Philisophy and entropy, deep thoughts.

[Anonymouse]

The more we know the less we understand

The more we know the more we understand we know nothing

The more we understand the less we know

The more we understand the more we understand we know nothing.

The more we know the more delicate we become. *ie: nuclear technology


*this is in refrence to chaos theory where knowlege and structure is positive entropy, and destruction and disorder is negitive entropy. in other words the more organized anything is the easier it becomes disorganized. another example is viri: the more people there are the easier a virus may spread. this is negitive entropy for us and positive entropy for the virus. the virus kills off more and more suitable host's until it's own survival becomes delicate and the pendulum swings back in the other direction.

[Nerwen Telemnar]

the more we know the less happy we are


in some cases, ignorance is bliss

[Anonymouse]

the more weed you smoke the less coherent you become

the more weed you smoke the the more you think you understand you know nothing.

[Anonymouse]

This message board is subject to entropy.

ie:

the more popular it becomes the fewer the percentage of cool and quality people and the more low quality people we are bombarded with.

[Anonymouse]

There is no time. there is only the instant which is now where everything exists. many theoretical phyisists believe there are at least 10 spacial dimensions. The illusion of time which we feel is simply our inability to percieve our enviornment because we percieve a simple 3 dimensional projection of the enviornment (even though we only see in 2 dimensions with depth).

In the highest dimension nothing ever changes. all movment occurs in lower dimensions which are just slices of the highest. the highest dimension is all nows for every time. our conciousness is just a complicated electronic circut that exists between two set values in a higher dimension with an infinite number of points in between which we experience as time.

http://www1.tip.nl/~t515027/hypercube.html

hypercube: a 4d cube is created by ataching a cube to every face of a center cube. in the 4th dimension all cubes are perfectly flush and identical. and no lines cross.




http://www.labyrinthina.com/hypercube.jpg


This is what I mean by sacred geometry. The 4th dimension exists at least conceptually and many physists argue that it exists at black holes and stars so dense that they warp spacetime.

a concivable metaphor for this phenomenon is like a bowling ball resting on a matress inhabited by 2 dimensional squares who cannot look up or down only in the plain of their existance. the matress flexes under the weight of the bowling ball. the 2D inhabitants of the matress cannot see the entire bowling ball unless they were right next to it because the matress is flexed down out of their 2d plane of vision all they can percieve of the bowling ball is the circle where the bowling ball is in contact with the matress and they feel the mystical attraction to the bowling ball (them sliding down the slope of the matress) which they can't explain.

in our case the mattres is the 3rd dimension and the black hole is the area of space which is streached out of our plane of vision. if we could touch the 4D structure at the center of a black hole it would appear to be a sphere to us. yet in reality it is a hypersphere projected into our plane of existance.

[Anonymouse]

Come on you dullards start participating. Is this thread above the intellectual grasp of some of the people here( clubbin, hyethug, titty )?

[clubbin714]

Excellent post Anonymouse

The dichotomy between a top down, order to chaos hierarchical
progression and a bottom up, order out of chaos, evolutionary process.
Obviously this contrast isn't original, in fact it's the basis of the
conflict between creationism and evolution.(The problem with
monotheism is that the absolute is basis, not apex, so the spiritual
absolute is the elemental essence of being, out of which we arose and
to which we will fall, not some entity from which we have descended
and to which we will return.)

I am saying that it is this hierarchical, top down, order to chaos
process that we think of as the passage of time, that is from the
order of the past to the chaos of the future. We see it as a line of
cause and effect because we judge it by what we know and assume that
eventually all will be known. As in the basic principle of physics is that if you know the details of the physics on the layers V(a) and
V(b), then from it you can extrapolate the physics on all intervening layers V(t) for t between a and b.

The flip side is that the more we so define ourselves, the more we
are thus limited and thus susceptible to the unexpected, or our own
weaknesses, just as bureaucracies become a burden to their original
purpose.In the objective sense, though, there's no change. The whole set of layers (V(t): a < t < b) is "already there" (which, itself, begs the question since "already" is a word that has temporal connotations), and is
just the 4-dimensional spacetime region V, itself.

The process, as in the factory, contains this motion. It isn't
moving itself. What distinguishes it is the fact that its direction is
reversed. Consider that Hawking described one of the arrows of time as
the expansion of the universe, yet all the constituent parts are
contracting.

Given that this process is contained, what is it contained by? It is
the parts that are concerned with this concept of history. For the
process, everything already exists in equilibrium, in the present.

Einstein saw that gravity collapsed everything to a point, so he felt
compelled to propose the cosmological constant. Whether this is
replaced by the big bang, or what the story is, reality seems to be
powered by vacuum fluctuations, either on the macro-cosmic scale, or
micro-cosmic.

So the order we perceive is that which is defined, hence to decay,
while the force of creation is the chaos out of which it rose. The
arrow of this process is toward the creative chaos. The arrow of that
created is toward decay.....

[Anonymouse]

Why did you have to copy and paste that?

[Anonymouse]

Darwinian evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

[clubbin714]

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
Evolution FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

[Anonymouse]

With regard to the 2nd law or the law of entropy, itsobserved, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the others." As Alduous Huxley defined it, "evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems to me axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true at a given time. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true. "

An excess inflow of "ordering energy" into the system from outside may cause it temporarily to grow and become more highly organized. Thus a child may grow into an adult, or men may build a structure. But each of these, and all other illustrations of apparent decrease in entropy, are only local and temporary. Negative entropy is required for its maintenance basically. A seed, fr example, being genetically complete, provides the negative entropy for the growth of a tree.

As far as the first law, that a constant amount of energy is maintained, all matter in the universe is some form of energy amnd the total amount of energy in the universe always remains constant and so energy itself is neither destroyed or created from nothing by any natural process. these laws state that any natural process would involve conservation (1st law) and disintegration (2nd law). Evolution demands "integration and development" and is therefore impossible and mathematically improbable.

as far as the validity of the laws go, "These laws are based upon more evidence than any other principles in science. They have been confirmed by countless thousands of experiments on systems ranging in size from the nuclear to the astronomic, and there is no known exception to either of them." as quoted by Richard Leaky, in Origins. Let it be known that the "urg" to evolve is not at all found in chemistry which is based on sound empirical verification.

Now if you want to seriously discuss evolution please follow the link to my thread that I started.

http://www.armenianclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137

[clubbin714]

If I wanted a serious discussion about evolution I would call my close friend Stephen Gould or maybe my former professor Dr. Sidney Liebes.

[Anonymouse]

Hahahahaha Stephen Gould? Stephen Jay Gould? The one who brought the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium'? HAHAHAHA YOU MORON HE PASSED AWAY!

I can't believe a charlatan of your magnitude is allowed to fester on these boards. It's painfully obvious to me you arent a serious chatter, your profile picture is fake, and you are a total contradiction. From here on you aren't going to be taken seriously.

[sSsflamesSs]

Question: At what point in time WAS he taken seriously???

[clubbin714]

My good friend sSsflamesSs is correct.

[sSsflamesSs]

I believe that I asked a question (with an obvious answer), and did not, under any circumstances, make any statements. So, my dearest, most precious friend, I am not correct or incorrect. :twisted:

[Anonymouse]

Logic always defeats stupidity.

[TVAdict710]

so that explains why i always lose.