Einstein’s Big Blunder

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Day 1 | 648 Comments

 
«
»
 

648 Comments

parigenius says:
February 22, 2010 at 9:30 am

Cant time be a form of energy?
which will be left when the universe will end and then convert itself in another form to create the universe again……

Perry Marshall says:
February 27, 2010 at 3:44 pm

Time is not energy. The universe will not recreate itself, it can’t because of entropy. You can’t burn the same candle twice.

Manzoor Ahmad says:
February 26, 2010 at 6:53 am

God is the owner of everything and he is closed to us more than our seeing and everything happening has been fanalised by him only our special concern to him can make changes.For your interest miracles also base on system and materials.Your are half right there are definitely codes in DNA but they are made through energy ,procedure same as audio&video but in alive body through energy all things makes their audio vedio vision same as God made them when these thing come through energy in DNA disc they manifest them in unaccountable agles .With passage of time makes a trillion times complicated spectrum,i,e a ball come in closed chamber with pressure and give a lot of colliding agles.The question should what is the cpacity of space and with how much speed a single reflection can be draw out from this spectrum is a artificial Intelegence.By this research a alive body can be a more faster and more Intelegent.Yes our needs of physics derive this spectrum(I shall wait for your supporting respone for futher discussion because I assure tornado ,rain and clouds etc. also abide by some Gode given laws that function same as.

vYzion says:
March 20, 2010 at 11:36 pm

“That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.”

I guess I’m going to need some definitions…this paragraph presently reads, it is pretty non-sensical. Here’s why:

BEGINS: You say time begins with the Big Bang. I don’t see how that could be possible. The word ‘begin’ typically means that a thing was previously didn’t exist, came into being. But, if that’s true, then you can’t say “time began.” That implies that there was a time before time, so to speak.

CREATION: Pretty much the same problem as above. When a thing is created, that means it wasn’t there BEFORE (i.e. at a temporally prior location). But, given the lack of temporal priority with respect to the Big Bang, it simply doesn’t make sense to talk about the Big Bang being a “creation.” Certainly the Big Bang could have, and obviously did, create things…but according to our agreed upon framework, we simply cannot consistently talk about the Big Bang itself being “created.” The claim just doesn’t make any sense.

INTELLIGENCE: In other places you’ve made extensive use of argument by analogy. In your communication/information sections (of which I have independent critiques, should you be interested), you make it very clear that “All communication systems that we know of are designed. There are no known exceptions to this.” The conclusion you want us to draw is that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that there be an un-designed communication system. So let’s use an argument by analogy. All known intelligence exists within space and time (well, certainly within time, perhaps the space thing is debatable depending on prior metaphysical commitments…at the very least, all the things to which I attribute intelligence certainly exist within space and time). So, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, if not impossible, that an intelligence is outside space and/or time. (Note: I say “attribute to” because to my knowledge intelligence is still a pretty hazy concept. We certainly CALL things intelligent, but when we try to pin down the “essence” of intelligence, it it always eludes us. At best, what we do is observe behavior and and then just assert the thing HAS intelligence, as if it were an object to be possessed. However, no one has ever observed intelligence per se. So, since it not clear to me that there is anything over and above the behavior that prompts us to say of a thing it is intelligent, I use the neutral terminology of “attribute to.” Daniel Dennett is probably the foremost defender of this view. He calls it the ‘intentional stance.’ But Dennet actually does assert there is nothing over and above the behavior…I’m undecided on the issue.)

So perhaps you use these words differently than most other English speakers. Which is fine, but in order for me to accurately assess your claims, I’m going to need to know how they are being used. If not, then you run the risk of turning this into a ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ conversation.

Overall comments: Maybe you address these issues in later installments, but if not, they do need to be addressed.

