have consistently failed to engage. Where is your evidence that the physics is different outside the solar system?

Make up your mind. You say you do not even know what something means then call it untrue!

If you look back you will see that those two statements referred to two different claims of yours and you have conflated them. Here it is again:

But even if we did assume that all the universe had the same rules, that does not mean it has the same time.

What does your claim that the universe might have the same rules but not the same time even mean?

So whatever you see a spectral line from is from an unknown distance. It could be a few light weeks away for all we know.

That's patently untrue. Would you like to learn about how we know the distance to astronomical objects?

It behaves HERE the way it needs to in our time. You also have no clue as to what else besides the physical may be also in deep space. You also have no idea what distances/mass/sizes are involved. Science beliefs are based mostly on ignorance and making stuff up.

The classic argument from ignorance. Who in this thread is providing the evidence and the reasoning and who is providing the ignorance? Who is refusing to learn? For the umpteenth time, we observe hydrogen (and other matter) throughout the universe behaving in exactly the same way and according to the same laws of physics as it does within the solar system.

Firstly, who really cares?

Who cares that you have presented no evidence and argue by dictat and unsupported assertion? Any reasonable person reading this thread.

The issue is not whether man from the fishbowl can determine whether objects in unknown time and space of unknown distance and size seem to behave a certain way observed here.

The issue about nature is ON EARTH a long time ago. That matters. You do not know what nature and forces and laws existed here. The issue is space is the billions of years of time you claim. Not so much what the laws seem to be there.

Oh, I see - it's not all about whether the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, but whether they were the same on Earth a few thousand years ago. What evidence have you got that they were different in the past? We don't have to look at very distant stars to look back a few thousand years. The evidence is that the physics was the same then out there (and for the last 13.5 billion years), so why do you think it was different here? Any evidence for that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

as i said: even if we assume a 100 years per new species we can get about 40 species of cats "kind" with no problem. so where is the problem again?

-_- never, ever, measure the frequency of species forming by years. How many human generations are in 100 years? 7, maybe. For cats, there would be about 50 generations within that time. Under ideal conditions, E. coli would have 2628000 generations in 100 years. Mutation rate, natural selection pressures, and frequency of reproduction all factor in heavily into speciation, making it impossible to give an accurate average of how often new species arise for all organisms on the planet.

Furthermore, circumstances such as hybridization can result in a new species developing almost instantly, which is the case with the all female whiptail lizard species. The hybrids can't reproduce with either parent, but can reproduce by parthenogenesis, and thus their populations grow and persist as a separate species.

When I attempted to look up a broad number for vertebrates, I was able to find a source that estimates that, on average, 1 MILLION years are needed for enough generations to pass to result in a new species in nature. So your 100 years falls very short. Reminder that this is for vertebrates, and that it is a broad generalization.

 

[dad]

This is completely wrong. Time does not enter into the parallax equation. Parallax is independent of time and depends only on positions and distances.

No more than time is separate from space. Look at anything in the space in our solar system. Things take time to move here, time to decay, etc. You cannot grab a baseline in the solar system of hundreds of millions of miles and claim there is no time also existing with that. So it must involve time ..everything in the world must involve time.

It matters that atoms throughout the universe are observed to behave in the same way.

No observation of atoms has EVER been made away from the area of the solar system. You observe atoms HERE.

It's the transitions that occur"out there" that give rise to the spectra and the fine structure that we see.

Any transition that involves time (that would be all) is seen in our time. Here. Always here. Only here. You have no other point of observation. You may not speak to the universe.

I have offered to teach you how we know the distance to astronomical objects, but you seem determined to continue in wilful ignorance. Well your major argument is the argument from ignorance, so I suppose you wouldn't want to risk undermining that.

If you have something on distance, other than the silly cosmic ladder belief rungs, now is a great time to show us.

Parallax does not depend on time. That is a simple fact.

Does to. Time cannot be exorcised, pried, removed, or separated from space in the solar system. The baseline is composed also of time.

That's true, but what we observe is determined by interactions and events out there not here. When we look at hydrogen in the universe, wherever it is, it looks the same. The same structure, the same fine structure, the same hyper-fine structure.

There is no 'wherever it is' because it is only HERE we see it! You interpret what we see here. There is one point of observation. Einstein was wrong to talk about observers in the universe. That was a pipe dream. never happen. Total belief based, fishbowl based, fishbowl relative thinking.

