The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

philosopher
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:37 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by philosopher » Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 5:12 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:51 am
There will always be limitations to observation because technology itself has limited capability
And scientists have therefore no choice but to work within such limitations when doing science

ALL the evidence supports the law of cause and effect with NONE at all supporting the opposite claim
That includes the Second Law Of Thermodynamics which states that entropy only increases over time
It's confirmation bias.

There is no way to falsify it except by actually reversing time!
There is no way to falsify it except by actually decreasing entropy!

Scientists don't have a clue what "time" or "entropy" are, let alone how to reverse them...
Scientists do know what time and entropy is.

Entropy is the evolution from 'order' to 'chaos' meaning that if you have wine glass (ordered), it takes so little effort to break it into pieces that this will be the most likely event in any future of this glass. You can reverse the process - picking up all the shattered glass and and re-assemble the wine glass, but in the process of doing so you spend energy and thus cause disorder to your surroundings - the more you create "local" order, the more disorder you create around you.

This is the cause of the arrow of time going only in one direction - towards more disorderly states.

Read some science books, please!

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 10:04 pm

philosopher wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 pm
Science do know what time and entropy is.
Oh do they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time
philosopher wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 pm
Entropy is the evolution from 'order' to 'chaos' meaning that if you have wine glass (ordered), it takes so little effort to break it into pieces that this will be the most likely event in any future of this glass.

You can reverse the process - picking up all the shattered glass and and re-assemble the wine glass, but in the process of doing so you spend energy and thus cause disorder to your surroundings - the more you create "local" order, the more disorder you create around you.
So that's the statistical mechanics conception of entropy. What about Gibbs, Shannon and Tsallis entropy?
philosopher wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 pm
This is the cause of the arrow of time going only in one direction - towards more disorderly states.
Again - that's the 2nd law of thermodynamics which many scientists are questioning nowadays.
philosopher wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 9:59 pm
Read some science books, please!
Great idea. Why don't you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

Or here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHistory_of_entropy
Claude Shannon introduced the very general concept of information entropy, used in information theory, in 1948. Initially it seems that Shannon was not particularly aware of the close similarity between his new quantity and the earlier work in thermodynamics; but the mathematician John von Neumann certainly was. "You should call it entropy, for two reasons," von Neumann told him. "In the first place your uncertainty function has been used in statistical mechanics under that name, so it already has a name. In the second place, and more important, nobody knows what entropy really is, so in a debate you will always have the advantage."
If we "understand" entropy then how come we can't build any random number generators?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoran ... _generator

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:40 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:40 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.
The mis-understanding between QM and classicists is that of "cause-end-effect".

Take 75 steps back and observe yourself typing! Text flows left to right. You interpret it from left-to-right. That's the arrow of time!

Do you think the meaning of "cause-and-effect" changes if I were to type it out as "effect-and-cause" ?

That every effect has a cause is a mandatory pre-supposition of the human mind, for the "if ... then" construct is deeply embedded in our reasoning.
If we had to give up "if...then" we have to give up all logic and the hopes of finding any meaningful structure in reality.

What our minds do not grasp is that time needs not be a vector and time needs not be in the direction we ASSUME it to flow in.

For all we know the Big Bang is the future. For all we know time is a tensor and the "arrow" we experience is just an illusion given our physical forms.

Try and conceptualise "tensor time" and see how soon you will need a psychiatrist...

cef.png
You evidently failed to notice that I wrote nothing about time. Why bring it up? I don't think that someone who cannot wait to hijack a thread with his own irrelevant knowledge is ready to competently use the phrase "our minds." You might be surprised at some of the things well understood by others that remain a mystery to you.

Had you taken a serious basic physics course you would know that time and distance are both scalars. Combining them in some mathematical expression of motion produces a vector. I mention this only so that others reading this tread are not sidetracked by irrelevant information.

I will propose alternative ideas about the relationship between QM and classical/analog physics later, when a suitable background has been laid-- as in my book. Until then, let's stay on track, please. -GL

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:58 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:40 pm
Had you taken a serious basic physics course you would know that time and distance are both scalars. Combining them in some mathematical expression of motion produces a vector. I mention this only so that others reading this tread are not sidetracked by irrelevant information.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

OK. I won't derail any further.

Let the Dogma train go Chu Chuuuu.

But if you do care to educate us some more, you may want to clarify why time-dilation is experienced in a GR conception of reality, but not in a quantum conception.

