A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[Ratchit]

Actually genetic tracking and comparison techniques used in archaeology and anthropology have shown how many of todays species are related through past ancestry.

https://www.geneticarchaeology.com/
and
https://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/anthrogenetics-website/
For easy starters.

Doesn't the very definition of a "species" mean that they are closely related? And the point is?

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

How did you jump to the conclusion I believe in evolution? I never addressed my beliefs as they are mot germane to my statement.

Who can say with absolute scientific certainty that God did or did not have a hand in the evolution of man. Does anyone really have a clue the number of minutes in God's day? I know, by agreements, man's day is 1440 minutes in length

I got that impression that you believed in evolution from your sentence in post #69, " On the topic of evolution, since we evolved from Apes, according to the theory, you would think we would have "remembered" how to open the banana." Sorry for the misimpression.

I would not think that someone who can create life would need to go through such a process. Besides, where are the missing links that show our evolvement?

Ratch

 

[JoeJester]

I would not think that someone who can create life would need to go through such a process. Besides, where are the missing links that show our evolvement?

One wouldn't think so, but then, who can say humans can think on God's level.

As it stands, the scientific method requires replication of the theory. Have any monkeys evolved into man?

 

[tcmtech]

Well there were a number of prehistoric human species living all together at the same time up to a few 10's of thousands of years ago.

How'd they get here and where did they go and why?

 

[Ratchit]

Hi again,

Interesting discussion here and i am happy to see that most are keeping it civil and real.

There is too much to say in one post, so i'll summarize my own thoughts on these topics.

First, whatever we believe partly depends on how we collect our data and who we get it from. Someone claiming anything out of the blue is hard to believe these days because there are so many different motives, money of course a big one. People lie so it's hard to believe anyone when there are big stakes involved, but at the same time we do have to go with what we believe to be the most true at the time.

Provided your beliefs are based on facts.

Second, climate change could be influenced by man if not directly caused.

Lots of things could happen, but the evidence for man caused climate change is not there.

Third, there has to be as least some validity to evolution even if it has not been scientifically proven to be a "self starter", and not all things HAD to evolve. A possible explanation for the starting mechanism could simply be advanced civilization initialization, or perhaps panspermia. Most scientists now believe that intelligent exo-life exists somewhere else in the universe, and this can be taken to be God or just a more intelligent life form. Many also believe that non intelligent dormant life or the starting elements of life could have been deposited from space.

There is no validity to evolution because of its faulty basic premise, that complicated things can occur from simple things on their own. Who created the more intelligent life which seeded the rest of the universe?

As far as basic universal structure goes, small things can grow to be more complex things. We see this enough to know how it works. Small particles have to obey laws too, and these laws mean they have to behave in a certain ordered way, and that leads to higher complexity. I did not realize the power in this myself until a few years ago. When we look at how particles arrange themselves when they are around other particles, we start to see patterns. These patterns evolve into other larger patterns. It's amazing. Experiment with magnetized steel balls, see how they only have certain patterns they will arrange themselves into, yet each pattern could be different. It would not be uncommon to see a 'hex' shape form, and certainly a 'square' shape. It goes without saying a triangle shape. But who would think that a circular shape of almost any length can form, and still be somewhat stable. How about a figure 8 ? Sure, it's easy.

If you compress flexible circles, you get a hex shape. That is what honey bees do. It is a demonstration of geometric alignment, like how a drop of liquid forms a sphere in weightlessness. It has nothing to do with evolution. Can you give me one concrete example of something going from simple to complex without it being predestined to do so in the first place?

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

Doesn't the very definition of a "species" mean that they are closely related? And the point is?

No further points from me. When a persons wording and the like start becoming the side tracking tangents to keep the aim of the primary debate from continuing thats where I step off. No one wins and very little further educational information follows typically from this point on.

Science tries to find answers to questions and admits when it makes a mistake or comes to the wrong conclusion . Religion generally does not.

 

[tcmtech]

Can you give me one concrete example of something going from simple to complex without it being predestined to do so in the first place?

Religion. Always starts out simple. Never ends that way.

 

[Ratchit]

Just a thought (more an idea) that Ive always had regarding the big bang and the origin of species-What if Life only exists because it needs to exist, because It has to exist. The Universe makes it so. There is no logical reason behind this, It just "is". In the beginning there was nothing, but then the nothing said "I want to become something" and something it became. As time went on, that something become everything we know; you, me, every tiny little atom has a part of that something. That something is the universe itself. We only exist because we chose to exist, because in order to sustain the universe, we need to exist. When we die, our atoms are still part of that something. That something lives continues on into the atoms of something else. We are all omnipresent and omnipotent. All life is god and we are god.

Evolution took place because it needed to. Quite possibly, in another alternative universe, there is no such thing as evolution, and so that universe died off because it's species didnt evolve.

