Comments by Kardashovel

Comment #164737 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Oh, and my question regarding Jesus - you have never answered it...

*hits self on forehead*, Of course. Goldy is also ahead of the curve.

I'm getting there, but I've got to attend to some plates before they fall from the sticks upon which they spin.

In the mean time, perhaps you'd like to take a crack at the secular apocalypse. Chimeras, gray goo, nuclear holocaust, global warming, the so-called "singularity" (artificial intelligence)... do you think we'll make it to the next century, Goldy?

152. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164735 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:27 pm

So, which universe does your god speak to you from?

This physical universe. I find the concept of the multiverse to be more unsettling than sacrificing causality.

153. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164734 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:25 pm

That is why I added the phrase 'who share similar values etc'. It seems to me that when somebody says something that would show a particular view of yours to be wrong you feel free to set aside the particular values on which their arguments are based. Steve, for example, in the discussion of time travel, thinks that you shouldn't claim something as 'possible' in any meaningful sense if it is not possible according to current science. You feel differently. So be it, but you aren't really checking your ideas against his. (Apologies if I have misrepresented either of you here.)

Sharing similar values does not mean total agreement. Steve is a biologist with little formal training about physics, so I don't really concern myself with that part of his criticism. Worm holes and Godel universes (as discussed in this thread) are two of three methods that I know of that could permit reverse time travel within the context of current physical theory. Contrary to Steve's assertions about wormholes, they can in fact lead to reverse time travel to a time before their invention; moreover the expansion of space has no bearing on whether the other end is moving at relativistic speeds with respect to us. Hawking would not have conjectured that there should be time-travel exclusion if he was not concerned about the possibility. And finally, the competing notions of time between GR and QM are one of the nits in the sweater of modern physics that should be picked at to look for new physics. So, while I appreciate Steve as a foil, or a check on my speculation, I feel it passes his muster and I am happy about it. Ironically I would be even happier if he could show me that reverse time travel is impossible according to the current laws of physics, since that is what he is claiming. That would be a real problem for me.

Now the discussion about evolution and complexity is a more interesting one to me; especially the tipping point of brains capable of modifying survival selection through abstract modeling (as I think that all apes are capable of doing, for example). And now there is a second tipping point where those abstract models and our technology have reached the capability of direct manipulation of the currency of evolution.

I am also interested in Steve and B.Sand's insistence that complexity be measured by the number of base pairs in DNA... I have yet to hear a good reason for this notion. A 500 page book full of the repeated phrase "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." is significantly less complex than a poem by Pablo Neruda, although context counts. And I think the complexity of the structure in the phenotype should count for something too (but perhaps it reflects a compact complexity in the genotype).

154. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164727 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:02 pm

That's ok, Goldy. I wouldn't want to derail your weekly regimen of lsd and habenero enemas.

You didn't apologise for being late this time, Goldy. What gives? I can see we'll need to work up a fresh guilt trip.

I hope you managed to sneak a quaff of communion juice since last we talked.

155. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164663 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm

A diversion from reality.
For now.

For now. :)

I luv you guys. Bye.

156. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164659 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:50 pm

I'm gonna shovel off now, folks.

I'll tell you about Jesus later (sorry Quine and Frankus, but you were ahead of the game, and I needed some time to get out other thoughts).

Epeeist, thank you for the information. I'll look into it.

157. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164655 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Religion is normally a communal activity, and religious ideas usually get some form of checking by peers who share similar values etc. You clearly feel you don't need that.

Actually, as I discussed with Dr. Benway earlier in this thread, I am here to check my ideas against my peers (even though more than a few of you laugh at the idea that I am your peer).

158. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164648 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, based on your last post to me, you might find this site/article interesting:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/

I think MPhil will get a kick out of it too, if he is not already aware of it.

Steve/Diacanu types would dismiss it out of hand because it can't be falsified or based on experiment. Don't bother reading it if you think that everything is either science or seances.

Have fun.

159. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164636 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:33 pm

What I am talking about is, however uncomfortable, the ability of our species to, in some ways, be self directed in our evolution.

And so, Frankus. I'll ask you again to ponder the secular apocalypse.

We've directed our own evolution on a limited scale since free will has been involved (mammals, perhaps birds and reptiles). But that is just animal per-animal, "unnatural selection".

Now evolution itself is evolving. We need not depend on sex and mutations to create fundamentally different genotypes. And we're just getting started.

160. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164629 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Science is another input, but it is hardly the only relevant factor in such a discussion.

So how are you going to understand the universe? Seances? Tarot cards?

Science. History. Philosophy. Poetry/literature. Experience, emotion. Meditation/prayer. Discussion/Debate.

161. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164619 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Well, there has been an observed general trend towards greater complexity (though I know there are some great individual examples of the reverse). Would this not be expected once speciation occurs and there is more competition and need for specialism?

If you want to discuss some particular aspect of the universe, with sincerity, and as a job, then you need science (no, not reality, but scientific models and methods).

But we're talking about life, the universe, and everything here Diacanu. And so are you if you take the 7/7ths hard atheist line that there is no God. Science is another input, but it is hardly the only relevant factor in such a discussion.

Make-beleive is for momentary escape for entertainment, not a permanent vacation.

While it seems that some folks around here almost treat it like a job to post on RD.net, I, for one, am not quiting my day job. So don't worry, Diacanu; you can safely ignore me and keep making all those positive scientific, reality-based contributions to the discussion around here.

162. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164605 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Well, there has been an observed general trend towards greater complexity (though I know there are some great individual examples of the reverse). Would this not be expected once speciation occurs and there is more competition and need for specialism?

No PBUM. Evolution never tends to make things more complex. Humans are but a piffle compared with our mighty fish ancestors. Just look at the evidence. [/sarcasm]

163. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164603 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Can someone point me to a good resource concerning the effect of intelligence on evolution?

No fair saying it is "unnatural selection" and dismissing it as not part of the theory... surely someone must be studying this.

164. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164599 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:46 pm

No. It leads to more forms, not necessarily more complex forms. It increases the range of forms explored.

Yes. A long time ago there was only some RNA, right. Then there were more forms. Perhaps some of those evolved forms are even simpler than that RNA, but still can reproduce. But a lot of the "more forms" are more complex than that RNA, including the mighty amoeba. This is natural, because when you find more forms out of the large (essentially infinite) phase space of possible forms, some of them are likely to be more complex.

This is a pretty simple concept.

Now, regarding the evolution over billions of years (vs. the more recent breeding or intelligence driven evolution), it is difficult to see purpose without postulating it... as I have with my strange God.

But difficult is not impossible, nor even "virtually" impossible. You're just begging the question by moving it to a statement of hard atheism.

As for MPhil's statement that "evolution cannot in principle be completely teleological," I would agree. The point would be that God takes what He can use and ignores the rest. I am agnostic about whether God actually smites folks, or has guided evolution through the ages... but if He did, it would be after long periods of not paying attention. The whole point of using an evolutionary algorithm is to let time and randomness serve as your allies... not as your foe.

165. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164588 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Do you consider yourself a member of a church or other such body (or if not a member, at least have any allegiance to)? If so, which one, and is its doctrine similar to your own?

Not as such, although I was disturbed to learn that Mormons believe some of what I believe. There are some Messianic Jewish writers that have a similar interpretation of what I write, particularly about the three possible afterlives. But I don't really fit there either, primarily because I've never met a theist that would agree that God needs us... they don't want to put limits on their creator (even if it is logically inconsistent to posit that God is omniscient and omnipotent).

As such, I am probably a lone nut. Christians would not claim me, and most would say that I am bound for the hell that I think will be largely unpopulated.

You may safely ignore me, if you feel that force of numbers is what merits reckoning when dealing with theists.

166. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164576 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

You are entitled to this of course. However we are equally entitled to sneer at and dismiss it out of hand.

OMG! Really? That wouldn't happen around here.

The only thing you ever discuss are scientific theories, Epeeist? You never speculate, and enjoy the freedom of that type of though? You will only consider a hypothesis that can be tested?

Tell me true.

167. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164566 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Evolution can only serve a purpose if it is guided. There is no indication that it is guided, as the history of evolution has been a history of random events.

Would you say that the evolution of chickens in the last thousand years has been guided? What about now that we are knocking out and directly inserting genes into species? Not even natural selection any more, but it is still evolution.

Does that mean that all of evolution serves some grand purpose? Perhaps. But Steve, what you said is that evolution cannot serve a purpose. Do you recant? Just say yes... it was a trivial mistake, made all the worse by all this flailing around.

Oh, and by the way, a section of this weeks' New Scientist magazine backs up my comments that evolution does not always or necessarily proceed in the direction of increased complexity.

Show me where I have said that evolution invariably increases complexity... but I will come out and say that evolution tends to support the development of complexity, because it started from relatively simple organisms and is a process whereby the phase space of possible (survivable) genotypes is explored... simple initial conditions, potentially complex organisms, exploratory algorithm => tends to lead to more complex forms. It is also a fact that it tends to lead to simpler forms... but those are less interesting to God's survival.

168. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164559 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Basing a worldview on idle speculation does not seem wise.