A scalar that stretches :lol: :lol: :lol:

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:58 pm

Logic wrote:
But if you do care to educate us some more you may want to clarify why time dilation is experienced in a GR conception
of reality but not in a quantum conception
Because it requires gravity which only exists at the classical level
Because at the quantum level particles with zero rest mass such as photons for example experience neither time or distance
Because quantum entanglement allows two particles to communicate with each other instantaneously regardless of distance

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Tue Feb 05, 2019 8:22 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:58 pm
Because it requires gravity which only exists at the classical level
Bit of a problem, that - a reductionist discipline like physics can only observe a phenomenon at the the macro scale.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:58 pm
photons for example experience neither time or distance
What's a photon? Isn't it a wave particle? It has energy, right? E= hc/ λ

λ is frequency, right? Frequency is measured in what again ? ;)
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:58 pm
Because quantum entanglement allows two particles to communicate with each other instantaneously regardless of distance
They aren't communicating. They are merely "in phase". Information transfer is impossible between entangled particles.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 pm

Logic wrote:
Information transfer is impossible between entangled particles
Because it would violate the finite limit of the speed of light presumably ?
What is the actual difference between communicating and being in phase ?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:07 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 pm
Because it would violate the finite limit of the speed of light presumably ?
Yep. Speed of light is also the speed of causality.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 pm
What is the actual difference between communicating and being in phase ?
You can't use standard coding techniques ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_code ) over entangmentment to transmit bits of information.

If you tried to the entanglement will decohere.

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:41 pm

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?
It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.

I call the theory Natural Creation. That term might seem internally contradictory, but as perhaps you will see, it is not.
But natural creation is obvious to me. I have yet to see how it could be any thing else.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
N.C. depends on several ideas and principles. Let's get them down first, by way of pouring a sound foundation.

We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.

Applying that principle to the beginnings of things, it is apparent that neither creation by an Almighty God nor the uncaused explosion of a spontaneously appearing (a.k.a. magical) micropea/singularity/whatever can have gotten our universe fired up, because they are single things. Would it not be more consistent with observed reality to hypothesize the existence of two opposing forces coming together and interacting so as to jump-start the universe?

Conventional thinkers will invoke Occam's Razor and whine that two things at the beginning is more complex than a single thing, so is not a righteous principle. Well, poo-- that's why I preceded this thread with one devoted to invalidating O's Razor as a principle applicable to understanding the universe, and proposed to apply Russell's principle of simplicity in its place. This thread will apply Russell's principle as a standard for idea-evaluation. Anyone wanting to quibble with that can do so on the O. Razor thread, but not here, please.

This Theory of Natural Creation (N.C.) hypothesizes the pre-universe existence of two distinct spaces which I will label as Dark Energy Space and Aeon space, contained within a larger space that can allow them to interact. Each of the two spaces has three fundamental and simple properties:

1. Existence. This means that each has always existed, without cause, and will continue to exist even if changed in form.

A. This is reflected in Dark Energy Space by the First Principle of Thermodynamics (derived from studies on the normal energy forms known to
basic physics and currently thought to comprise 4.7% of the known universe).

2. Manifestation of a single, simple and inherently fundamental force.

A. In Dark Energy space I call this Entropic Force. It is reflected in the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the natural tendency of all energy
forms in our universe to lose their ability to exchange force, meaning that the universe will eventually cool down to a a temperature at which
nothing will happen.

B. Aeon Space manifests a counterforce to Entropic Force, and has an innate tendency to disrupt the state of Dark (and normal) Energy. It can
be an organizing force. In other words, any component of Aeon Space can freely violate the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

3. A boundary condition.

A. Dark Energy's boundary condition is a state below which it cannot go. By example, in terms of our normal energy space, the boundary
condition is a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, a.k.a. "absolute zero," which according to the 3rd Principle of Thermodynamics cannot be
reached. In this state, energy of any form can do nothing on its own. It is stuck at an state of absolute Entropy 1-- perfect disorder.

B. Aeon Space's boundary condition is the opposite. I do not know how to define it mathematically like the principles of thermodynamics
but regard it as an opposite of energy's boundary condition. It is as ordered, organized, and as perfect as it can be, and therefore cannot
change. It's reached a state of Entropy 0-- perfect order.