This is all pure philosophy and possibly not what I may or not believe.

Your above musings sound like fantasy fiction.

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

Have any monkeys evolved into man?

I have proof here where I live....but of course that is another story. Actually an insult to monkeys in general. Monkeys like stealing nuts and fruit and things to eat...the ones here have managed to steal R700 Billion Rand over the last 20 Years.......

Outta here,
tv

 

[nsaspook]

I have to say it's an idea that I'm not comfortable with because it abandons a key principle of science, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Completely agree and I think this article explains the problem nicely.
https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-defend-the-integrity-of-physics-1.16535

They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
...
post-empirical science is an oxymoron

These theories have discovered methods that can be applied to testable science so it's not a complete snark hunt but I think as a whole they have wasted a very large amount of brainpower for something that's not science as we know it today but maybe they are on the right track.

 

[Ratchit]

Why? How do you create a foundation if you don't proceed using the principles of science. This is why science does not label any subject a non-starter. All things in nature are a subject for science. If you have no foundation, you start building one.

As I said before, not all things are scientifically explainable. Specifically, the origin of life. So how can you create a scientific foundation for an event that goes beyond science?

Did Copernicus have a solid foundation for a sun-centered universe? No, because his model did not even work as well as the Ptolemy earth centered model. It was an idea that gradually gained traction as new experimental data came in. Eventually, Kepler figured out that the orbits were not circular, but were eliptical which made the model match perfectly and then a solid foundation was established. Then Newton fully described the theory of gravity and mechanics which made it all understandable. But, there were people trying to supress Copernicus' ideas because the subject matter was "outside the perview of science", and "in the domain of the creation by God".

You are arguing by analogy. The movement of the planets is scientifically explainable. The fact that the church interfered has nothing to do with it. Newton described the law of gravity. He did not propose a theory of why mass attracts itself.

It's not a deficiency, it's a motivation to keep working. Copernicus did not know why planets would go around the sun, and Kepler didnt either. Newton made significant strides there, and Einstein did even better. But still we contemplate a quantum theory of gravity and we know we still dont have it all figured out yet. Even gravity might be controlled by God on a daily basis. Who can say, but that is not the question science can deal with. Science simply tries to describe how nature works. Whether it works as the end result of creation by God, or existance by accident is not the question science deals with. Humans deal with those harder question by different methods.

Science also tries to explain why things happen.

Total understanding will never happen. Partial understanding does happen gradually. But, if we follow your lead and label any question or field as "a non-starter", then it never will happen. My prediction is that science will uncover the explanation of how basic laws of physics and chemistry lead to the formation of life under the right conditions. The explanation will not require the "active hand of God", but I won't object to anyone who wants to believe that the laws that guide the formation of life might involve a God. Call it a hope or dream if you like, but really I have no hope or dream about it. It's just something I feel with confidence based on the past history of science. Every time someone tries to draw a line in the sand and say science stops here, and God starts there, they are eventually proved wrong and the line is moved a little farther.

There is a word for the belief you articulated above. It is called "faith". Your faith is that science can do all and explain all. I would not use the example of church-centric men of the past who were scientifically challenged as an example of how science can steamroller over any challenge. Some things are beyond science.

To me the issue of creation of life is relatively small compared to the creation of the universe itself. We can figure out the details of how life originates and evolves within the laws of physics and chemistry. The real mystery will continue to be how the fundamental laws themselves exist and conspire to create a universe. After that happened, the rest is all just details.

That sounds like trying to figure out how order comes from chaos.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

There is a word for the belief you articulated above. It is called "faith". Your faith is that science can do all and explain all.

That is not quite accurate. I expressed faith that science can crack the origin of life mystery and relate origin of life as a logical consequence of laws of physics an chemistry. But, I also expressed doubt that science will crack the mystery of the origin of the universe. I would also add, that I have doubts that it can crack the mystery of "consciousness" itself. I'm not saying that science cant do those things, but I really dont know if it can, and I dont have faith that it can. Hence, I dont have faith that science can do all and explain all. I only expect that science will continue to be a useful tool to provide insight into difficult questions and to help make useful and interesting discoveries.

 

[nsaspook]

Wrong name in your quote Steve.

 

[steveB]

Thanks nsaspook. Not sure why that happened, but corrected now.

 

[steveB]

Can you give me one concrete example of something going from simple to complex without it being predestined to do so in the first place?

The world is full of many examples and every good physicist knows there is no fundamental law to prevent complex things from being the result of simple things and random or ordinary events in nature. Physics just tells us that we need some energy input to counteract the law of entropy. The best examples occur in living organism, and one could argue that the origin of life (since it happened) is an example, but let's not consider those examples for the obvious reason that you say God did those things.