First, I’m not even sure what it means to be “outside space and time.” Granted, the English language allows that combination of words…it is a syntactically well-formed formula (a ‘wff’ as the lingo calls it), but being a wff, and being meaningful aren’t obviously the same thing. I’m reminded of the cliched Chomsky example: “Green ideas sleep furiously.” Certainly it’s a grammatically pristine sentence…but if it has meaning I couldn’t tell you what it is. “Outside space and time” certainly appears to be the same way…It’s a correctly formed prepositional phrase, but being well formed doesn’t instantly make it meaningful.

Second, there is the problem of interaction. Pretending that “outside space and time” has a meaning, it’s pretty unclear how this interaction is supposed to work. The most plausible meaning of this phrase would imply a complete isolation of the Intelligence from space and time. You at least owe us a mechanism by which the interaction occurs.

Also, it’s not clear that your claim of the Big Bang disobeying matter/energy conservation is applicable. Matter/Energy conservation is a rule of physics. Physics deals exclusively with spatio-temporally bound things. As noted before, the Big Bang didn’t take place in time…so why should conservation laws apply to it? Or you can think of it this way…the energy of a system is a function of both time and space (e.g. how fast air molecules are moving (time) within a balloon (space) gives you the energy of the system…The same amount of air in a smaller balloon would yield more energy as would the same amount of motion in a shorter time interval). So, the limit of both approach zero, the energy grows. Of course, the thing with limits is that you never actually get there, hence, you never actually get to apply any laws AT t=0.

Don’t get me wrong, I respect what you’re trying to do. It’s a lot more effective, and interesting, than the proto-typical approaches to your goal. Furthermore, I think you can appeal to a demographic than most “missionaries”…namely the world of academia. You have an interdisciplinary approach and you are attempting to use some of the hottest topics in discussion today. However, I haven’t seen anywhere where you actually engage in a real debate with anyone other than lay-people. If you want to be taken seriously by academics, you’re going to have engage actual academics at some point…not just “pop-science” readers.

P.S. If you have a transcript from where you have engaged in debate with someone who is established and respected in their respective field, I’d love to have a copy of it.

Perry Marshall says:
April 7, 2010 at 10:56 am

vYzion

Time has a beginning because there is no “before.” There is nothing, not even time. Not in this dimension anyway. There may have been other things in other dimensions but they are undetectable.

Creation: Ditto as with time, just 3 different dimensions.

Yes, it is highly unlikely that there is an un-designed comm. system.

Outside space and time: In Matrix Theory (Linear Algebra) dimensions are just as easily posited as adding more x’s y’s and z’s. You can deal with 26 dimensions if you want, no problem. The only problem is your ability to conceptualize them. But mathematically all of these things are perfectly logical. Saying something is outside of space and time is no different than saying “outside of this red box.” They are just boundaries.

You could describe God as transcending ALL possible dimensions. An extension of the idea of infinity.

You are right, one can argue that without a universe there is no law of physics to apply to anything. But you’re still left with the question “why did something come into being instead of remaining nothing?”

Not only did the universe come into being, but also its laws. Adding to the mystery. Philosophically you cannot take either for granted.

Debate: Listen to “Origin of Life The English Way.”

Academics: I take all comers. You will see more of what you ask for in the near future.

profe_arreola says:
March 26, 2010 at 1:33 pm

I concour that the universe is expanding, my question is if it´s so where is the new espace comes from?, it´s been created along with the universe as is expanding?

yanniru says:
April 9, 2010 at 2:53 pm

One possibility is that it is expanding into the Multiverse.
A string theory for the Multiverses and its universes may be found in:
http://knol.google.com/k/implications-of-a-conjectured-multiverse-string-theory-in-26-dimensions#
Richard Ruquist

Khairul Anwar says:
April 9, 2010 at 1:03 pm

Forrest:

Is there a problem when sometimes in the future , Europe will be a totally Muslim continent?
If your speculation is correct and fulfilled , the one that become Muslims are the European themselves and if for argumental sake one of that Muslims might be you , will you still be a good man? You rule your own life my dear friend , every religion propose sets of good conducts , their understanding of these conducts are the things that may mislead them or make them a better man.