______________

Enough for now. Lunch is hot and the stupid Superbowl is on, its outcome determined by the amount of money that team owners will contribute beneath the table to the NFL Officials' Widows and Orphans Fund.

Kick these ideas around and please think them over before responding. And kindly do some homework, as needed. If you are ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics, learn from as many sources as Wikipedia can provide before asking me to elucidate. Many Wiki articles and referenced material will be inaccurate, but you can sneak up on the core reality of such concepts by crawling between the bushes of nonsense. I will respond to thoughtful questions on the subject, but not to questions coming from unrequited ignorance. Anyone actually wanting to understand such things can read either Richard Feynman or my book. (Feynman is way better, but my exposition of thermodynamics is specific to the ideas I'm pitching.)

From here I'll explain how a collision between Dark Energy and Aeon Spaces led to creation of other aspects of the universe, and as a last-ditch attempt to recover from a disastrous miscalculation, the creation of human beings.

Greylorn Ell
To me, you have appeared to made complex what IS really very simple, and very easy to understand. That is; Creation evolves naturally, always.

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:49 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:51 am
There will always be limitations to observation because technology itself has limited capability
But not all observers need technology in order to already be able SEE, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW, what "other observers" are looking for.

For example, what the answers are that some observers are looking for here are already KNOWN.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:41 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
Age wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am


Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?




Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?
It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.

I call the theory Natural Creation. That term might seem internally contradictory, but as perhaps you will see, it is not.
But natural creation is obvious to me. I have yet to see how it could be any thing else.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
N.C. depends on several ideas and principles. Let's get them down first, by way of pouring a sound foundation.

We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.

Applying that principle to the beginnings of things, it is apparent that neither creation by an Almighty God nor the uncaused explosion of a spontaneously appearing (a.k.a. magical) micropea/singularity/whatever can have gotten our universe fired up, because they are single things. Would it not be more consistent with observed reality to hypothesize the existence of two opposing forces coming together and interacting so as to jump-start the universe?

Conventional thinkers will invoke Occam's Razor and whine that two things at the beginning is more complex than a single thing, so is not a righteous principle. Well, poo-- that's why I preceded this thread with one devoted to invalidating O's Razor as a principle applicable to understanding the universe, and proposed to apply Russell's principle of simplicity in its place. This thread will apply Russell's principle as a standard for idea-evaluation. Anyone wanting to quibble with that can do so on the O. Razor thread, but not here, please.

This Theory of Natural Creation (N.C.) hypothesizes the pre-universe existence of two distinct spaces which I will label as Dark Energy Space and Aeon space, contained within a larger space that can allow them to interact. Each of the two spaces has three fundamental and simple properties:

1. Existence. This means that each has always existed, without cause, and will continue to exist even if changed in form.

A. This is reflected in Dark Energy Space by the First Principle of Thermodynamics (derived from studies on the normal energy forms known to
basic physics and currently thought to comprise 4.7% of the known universe).

2. Manifestation of a single, simple and inherently fundamental force.

A. In Dark Energy space I call this Entropic Force. It is reflected in the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the natural tendency of all energy
forms in our universe to lose their ability to exchange force, meaning that the universe will eventually cool down to a a temperature at which
nothing will happen.

B. Aeon Space manifests a counterforce to Entropic Force, and has an innate tendency to disrupt the state of Dark (and normal) Energy. It can
be an organizing force. In other words, any component of Aeon Space can freely violate the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

3. A boundary condition.

A. Dark Energy's boundary condition is a state below which it cannot go. By example, in terms of our normal energy space, the boundary
condition is a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, a.k.a. "absolute zero," which according to the 3rd Principle of Thermodynamics cannot be
reached. In this state, energy of any form can do nothing on its own. It is stuck at an state of absolute Entropy 1-- perfect disorder.

B. Aeon Space's boundary condition is the opposite. I do not know how to define it mathematically like the principles of thermodynamics
but regard it as an opposite of energy's boundary condition. It is as ordered, organized, and as perfect as it can be, and therefore cannot
change. It's reached a state of Entropy 0-- perfect order.

______________

Enough for now. Lunch is hot and the stupid Superbowl is on, its outcome determined by the amount of money that team owners will contribute beneath the table to the NFL Officials' Widows and Orphans Fund.