That is true. My speculation arose after my conversion... an effort, however clumsy, to deal with the Anthropic Principle and the first cause argument in one approach.

169. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164555 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Details of your speculation, please, including the physics behind it.

As I have intentionally accepted the notion that it is speculation, not science, I am not compelled by anything other than your begging to speculate further about the physics.

But we were actually discussing a rather specific philosophical point you made, which you are loath to support and so are attempting to distract us from by changing the topic.

170. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164550 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:04 pm

That does not mean that natural selection itself has intent.

Unsuccessful parry. I am challenging the idea of yours that evolution can serve no purpose, not the idea that natural selection itself has intent. Try again.

171. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164546 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 12:01 pm

So speculates Kardashovel.

Indeed, PBUM. It is speculation. The genesis of hypothesis and theory, the left foot forward.

Will the right foot of testing, experiment, make my speculation actually walk? Well, at least we can say that the answer will be revealed in a finite time.

My speculation is not scientific hypothesis, because it is not reasonably falsifiable... but it is falsifiable in principle.

Is anyone here concerned about a secular apocalypse?

172. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164543 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 11:56 am

Would you agree that you are capable of intent, Steve? Intent born within that well oiled brain of yours? Intent, at times, on your own survival?

That brain evolved to be as wonderful as it is because of the intent of your ancestors to survive and reproduce. Once evolution produced an organ capable of intent, that became a factor in natural selection. We guide our own evolution through intent, as we also guide the evolution of various species through our intent.

As you say, intent implies purpose. Evolution can indeed serve a purpose. Do you recant your earlier statement?

173. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164535 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 11:43 am

Would this suffice?

Never bring a knife to a gun fight.

174. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164533 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 11:40 am

Good day, Corylus.

I wonder if they ever stop to think that they might be chipping at the faith of the theists that lurk on here, by coming out with such bile.

Not in my case, but the concept of evolution is essential to my entire ontology.

I feel sorry for these people. Their faith is in a book, not in God. A book, mind you, that was written by primitives that lacked our modern understanding and terminology. I believe the bible contains indelible truths, but the idea that Genesis stories such as Noah's ark are flawless recounts of prehistory is bizarre to me. Even if they are direct transcriptions of what God told the authors to write, He was hardly going to dictate an encyclopedia of biology, chemistry, and physics before he told Moses to write about the lineage of the Jewish people.

I don't know what to make of such people, that put all of their faith into a set of books. If Jesus thought that a book could stand the test of time, he would have written one instead of inspiring his disciples through thoughts, words and deeds.

I'm biding my time, but I wish to return to this absolutist statement of Steve's, that the randomness of mutations shows that evolution cannot have a purpose. The purpose is survival. Survival of God, His ancestors, and all of creation, which needed to be observed into meaningful (survivable) existence.

I will return to Steve and B.Sands responses to my last (substantial) post. But for now it is amusing to see how y'all struggle and prevail against sea of ignorance. Expelled is creating quite a squall.

175. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163030 by Kardashovel on April 17, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Have you posted this conversion story?

It's a moving target. I'm posting it as we go.

What's your story, rebelest?

176. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163004 by Kardashovel on April 17, 2008 at 7:59 pm

What you think I think: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qmVn6b7DdpA

What I think you think: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qefgOPS3rS8

177. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161970 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Sleep beckons. May you all find fortune.

178. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161969 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:56 pm

What kind of drugs do you get over there?

179. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161968 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:55 pm

2 < x < 4. How exact of an answer did you want. 4 works.

Cartomancer, you need a time machine to turn your field into an experimental science.

180. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161965 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:42 pm

Sorry, the wormhole idea just won't work.

Steve, your certainty in the face of an uncertain area of science smacks of faith.

Why not just retreat behind MPhil's qualification that it isn't just unlikely, but that it is really, really unlikely?

Just like the fortuitous arrangement of the physical constants. Wanna compare probabilities?

You guys are a pair.

181. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161964 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:38 pm

Or is there something I am missing?

Jesus, man. And the Amarrone della Vapolicella.

182. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161955 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:13 pm

Maybe God, who is actually our descendent, will be coming back, but as far as we are concerned it won't matter as anyting he does will be in another universe, as it were.
I'll try and find it - interesting listening, especially when lying on your back welding up diff mounts under an old Triumph TR6...

Multiverse is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. But I'm not supposed to eat any more fish. Damn.

183. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161949 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:09 pm

That doesn't matter. Unless one end of the wormhole had been grabbed in primordial times and accelerated to relativistic speeds then, it doesn't help at all.