charlieal says:
April 12, 2010 at 9:10 pm

I am a retired science professor, and thought earth sciences for 30 years. I have a different theory for the origin of the universe. To me, the universe isn’t expanding. Instead, it is rotating around the first black hole formed after the big-bang, and the big-bang is the word of God. When God said, let the light be, the first virtual particles were formed. The Higgs particle or God’s particles that scientists are looking for at CERN, with the LHC, is, to me the big-bang. Singularity is also, to me the point of no return or the border between the physical universe and God’s kingdom. That’s why the four forces, become into one at singularity, matter does not exist or just disappear. So, God is the creator of the universe, and the universe is rotating as a whirlpool around the first black hole just formed after God’s word or big-bang. The expansion is an optical illusion, ’cause the universe is so huge, that expansion appear to be real, but if the universe was created by God, it can’t be expanding for ever and ever, because the only eternal is God, and anything created will have an end. That’s why the bible says that the universe will be transformed into a new one. To me, black holes are the dynamo that energizes the universe as a whole, and eats all the matter and bigger black holes also eats smaller ones, ’til all matter disappear and all the universe will be new. I already modified Einstein equation from E=M times C2 to Vp= DE times DM divided into C infinity. The 4th force is the one that holds the earth suspended in orbit. And finally, to me the terms space and time, are wrongly used in science. Space and time doesn’t exist in the universe. To be real, space should be some kind of matter, and time is the earth rotational movement. Will continue……….

dwest says:
April 26, 2010 at 3:17 am

Hi Perry,
I have enjoyed the video and it is all understandable, acceptable, and not refutable. I sincerely appreciate your effort and intelligence in boiling it all down. I do indeed believe in God’s existence. Always have. By faith of course, not science. Though the science angle certainly confirms the faith and for some it may move them toward a faith in God. For that alone your work is good and noble. :-)

It’s religion that seems to be the more pressing issue for mankind however. Jesus was the only man I think who claimed to be the only way to God and at the same time IS God. And He by all accounts defeated death to prove it. It seems THAT is a more difficult thing to believe than whether God exists. And of course there are seemingly endless other religions to boot, all acknowledging a single God via a prophet, or guru, or enlightened being. Sadly some of them still feel the need to kill those with opposing views even today. I chose to believe in Jesus for obvious reasons. All religions require faith in their story, but Jesus gave us a win or lose proposition. It seems risky NOT to believe Jesus’s claim, and there is certainly no harm in believing it. But many choose to believe in God alone instead, and abandon religion altogether.

So the question that mankind seems to be asking is not whether God exists but rather: “God exists. So what?” And thus we have religions.

I’d like to hear some rational and calm thoughts from you and others on this if you would allow it.

Respectfully,
Don West

kyle says:
June 25, 2009 at 8:18 pm

Thanks for the links! I found the one on swine flu particularly interesting, whether it be that I think I finally grasp the point you’ve been trying to hit at, or that I just found it interesting. Thanks for replying to me so hastily on these last few posts. I will try doing some more research to get back to you on these points when I have time and until then take care!

Thanks,

Kyle

Perry Marshall says:
September 24, 2009 at 8:54 am

Marc,

Please produce peer-reviewed scientific literature that demonstrates that the following statement is true:

“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”

I have been debating this topic for 5 years and I have yet to have anyone step forward with such a paper or research.

I submit to you that a more untrue statement has never been made. There is a reason why DNA has redundancy mechanisms and error correction protocols.

You mentioned in an email that you would like to invite me to a debate. So long as the debate is not a ‘circus’ I would be happy to participate. You may want to listen to my debate with atheist Peter Hearty at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/origin-of-life-the-english-way/

Perry Marshall

Marc Draco says:
October 17, 2009 at 12:24 pm

“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”

OK, let’s answer that:

Even though I already alluded to my oversimplification of this several times, I’ll attempt to clear it up for everyone’s sake and my sanity.