Kick these ideas around and please think them over before responding. And kindly do some homework, as needed. If you are ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics, learn from as many sources as Wikipedia can provide before asking me to elucidate. Many Wiki articles and referenced material will be inaccurate, but you can sneak up on the core reality of such concepts by crawling between the bushes of nonsense. I will respond to thoughtful questions on the subject, but not to questions coming from unrequited ignorance. Anyone actually wanting to understand such things can read either Richard Feynman or my book. (Feynman is way better, but my exposition of thermodynamics is specific to the ideas I'm pitching.)

From here I'll explain how a collision between Dark Energy and Aeon Spaces led to creation of other aspects of the universe, and as a last-ditch attempt to recover from a disastrous miscalculation, the creation of human beings.

Greylorn Ell
To me, you have appeared to made complex what IS really very simple, and very easy to understand. That is; Creation evolves naturally, always.
You've missed the implications in the term, Natural Creation, which suggests that I should seek a better title. I thought that the following text would clarify the title, but apparently not so.

Creation implies a creator. What if the title was simply "Creation?" Might one not think that a creator, perhaps a God, was involved? If so, the adjective "Natural" is perhaps a meaningful modifier. Again, the related text was intended to clarify-- but if one's mind focuses upon the title but skims the text, one would be left with simplistic and erroneous opinions.

Debates about how the biological part of our planet came about are typically divided between Creationists and Evolutionists, each with distinct views of how the billions of critters on earth, plus ourselves, came to be.

What "Natural Creation" is meant to suggest is that we live in a created universe, within which any and all creating forces appeared on the scene not by magic (e.g. the singularity), or not by the virtue of having existed forever (e.g. God), but themselves are naturally created by the interaction of inherently simple forces.

I appreciate your excellent question. Clearly I need a different title for this stuff. Thank you! And do let me know if you have suggestions, please. :) Greylorn

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:07 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 pm
Because it would violate the finite limit of the speed of light presumably ?
Yep. Speed of light is also the speed of causality.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Tue Feb 05, 2019 10:32 pm
What is the actual difference between communicating and being in phase ?
You can't use standard coding techniques ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_code ) over entangmentment to transmit bits of information.

If you tried to the entanglement will decohere.
Logik & suppeptitious,

You pinheaded assholes are sandbagging this thread with irrelevant bullshit. STOP IT! -GL

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:10 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:41 pm
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am

It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.

I call the theory Natural Creation. That term might seem internally contradictory, but as perhaps you will see, it is not.
But natural creation is obvious to me. I have yet to see how it could be any thing else.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
N.C. depends on several ideas and principles. Let's get them down first, by way of pouring a sound foundation.

We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.

Applying that principle to the beginnings of things, it is apparent that neither creation by an Almighty God nor the uncaused explosion of a spontaneously appearing (a.k.a. magical) micropea/singularity/whatever can have gotten our universe fired up, because they are single things. Would it not be more consistent with observed reality to hypothesize the existence of two opposing forces coming together and interacting so as to jump-start the universe?

Conventional thinkers will invoke Occam's Razor and whine that two things at the beginning is more complex than a single thing, so is not a righteous principle. Well, poo-- that's why I preceded this thread with one devoted to invalidating O's Razor as a principle applicable to understanding the universe, and proposed to apply Russell's principle of simplicity in its place. This thread will apply Russell's principle as a standard for idea-evaluation. Anyone wanting to quibble with that can do so on the O. Razor thread, but not here, please.

This Theory of Natural Creation (N.C.) hypothesizes the pre-universe existence of two distinct spaces which I will label as Dark Energy Space and Aeon space, contained within a larger space that can allow them to interact. Each of the two spaces has three fundamental and simple properties:

1. Existence. This means that each has always existed, without cause, and will continue to exist even if changed in form.

A. This is reflected in Dark Energy Space by the First Principle of Thermodynamics (derived from studies on the normal energy forms known to
basic physics and currently thought to comprise 4.7% of the known universe).

2. Manifestation of a single, simple and inherently fundamental force.

A. In Dark Energy space I call this Entropic Force. It is reflected in the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the natural tendency of all energy
forms in our universe to lose their ability to exchange force, meaning that the universe will eventually cool down to a a temperature at which
nothing will happen.