Virtually every part of the early universe is moving (and accelerated) at relatavistic speed with respect to us, Steve. It's called the Big Bang theory. I think that wikipedia has an article about it...

184. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161948 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Why don't you just say "it's magic"?

Why don't you just say it is unlikely. C'mon guys... it's not the end of your atheist existence. You can proudly be an agnostic atheist, just like Dr. Dawkins.

185. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161946 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:04 pm

We can speculate what future science might be, and might be capable of. But unless these are strict logical inferences from our current knowledge, they have no certainty whatsoever, and the epistemic probability will be extremely low.

Hence, unlikely.

But actually, there are already proposed mechanisms within our current understanding of physics for time travel. Try again.

186. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161941 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Future beings can't create time machines than can reach back here from wormholes that exist now.

Primordial wormholes exist now... and primordially.

Hello? Knock, knock. Does this thing work?

187. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161934 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm

I missed it Steve... did you deal with my point that people purposely use genetic algorithms for design purposes?

It's ok to be wrong sometimes. Sometimes we just misspeak. You don't have to cling to the notion that randomness in evolution proves that there is no purpose. There is no shame.

188. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161930 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:47 pm

The only mechanisms for time travel we know about won't allow travel back to before the time machine was made. So, you can't use a time machine to control the development of intelligence.

We went through this before, Steve. First of all you are in a poor position to make assertions about what will be technically possible a billion years from now.

Secondly, confining ourselves to our current understanding of physics, we cannot rule out that there are primordial worm holes in existence today... so even if our understanding of physics doesn't ever change (wanna bet?), the engine may exist within our current understanding and is waiting only for the technology and exploration to find it.

I'll give you this, Steve... you're not afraid to make bold assertions. But when I confront you on them you act like I need to prove that this will actually happen.

Why don't you just modify your tone so that you don't get your nose rubbed into it. Say it with me:

"It is unlikely that time travel will permit travel to the primordial universe."

"It is unlikely that random evolution is being used for a purpose."

"It is unlikely that there is a God."

"It is unlikely that the fundamental structure constants of physics would align themselves perfectly to enable our existence."

I know the last one will be tough for you, especially in light of the first three. But intellectual honesty demands all four.

189. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161922 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Did you also say you believe in reincarnation?

No. The jury is out on that one for me. What do you think?

190. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161919 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Lucky bugger! 3:30 here - hours to go before home time and I'm on an alcohol restriction at home :-(
Red?

Amarone della Valpolicella.

If I were you, I'd be on a home restriction.

191. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161916 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm

Shouldn't that be "are plural" seeing as there is more than 1. Sorry ;-)
Are they gods?

Actually no, because although it refers to a plural, Elohim is a single word.

They have been called gods, I think. But they are not God. The difference is in the asymptote.

192. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161913 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Absolutely, and when it comes to genetic information you're correct - but don't forget how information from the environment also determines the complexity of an organism (depending on the organism's plasticity).
The human brain is so incredibly complex mostly because of synaptic connections that form in childhood learning - through conditioning of the neural net. And through culture and the increasing complexity of information in culture, through learning through language(s) - this is increasing in complexity as well.

Shazamn! MPhil will cover for me while I'm drunk.

193. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161911 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:27 pm

If it is a "developing" God, a God in training like an exploring child, how can it have a "plan"?

Time machines bring a whole new element to the concept of planning, Bonzai.

194. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161908 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Steve, I apologise and I'll come to your answers later, but I've got most of a bottle of wine in me and the spirit says I answer Bonzai and Goldy's questions.

195. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161904 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Other beings?

Elohim is plural for a reason.

I don't believe that the first one in the time machine gets to be God...

196. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161900 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Did you say you are a Christian?

Oh yes. Jesus is central to my understanding of the afterlife, as well as this one.

197. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161899 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Wassa matter, God say nasty things on the phone?

You'll need to grow accustomed to my tweaked sense of humor. It resembles that of your new found God.

I think al-rawandi believed I actually wanted to throw him into a landfill because he ruined my friendship with annabanana. That's fookin priceless.

198. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161896 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:18 pm

How is it different from saying, like I sometimes do, in an effort to sound mystical, that God is the cosmos. The cosmos is conscious because we are and we are a part of it, and when we explore the universe and try to figure out the laws of nature, it is God reflecting on himself, and that God is learning and maturing as we become more civilized and sophisticated?

It is similar to that. But I add more conditions to it... first of all, in order to explain a number of experiences that I have had, I believe that God actually participates with us directly, as do other beings that are part of the "plan".

But also, I suspect that I have a very different view of the afterlife than you.

199. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161891 by Kardashovel on April 15, 2008 at 8:14 pm