What we observe here is what is happening out there.

How much time out there is involved we don't know. Only what time is like here. Hoo ha.

We do know the distance and size of stars and other astronomical bodies.

You could learn how we do not know, but your defence mechanism is wilful ignorance, so you won't.

But, the fine structure of hydrogen is observed to be the same throughout the observable universe, and so we can conclude that the state evolution of the hydrogen atom in transition is the same there as here, but we are looking at hydrogen out there, not hydrogen here. That's a fact and you are not entitled to your own facts.

The evolution of anything takes time. Involves time. Show us how the evolution of the state of hydrogen is time independent?

But we observe the fact that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe - we see that everything out there behaves just as it does here, for the reasons and based on the evidence that I have explained and with which you have consistently failed to engage. Where is your evidence that the physics is different outside the solar system?

Physics is only seen in the solar system area. Time is not part of physics. How anything behaves with respect to time here, has nothing to do with how it behaves out in the universe where there may not be time as we know it. You observe IN TIME here and then from ignorance claim that this is how time is there.

The classic argument from ignorance. Who in this thread is providing the evidence and the reasoning and who is providing the ignorance? Who is refusing to learn? For the umpteenth time, we observe hydrogen (and other matter) throughout the universe behaving in exactly the same way and according to the same laws of physics as it does within the solar system.

You ONLY observe here. Here, everything will unfold according to our laws and in our time! It is an argument from ignorance to claim that anything takes the same time to move, evolve, spin,etc etc out in the far universe. That is a belief. The issue is not how it seems to the observer at one point in the universe who is immersed in a certain time and space!

Who cares that you have presented no evidence and argue by dictat and unsupported assertion? Any reasonable person reading this thread.

Who cares if there are the same materials like hydrogen in far space? Who cares that we as observers here always see the atoms or light or...etc from there behave a certain way here?

The issue is whether time exists the same out there or not. Or whether you know! You don't! You can't say something like...'some little light is spinning out there, or orbiting some other light of unknown size'..therefore the universe is the same!

If that orbit was in a space out there where time existed in a way, for example, that the orbit took four seconds, and we here in OUR time saw the light from it, and HERE it took say, 100 years to orbit, that does NOT mean it took 100 years there! It just means you as an observer in your time experience time a certain way. Same thing applies to spins, lightspeed, atoms etc!

Oh, I see - it's not all about whether the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe, but whether they were the same on Earth a few thousand years ago. What evidence have you got that they were different in the past?

What evidence do you have they were the same?

We don't have to look at very distant stars to look back a few thousand years.

Bingo. Also, once out of the fishbowl, time is unknown, so we could be looking at the future or present or whatever. NO ARROW of time has to exist out there.

The evidence is that the physics was the same then out there (and for the last 13.5 billion years), so why do you think it was different here? Any evidence for that?

The evidence mostly boils down to radioactive decay. We do not even so much as know if any existed in Adam's day, do we?

 

[dad]

-_- never, ever, measure the frequency of species forming by years. How many human generations are in 100 years? 7, maybe. For cats, there would be about 50 generations within that time. Under ideal conditions, E. coli would have 2628000 generations in 100 years. Mutation rate, natural selection pressures, and frequency of reproduction all factor in heavily into speciation, making it impossible to give an accurate average of how often new species arise for all organisms on the planet.

Furthermore, circumstances such as hybridization can result in a new species developing almost instantly, which is the case with the all female whiptail lizard species. The hybrids can't reproduce with either parent, but can reproduce by parthenogenesis, and thus their populations grow and persist as a separate species.

When I attempted to look up a broad number for vertebrates, I was able to find a source that estimates that, on average, 1 MILLION years are needed for enough generations to pass to result in a new species in nature. So your 100 years falls very short. Reminder that this is for vertebrates, and that it is a broad generalization.

See, XIA, you are up against a lot. I think you need a different nature.

 

[pitabread]

See, XIA, you are up against a lot. I think you need a different nature.

aka: "When reality disgrees, just make up your own reality."

 

[dad]

aka: "When reality disgrees, just make up your own reality."

If indeed that is reality (which I have assumed) that there are too many species to fit on the ark, so that the evolution was rapid after the ark....that doesn't disagree with a different nature in the past. On the contrary!