B. Aeon Space manifests a counterforce to Entropic Force, and has an innate tendency to disrupt the state of Dark (and normal) Energy. It can
be an organizing force. In other words, any component of Aeon Space can freely violate the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

3. A boundary condition.

A. Dark Energy's boundary condition is a state below which it cannot go. By example, in terms of our normal energy space, the boundary
condition is a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, a.k.a. "absolute zero," which according to the 3rd Principle of Thermodynamics cannot be
reached. In this state, energy of any form can do nothing on its own. It is stuck at an state of absolute Entropy 1-- perfect disorder.

B. Aeon Space's boundary condition is the opposite. I do not know how to define it mathematically like the principles of thermodynamics
but regard it as an opposite of energy's boundary condition. It is as ordered, organized, and as perfect as it can be, and therefore cannot
change. It's reached a state of Entropy 0-- perfect order.

______________

Enough for now. Lunch is hot and the stupid Superbowl is on, its outcome determined by the amount of money that team owners will contribute beneath the table to the NFL Officials' Widows and Orphans Fund.

Kick these ideas around and please think them over before responding. And kindly do some homework, as needed. If you are ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics, learn from as many sources as Wikipedia can provide before asking me to elucidate. Many Wiki articles and referenced material will be inaccurate, but you can sneak up on the core reality of such concepts by crawling between the bushes of nonsense. I will respond to thoughtful questions on the subject, but not to questions coming from unrequited ignorance. Anyone actually wanting to understand such things can read either Richard Feynman or my book. (Feynman is way better, but my exposition of thermodynamics is specific to the ideas I'm pitching.)

From here I'll explain how a collision between Dark Energy and Aeon Spaces led to creation of other aspects of the universe, and as a last-ditch attempt to recover from a disastrous miscalculation, the creation of human beings.

Greylorn Ell
To me, you have appeared to made complex what IS really very simple, and very easy to understand. That is; Creation evolves naturally, always.
You've missed the implications in the term,
Did I? How do you know this?

What implications do you think there is?

Also, maybe I have seen the implications previously, as well as this time, understood them, and moved past those implications completely.

What SOME people MIGHT imply from a term is NOT really of any concern to what the actual Truth is of that thing. If SOME people can NOT just remain OPEN when reading/hearing some thing, then no matter what terms or changes you make it will not make that much difference.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Natural Creation, which suggests that I should seek a better title. I thought that the following text would clarify the title, but apparently not so.
Why should you seek some thing else, when what is said is perfectly all right?

Creation implies a creator. What if the title was simply "Creation?" Might one not think that a creator, perhaps a God, was involved?

Some might, but they are the ones who are NOT truly open. They already ASSUME that they KNOW what the answers are. They also BELIEVE that what they KNOW is what is right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
If so, the adjective "Natural" is perhaps a meaningful modifier. Again, the related text was intended to clarify-- but if one's mind focuses upon the title but skims the text, one would be left with simplistic and erroneous opinions.
Is ASSUMING that one already has erroneous opinions the mark that one is NOT truly OPEN themselves?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Debates about how the biological part of our planet came about are typically divided between Creationists and Evolutionists, each with distinct views of how the billions of critters on earth, plus ourselves, came to be.
I have suggested in previous discussions, throughout this forum, that 'debating' is a truly unnecessary thing to do, and in fact is a completely WRONG thing to do because of the obvious outcomes that debating causes.

Besides that there is NO divide at all between creation and evolution. As I wrote. Creation evolves naturally, always.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
What "Natural Creation" is meant to suggest is that we live in a created universe, within which any and all creating forces appeared on the scene not by magic (e.g. the singularity), or not by the virtue of having existed forever (e.g. God), but themselves are naturally created by the interaction of inherently simple forces.
This simply infers that through an evolutionary process ALL things are created, which is just what IS True and Right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
I appreciate your excellent question.
I never cease to amaze.

In about one of the only times that I respond WITHOUT any question at all I get a response appreciating my excellent question.

Yet, whenever I ask questions I very rarely even get an answer to my question, let alone an acknowledgement of my question.

Why when I ask questions I seemingly never get an answer to the actual question but when i do not even ask a question I get an acknowledgement and compliment on an imagined "question".
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Clearly I need a different title for this stuff.
Why?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Thank you! And do let me know if you have suggestions, please. :) Greylorn
If Creation is a purely natural process, which It is, then why not use just the term 'Natural Creation'?

To me it "speaks volumes", as they say, very simply.