So, in chemical reactions with energy input, there are various known examples of order coming from chaos. It is these types of processes that people consider as somehow spawning the first primative DNA, or precursors to life based on DNA. This is one of many ideas of research on the origin of life, and it is not something trivial to figure out.

But, this article mentions a few mechanical examples that will be easier to visualize than chemical moleculalar-level machinery.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm

 

[Ratchit]

Well there were a number of prehistoric human species living all together at the same time up to a few 10's of thousands of years ago.

How'd they get here and where did they go and why?

How do you know how long ago it was? How do you know whether they were human?

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

No further points from me. When a persons wording and the like start becoming the side tracking tangents to keep the aim of the primary debate from continuing thats where I step off. No one wins and very little further educational information follows typically from this point on.

Science tries to find answers to questions and admits when it makes a mistake or comes to the wrong conclusion . Religion generally does not.

The way I see it, science cannot explain the origin of life, but assumes it arose spontaneously anyway. Who is discussing religion?

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

That is not quite accurate. I expressed faith that science can crack the origin of life mystery and relate origin of life as a logical consequence of laws of physics an chemistry. But, I also expressed doubt that science will crack the mystery of the origin of the universe. I would also add, that I have doubts that it can crack the mystery of "consciousness" itself. I'm not saying that science cant do those things, but I really dont know if it can, and I dont have faith that it can. Hence, I dont have faith that science can do all and explain all. I only expect that science will continue to be a useful tool to provide insight into difficult questions and to help make useful and interesting discoveries.

The origin of life and the origin of the universe are both intractable problems for science. I don't see why you think one can be solved by science and not the other. Of course science has been and will be useful for certain things.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

The origin of life and the origin of the universe are both intractable problems for science. I don't see why you think one can be solved by science and not the other.

Ratch

Your first sentence is a statement without proof. You will never know if they are tractible unless you try. Science has penetrated deeply into both quesitons. They are not intractible problems so far, but are difficult problems to fully resolve in every detail. We are in a process or "tracking" both problems, with impressive results in both areas. The only question is how far into the process can we go. Can we ever resolve the more difficult and most fundamental questions in these areas.

The reason why I consider the origin of life problem to be easier is that it potentially can be answered with physics and chemistry laws that are already known. Scientists must discover the mechanisms and processes involved, and then provide scientific proof of them. Of course it is possible that the origin of life might involve some, as yet, undiscovered law of nature, and if so, that would need to be uncovered first. But, either way, the difficult problem seems to me, to be solvable one. I think it will take centuries or even millenia to work out the details, but it seems feasible to me that this could happen. Of course, as I said, this is a faith I have, and not a certain knowledge. It is an opinion.

The issue with the origin of the universe is a bit different. We perhaps have made equal or even better strides in this area to get close to understanding the laws and working those laws backwards into an understanding of the origin of the universe. But, there is still a gap in our understanding of merging gravity and quantum field theory. The full physics is not worked out, and this looks like a difficult problem. I expect progress will be made in the theory, but eventally any theory is going to run up against a fundamental issue or question. Why are the laws we discover of that particular form and why do thesee laws have to exist at all. Basically, there is a fundamental difference in the origin of life and the origin of the universe. However, there is one thing related to life which throws a wrench into my thinking, and that is the conscious mind. We seem to have no way to quantify what it is and why it exists. Still, I think the collective work of conscious humans will crack the mystery of the origin of life. I think is will work out even better laws of physics and describe the universe all the way back to its very birth. But, I dont think it will necessarily be able to answer why the universe must exist.

 

[Ratchit]

The world is full of many examples and every good physicist knows there is no fundamental law to prevent complex things from being the result of simple things and random or ordinary events in nature. Physics just tells us that we need some energy input to counteract the law of entropy. The best examples occur in living organism, and one could argue that the origin of life (since it happened) is an example, but let's not consider those examples for the obvious reason that you say God did those things.

So, in chemical reactions with energy input, there are various known examples of order coming from chaos. It is these types of processes that people consider as somehow spawning the first primative DNA, or precursors to life based on DNA. This is one of many ideas of research on the origin of life, and it is not something trivial to figure out.

But, this article mentions a few mechanical examples that will be easier to visualize than chemical moleculalar-level machinery.

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/design.htm

That article gives examples of simple objects forming pattern and concludes that it is evolution in motion. I could just as well say that rubber bands tangling up are a lower state of order. The ruts come from the tires pushing the gravel into a pile until it becomes packed enough for the vehicle to drive over. A different weight vehicle or different type of gravel will change the size of the ruts. The wind piles the snow or sand up into a pile until the lee side is sheltered enough so that the wind cannot move it. Further away from the pile the shelter diminishes and the wind can pile up the snow to make another ridge. All these examples are a set of preconditions that are set up to happen. In order for life to form or change radically, countless changes have to occur orderly and correctly against insurmountable odds. It is inconceivable that is going to happen.

Ratch