DNA is no more a code than I have hair on my head and three legs. It would more correctly be analogous to a pattern or a recipe. You asserted (on infidels) that random patterns in nature cannot generate codes: yet it was admirably demonstrated by others and by example that this is not the case – the snowflake being the canonical example. Interesting you later appear to have included this on your site with the description of chaos theory.

You have arrived at this error by induction; an interesting demonstration of the Salem Hypothesis if ever I saw one. You’re an engineer and engineers seem to find it difficult to think in abstract terms – this is what makes them good at being engineers. You see the word “code” applied to DNA and instantly jump to a conclusion – by slothful induction to name the mistake – about how that came about.

DNA isn’t code although it may be code like. A bird is not a plane but they can both fly so we might say a plane is birdlike. Analogy is not equivalence – you’ve fallen hard into that trap.

If one randomly jumbles a designed code, then chaos naturally ensues; the message is lost. However, since DNA is not directly analogous to a designed code, mutations within it don’t automatically mean that information is lost, only modified. These modifications can move down the generations without necessarily destroying anything.

Take your random mutation generator. Your argument does not follow because (a) The code you start has already terminated and, therefore not subject to revision. (In life this would be an organism.)
(b) You’re not using real random numbers.
(c) Your mutation model is progressive on the same “organism”. DNA doesn’t work like that. What you’ve modeled there is more akin to a cancer than it is to inheritance.

I’m preparing an extensive paper on this now.

Science works from deduction (based on evidence) not induction based on what the thinker wants it to.

Perry Marshall says:
October 17, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Marc,

Your statement that DNA is not a code: One could hardly posit a more anti-scientific statement.

I encourage you to pick up any biology book and read the explanations for why DNA is a code. The work of Watson, Crick and Gamow and thousands of others will be helpful in this investigation. No one needs to refer any religious people or creationist literature to discover that DNA is a code. I will not repeat my explanation for that definition here, I have already explained this at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq and many, many other places.

If you research this question to its roots you’ll discover that half the people on infidels are in denial of and total opposition to the most fundamental definition in all of biology.

If you believe that science is based on deduction then you have not studied how theories like gravity, thermodynamics and entropy are formulated.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

“A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning.”

Forrest Charnock says:
November 22, 2009 at 11:29 pm

Dear Mark:

I find your answer hyper religious, after all even Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins understand that DNA is a code, a language. There is an entire science called bioinformation.
You have made no case from science whatsoever , just a claim that some people on an anti-God website made a statement.

An Israeli physicist, Dr. Lee M. Spetner in his book “Not By Chance” , reported that no mutation ever studied at the molecular level has ever been shown to not destroy genetic information let alone create it. It is bizarre to hear someone in this day and age deny the very existence of genetic information, might as well deny the holocaust or the very historicity of Jesus Christ.

I know of no biologist that denies that DNA is a media that carries genetic information , can you name one? Many claim information can arise by itself from matter but none can give an example.

There was a new law past protecting the privacy of something you claim does not exist. I would love to here you defend your claim, personally I think you are making it up as you go along, its just too far out to take very seriously.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-genetic-testing21-2009nov21,0,2687140.story

Marc Draco says:
October 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm

That’s still inductive reasoning based on a fallacious opening premise of false analogy: what we used to call: garbage in, garbage out.

DNA is only called a code to simplify the discussion – ask a few biologists Christian ones if you want – doesn’t matter to me.

I note you failed to respond, as you always do, to the complete fallacy of your random number generator and are dishonest as ever in your treatment of the infidels debate.

While Wikipedia is not 100% accurate, 100% of the time you might want to bone up a bit before quoting it for fear of being hoisted by your own petard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

One of which is actually linked from the page you’ve quoted.

So, now I’ve answered you, how about you face up to the basic errors of logic that apply to your random number model?

Face it Perry, your entire argument is based on a simple error – the sort of mistake that leads people to confuse a scientific theory with a personal one.