It is said that einstein took volumes of writings to just explain the simple term e=mc2. Once N.C. is understood, then volumes of words is NOT needed. The simple term 'Natural Creation' will just speak for Itself.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:02 am

Age wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:10 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Age wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 12:41 pm


But natural creation is obvious to me. I have yet to see how it could be any thing else.



To me, you have appeared to made complex what IS really very simple, and very easy to understand. That is; Creation evolves naturally, always.
You've missed the implications in the term,
Did I? How do you know this?

What implications do you think there is?

Also, maybe I have seen the implications previously, as well as this time, understood them, and moved past those implications completely.

What SOME people MIGHT imply from a term is NOT really of any concern to what the actual Truth is of that thing. If SOME people can NOT just remain OPEN when reading/hearing some thing, then no matter what terms or changes you make it will not make that much difference.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Natural Creation, which suggests that I should seek a better title. I thought that the following text would clarify the title, but apparently not so.
Why should you seek some thing else, when what is said is perfectly all right?

Creation implies a creator. What if the title was simply "Creation?" Might one not think that a creator, perhaps a God, was involved?

Some might, but they are the ones who are NOT truly open. They already ASSUME that they KNOW what the answers are. They also BELIEVE that what they KNOW is what is right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
If so, the adjective "Natural" is perhaps a meaningful modifier. Again, the related text was intended to clarify-- but if one's mind focuses upon the title but skims the text, one would be left with simplistic and erroneous opinions.
Is ASSUMING that one already has erroneous opinions the mark that one is NOT truly OPEN themselves?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Debates about how the biological part of our planet came about are typically divided between Creationists and Evolutionists, each with distinct views of how the billions of critters on earth, plus ourselves, came to be.
I have suggested in previous discussions, throughout this forum, that 'debating' is a truly unnecessary thing to do, and in fact is a completely WRONG thing to do because of the obvious outcomes that debating causes.

Besides that there is NO divide at all between creation and evolution. As I wrote. Creation evolves naturally, always.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
What "Natural Creation" is meant to suggest is that we live in a created universe, within which any and all creating forces appeared on the scene not by magic (e.g. the singularity), or not by the virtue of having existed forever (e.g. God), but themselves are naturally created by the interaction of inherently simple forces.
This simply infers that through an evolutionary process ALL things are created, which is just what IS True and Right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
I appreciate your excellent question.
I never cease to amaze.

In about one of the only times that I respond WITHOUT any question at all I get a response appreciating my excellent question.

Yet, whenever I ask questions I very rarely even get an answer to my question, let alone an acknowledgement of my question.

Why when I ask questions I seemingly never get an answer to the actual question but when i do not even ask a question I get an acknowledgement and compliment on an imagined "question".
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Clearly I need a different title for this stuff.
Why?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Thank you! And do let me know if you have suggestions, please. :) Greylorn
If Creation is a purely natural process, which It is, then why not use just the term 'Natural Creation'?

To me it "speaks volumes", as they say, very simply.

It is said that einstein took volumes of writings to just explain the simple term e=mc2. Once N.C. is understood, then volumes of words is NOT needed. The simple term 'Natural Creation' will just speak for Itself.
Age,

As usual I'll reply to a few of your questions. Just a few, because replying to every little mickey mouse question, (e.g. "Why?) is a pain in the ass and a waste of my time. I raised children, back when. Early on I learned to ban "why" questions. There was one answer for them: Figure it out from the available information, or learn more. They all went on to learn more. Consider encapsulating your questions into a generalized format, like a paragraph. Even better, learn to ask "how" questions, but only after doing your own research and study. And limit those to simpler forms. The "how" question you asked previously was dumb. Do you really expect me to try to explain how my mind works on a crummy internet forum?

If you are genuinely curious, read and reread whatever the person to whom you are responding wrote, and first seek answers on Wikipedia. Come back after doing some homework.

The use of CAPITALIZED words is unpleasant, coming across as hollering. I won't respond to hollering. If you wish to emphasize something, please use italics.

Einstein derived E=mcc in a brief paper published in (I think) a German journal, Annalen der Physik. Of course by the time I studied it, the English translation was available. I don't believe that he ever spent much time explaining the mass-energy equivalence, because the equation stood by itself for anyone who had studied basic physics. Special and General Relativity, much the same. If one had the mind and education to understand them, there they were. Perhaps he killed time at Princeton teaching students. He certainly did not write "volumes" because he did not need to do so-- others took on that job, mostly writing textbooks. More explaining was needed for GR, but his students were divided into those who understood it and those who would never understand it. Again, various professors undertook the volume-writing process.

The ideas I'll try to present here are similar. Most readers are incapable of understanding them. I'm hoping to reach the few others.

I am certain that should you ever come to understand what I mean by "Natural Creation," you will find it entirely different from your current interpretation. Don't worry about that. If you're interested in the ideas, study them. If not, don't-- and don't waste the time to tell me why.

Don't ask questions or do anything with the expectation of compliments. Although I've made some seemingly impossible technical contributions and written a few books broaching potentially useful ideas, plus raising functional offspring and making some females momentarily happy, I've received 1 and 1/2 compliments in damned near 80 years of life. Just do what you want to do to the best of your ability. You'll know if you did a good job of it or not. Listen to the old country-western song, "The Gambler." There's a little wisdom in it.

There is a significant division between the concepts of creation and evolution. If you think otherwise, educate yourself. Study up on the "Scopes Trial."

You often merge my comments with your own, failing to use the [quotes function properly. That's annoying. Learn to do better or simply don't do it. I won't respond to incompetently formatted comments.

Perhaps my acknowledgment to a question you did not ask was actually an acknowledgement to you for owning a mind that engaged mine-- once, and briefly.

Greylorn."

Age
Posts: 3099
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Sat Feb 09, 2019 9:16 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:02 am
Age wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:10 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm

You've missed the implications in the term,
Did I? How do you know this?

What implications do you think there is?

Also, maybe I have seen the implications previously, as well as this time, understood them, and moved past those implications completely.

What SOME people MIGHT imply from a term is NOT really of any concern to what the actual Truth is of that thing. If SOME people can NOT just remain OPEN when reading/hearing some thing, then no matter what terms or changes you make it will not make that much difference.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Natural Creation, which suggests that I should seek a better title. I thought that the following text would clarify the title, but apparently not so.
Why should you seek some thing else, when what is said is perfectly all right?

Creation implies a creator. What if the title was simply "Creation?" Might one not think that a creator, perhaps a God, was involved?

Some might, but they are the ones who are NOT truly open. They already ASSUME that they KNOW what the answers are. They also BELIEVE that what they KNOW is what is right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
If so, the adjective "Natural" is perhaps a meaningful modifier. Again, the related text was intended to clarify-- but if one's mind focuses upon the title but skims the text, one would be left with simplistic and erroneous opinions.
Is ASSUMING that one already has erroneous opinions the mark that one is NOT truly OPEN themselves?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Debates about how the biological part of our planet came about are typically divided between Creationists and Evolutionists, each with distinct views of how the billions of critters on earth, plus ourselves, came to be.
I have suggested in previous discussions, throughout this forum, that 'debating' is a truly unnecessary thing to do, and in fact is a completely WRONG thing to do because of the obvious outcomes that debating causes.

Besides that there is NO divide at all between creation and evolution. As I wrote. Creation evolves naturally, always.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
What "Natural Creation" is meant to suggest is that we live in a created universe, within which any and all creating forces appeared on the scene not by magic (e.g. the singularity), or not by the virtue of having existed forever (e.g. God), but themselves are naturally created by the interaction of inherently simple forces.
This simply infers that through an evolutionary process ALL things are created, which is just what IS True and Right.
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
I appreciate your excellent question.
I never cease to amaze.

In about one of the only times that I respond WITHOUT any question at all I get a response appreciating my excellent question.

Yet, whenever I ask questions I very rarely even get an answer to my question, let alone an acknowledgement of my question.

Why when I ask questions I seemingly never get an answer to the actual question but when i do not even ask a question I get an acknowledgement and compliment on an imagined "question".
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Clearly I need a different title for this stuff.
Why?
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:33 pm
Thank you! And do let me know if you have suggestions, please. :) Greylorn
If Creation is a purely natural process, which It is, then why not use just the term 'Natural Creation'?

To me it "speaks volumes", as they say, very simply.

It is said that einstein took volumes of writings to just explain the simple term e=mc2. Once N.C. is understood, then volumes of words is NOT needed. The simple term 'Natural Creation' will just speak for Itself.
Age,

As usual I'll reply to a few of your questions. Just a few, because replying to every little mickey mouse question, (e.g. "Why?) is a pain in the ass and a waste of my time. I raised children, back when. Early on I learned to ban "why" questions. There was one answer for them: Figure it out from the available information, or learn more. They all went on to learn more. Consider encapsulating your questions into a generalized format, like a paragraph. Even better, learn to ask "how" questions, but only after doing your own research and study. And limit those to simpler forms. The "how" question you asked previously was dumb. Do you really expect me to try to explain how my mind works on a crummy internet forum?