Pure semantics, but in this case the precise meaning counts.

Sweden says:
November 9, 2009 at 10:52 am

Hi Perry

His insistance that DNA is not a code goes completely contrary to everything those evolutionary scientists Yockey & Shapiro have said. In fact research in the genome studies would fail if such learned men dumped their own religious bigotry and prejudice into the mix.

Such irresponsible and ignorant comments are actually parroted by many scientists still. Take these rediculous comments just a little over a year ago from one of Richard Dawkin’s good buddies.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13839-comment-putting-evolution-theory-into-practice.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news2_head_dn13839

“Evolutionary Applications contains many more examples of the importance of applied evolution (content is free during 2008). All doctors, for instance, should read the summary of why understanding and applying evolution matters in medicine, written by Randolph Nesse at the University of Michigan.

Nesse says that progress is being hampered by the fact that many medics still think of the body as a machine designed by an engineer, when in fact it is a “bundle of compromises … designed to maximise reproduction, not health”.

There is no question about the importance of applied evolution. The trouble is, if biologists themselves are only just waking up to how relevant and crucial evolution can be, what hope is there of educating the leaders and policy makers who need to understand and act upon this research? Not much, I fear.”

So doctors are irresponsible for looking at the human body as a machine designed by an engineer ???

The Human body is nothing more than bundles compromises and lucky mistakes ???

I hope I never get a doctor who reasons this way. The last paragraph actually fully illustrates the motive when he discusses the need to educate leaders and policy makes. Bottom line: It’s not politically correct to believe in a designer.

As far as Evolutionary Applications ??? The world is loaded with numerous horrible historical accounts of where evolutionary applications were used in Eugenics, Apartied, Nazism’s Darwinian Social Engineering, Australian Aborignal genocide, etc. And it’s not something to be pointed at and claiming science is a wonderful ever evolving moving forward mechanism that is self-correcting. Sadly, James Watson a couple years back had these bold comments which reopened old wounds.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

” The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”. Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

One thing you have to give him credit for, if i can say this, he at least has the testosterone to openly state what other white European decent scientists only cowardly believe behind the scenes. Want Proof ???

Pick up any modern scientific text book or journal and look at the anthropological pictures and illustrations depicting an African being the transitional link between the white European and the apeman in the graph. Nothing has changed. Why are all these creatures, “Lucy” , “Ardi” , etc always featured with the features of the Negro from Africa , then ask yourself why there is still a huge chasm between whites and blacks in Africa. I use to argue this garbage with my college school mates in the 1970s, but still the bigotry persists.

Perry Marshall says:
October 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Marc,

If you object to Wikipedia then please go ahead and explain what error was made in the Wiki entry. Feel free to edit the entry if you wish.

The problem of induction simply means that induction cannot PROVE anything, it can only infer 100%.

We cannot prove that the law of gravity will hold up tomorrow. Or that the sun will come up or that entropy is correct. We only have 100% inference.

Science is not deductive, it is inductive, which is why most things in science are subject to the problem of induction. Science can actually PROVE very little, in the most formal sense of the word “prove.”

My theorem of design is subject to the same problem. In the grand scheme of things it is not airtight – there is always some possibility that there is some scientific law that explains the origin of information.

But as far as known scientific laws are concerned, the genetic code gives 100% inference to a designer and 0% inference to any other explanation. Inference to a designer is 100% scientific. At this time, all non-theological or chance explanations are non scientific.

Perry Marshall

Forrest Charnock says:
December 6, 2009 at 1:17 pm

The greatest surgeon on earth is a black man.

The Bible says we are created equal. I believe the reason Europe has prospered is because of Christianity, not race. Africa is full of animism and superstition and there lies the reason for their economic stagnation and the appearance of reduce abilities.

Now that Christianity is in decline , unless there is a huge revival, Europe will be a totally Muslim continent by 2050 if not sooner.

2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Comment Page 15 of 15« Oldest...«1112131415