If you are genuinely curious, read and reread whatever the person to whom you are responding wrote, and first seek answers on Wikipedia. Come back after doing some homework.

The use of CAPITALIZED words is unpleasant, coming across as hollering. I won't respond to hollering. If you wish to emphasize something, please use italics.

Einstein derived E=mcc in a brief paper published in (I think) a German journal, Annalen der Physik. Of course by the time I studied it, the English translation was available. I don't believe that he ever spent much time explaining the mass-energy equivalence, because the equation stood by itself for anyone who had studied basic physics. Special and General Relativity, much the same. If one had the mind and education to understand them, there they were. Perhaps he killed time at Princeton teaching students. He certainly did not write "volumes" because he did not need to do so-- others took on that job, mostly writing textbooks. More explaining was needed for GR, but his students were divided into those who understood it and those who would never understand it. Again, various professors undertook the volume-writing process.

The ideas I'll try to present here are similar. Most readers are incapable of understanding them. I'm hoping to reach the few others.

I am certain that should you ever come to understand what I mean by "Natural Creation," you will find it entirely different from your current interpretation. Don't worry about that. If you're interested in the ideas, study them. If not, don't-- and don't waste the time to tell me why.

Don't ask questions or do anything with the expectation of compliments. Although I've made some seemingly impossible technical contributions and written a few books broaching potentially useful ideas, plus raising functional offspring and making some females momentarily happy, I've received 1 and 1/2 compliments in damned near 80 years of life. Just do what you want to do to the best of your ability. You'll know if you did a good job of it or not. Listen to the old country-western song, "The Gambler." There's a little wisdom in it.

There is a significant division between the concepts of creation and evolution. If you think otherwise, educate yourself. Study up on the "Scopes Trial."

You often merge my comments with your own, failing to use the [quotes function properly. That's annoying. Learn to do better or simply don't do it. I won't respond to incompetently formatted comments.

Perhaps my acknowledgment to a question you did not ask was actually an acknowledgement to you for owning a mind that engaged mine-- once, and briefly.

Greylorn."

Every young child asks "Why?" This is because human beings are born naturally inquisitive. Unfortunately though, they lose this inquisitiveness due to adults and attitudes likes yours. The very reason WHY you adult human beings are still looking for answers is because you BELIEVE you already KNOW what is right instead of remaining OPEN and inquisitive to what is actually True and Right.

The True and Right meaningful ANSWERS are NOT found on wikipedia.

Every person takes every thing how they choose to take it. If you take capitals as hollering, then so be it. But is that what I am actual doing? If you had any real inquisitiveness left in you, then you would have known already. Also, you will NOT find this answer in wikipedia either.

It is purported that einstein also said some thing like, "A split-second of inspiration can take a life time to explain". Therefore, what can be KNOWN can be understood in just a minute few words.

Are you TRYING TO blame readers for not understanding you? I would suggest that if one is NOT yet understood, then they have NOT yet worked how to communicate what it is that they want to yet.

I do NOT need to come to understand what you mean by 'Natural Creation' because it already makes sense to me, and it fits together with other things perfectly to form the True and Right complete picture of Life, Itself. Does your interpretation fit in with all your other interpretations of things forming a perfectly complete picture of every thing? If not, then my interpretation is different than yours.

I NEVER do any thing with the expectation of a compliment. In fact the very opposite could be said.

Of course there is a significant division between the concepts of creation and evolution. That division is what you human beings have made and are creating. This is very obvious to SEE and RECOGNIZE. I, however, do NOT see a division at all. That is because I KNOW where, how and why the division was and is created and where the truth and falsehoods both lay.

WHERE have I allegedly often merged my comments with yours, failing to use the [quotes function properly}? Just saying some thing without any actual evidence does not suffice. The rest of what you wrote in that paragraph is a joke.

From the way you are coming across here now you are many years off from LEARNING, UNDERSTANDING, and KNOWING that 'you' do NOT have a mind. You are yet to even KNOW how to look at what a 'you' is yet, let alone KNOW what it is, am I correct?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests