Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cypress

  1. I watched about 3/4 of it. Nothing stood out as inaccurate as far as I could see, but, as expected from a documentary, the information and explanations are one-sided. It is also a bit out of date as others have noted. It is not a balanced presentation of the facts, but if you were to go looking for all the facts, this would not be a terrible choice for a slightly dated view of the sceptic only position. If you were able to obtain a discussion from the warmists view on these same topics you may be able to make some informed inferences.
  2. How so? While there is no known way to test the idea that the material brain causes the mind, the concept of dualism is a scientific area of research with testable activity ongoing. True and these researchers are making use of this process. Why should it be outside of science? Seeding from alien intelligence is one testable scientific area of study consistent with this thread just as John noted previously.
  3. As the article noted, there has been reasonable arguments offered that Maxwell's Demon would not violate thermal entropy laws, but my understanding of the resolution is that it would require at least an equal amount of energy to acquire the information and operate the demon. This experiment indicates that a device may be able to raise potential without imparting equal or more energy into the particle as the researchers state, but they do not address the energy cost of acquiring the particle data, processing the inputs into information and operating the demon in the process. Furthermore the paper says that information is converted into energy but was unclear on how was the information destroyed. On this basis I have some questions. Could you describe for me the source of the energy used to acquire the information and operate the feedback controller? How much energy was used to construct the apparatus? How long must it operated to recover this energy investment? Will it ever recover this energy cost? What was the total decrease in information in this system? How did it occur? These questions not withstanding, my question dealt with conversion of information entropy to thermal entropy, while this experiment seems to address a slightly different notion of conversion of information to energy. If the experiment acquires and then destroys information, what is the net information entropy change in that cycle? Wouldn't it be zero? If not, what was the net change in thermal entropy and information entropy? What about after including the demon?
  4. If there is no one to defend it, I don't see why not. It has been objectively established that information is stored and recalled from the brain, but it is not established that information is generated in the brain. It is believed that information is generated by the mind but it is not known if the mind is a manifestation of the material brain or not. It is not testable. This is a joint problem. It has not been established that the mind is separate from the material brain but it is also not established that the mind is a manifestation of the material brain alone. I will return to your comments in your previous post next chance I have.
  5. There is a difference though between something that is unknown by a particular set of postulated processes and not possible by citation to a particular set of postulated processes. When someone suggests that it may yet be possible to extract warm water from the ocean, extract heat energy from it and deposit the colder water back into the ocean and use that heat as the sole source of power, most scientifically trained persons would respond that thermal entropy laws prevent what you describe from occurring. Should this person accuse us of taking a God of the Gaps approach? My argument is that entropy laws apply to order of all kinds, when acted on by random and deterministic processes alone. Biopolymers are very long irregular sequences that are independent of the chemic properties. Though they are irregular, they are also very specific sequences in that they fit in a rare set of sequences that form biologically active tertiary structures amongst a huge number of permutations and thus represent very low relative molecular and information entropy and cannot be formed by random and deterministic processes except by importing pre-existing order. My argument is the same argument used against the heat engine above. Several have pointed out that biological systems increase thermal entropy continuously and this is the source of molecular and information order. I may be wrong, but thus far it has not been demonstrated that thermal order substitutes for molecular and information order. Perhaps our friend with the heat engine above will argue that information order can substitute for the thermal order his machine lacks.
  6. You can create an activity series from this data by understanding what a metal activity series is. Did you know that in electro chemistry element to ion oxidation reduction reactions follow an order from most active lithium to least active gold? This means that the lesser active metal ion will oxidize a more active elemental metal. From this, and the data, you should be able to construct an activity series from each of the two result sets. If one of the two activity series is internally inconsistent then that data set must be wrong. If they are both internally consistent but one does not match the activity series posted online or in your chemistry text then the one that does not match is wrong.
  7. You indicated the cost of operating an electric car now is lower than a gasoline car, not the group of the less efficient gasoline cars. The Prius is the most comparable gasoline car to the Volt. I have not move the goal post, but I am quite certain you have. Use the calculator it returns results that are very similar to mine. Use 48-51 mpg $2.00 gas .36 KW-hr/mi $0.12 KW-hr. Adjust the operating costs to be more realistic. leave the efficiencies as is or move them slightly lower to be more realistic. If one consults my entire paragraph so my words are in context, it is clearer that I was addressing the entire energy market outside the US. Two countries is not a cross section of the energy market outside the US. I have not deviated from that intended meaning. You said, "Electricity is cheaper than gasoline for operating cars, for example". In context, operating cars is a significant modifier. Operating cars with electricity as the primary source is cheaper than operating cars with gasoline is actually a more reasonable way to interpret your words.
  8. OK, I'll begin in my next post to demonstrate where experimental evidence supported by population genetic modeling illustrates the problem. Perhaps you will be able to offer evidence that overcomes the obstacles I raise. Is we proceed you can bring in the objections you summarized in your post. Reasonable scientific evidence, yes, philosophical arguments, no. Since they are not here to make their case, you will have to make it for them or agree to drop this line from your argument. Then yours is a philosophical argument. We should stick to evidence. To posit that all observed diversity is a result of evolutionary processes is a grand claim, some say it is an incredible claim. I think I have some small understanding of the complexity of the task these bombastic individuals embraced. In science one should take care when making claims they can't demonstrate. There are a lot of researchers looking into what is going on. Others are summarizing and debating what the research means. I think we are in the debate. Ok I'll address this now. Arguments based on reason alone generally take place in philosophy. I have asked for evidence and demonstration. What you described from neuroscience could be processing and storage of information as opposed to generation of the information. In computers, thermal and electrical energy is used to process and store information, but the information itself is derived and inserted by the program and systems design which come from the designer. What objective process has been offered to determine if it is the material brain alone generating information from energy? The trouble with using biological systems to attempt to argue the ability of material only processes is that it has not been demonstrably established that biological systems have material as the sole source. I don't think you are stupid, or I would likely not respond to your post at all. People see in things what they want to see. It is a form of conformational bias. "It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.", George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology, 1965 "The theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.", Gavin R. de Beer, Embryos and Ancestors, 1951 "Surely the biogenic law is as dead as a doornail.", Keith Stewart Thomson, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated," American Scientist, May-June 1988
  9. I'm sorry ProcuratorIncendia, The links are interesting, but I don't see anything relevant in your post requiring a response. If you were to address the issues I raised directly with an explanation and use the links for support, it would be more helpful. Having now had a chance to review this article I am not sure if there is any significance to the fact that di and tri-peptides can be formed in oxygen free water in the presence of Carbonyl Sulphide and other specific additives. I don't see how this addresses any of the issues I raised here. Could you explain your line of thinking on this issue more clearly? In your summary you described these di and tri peptides as "complex" but surely they are not on the same level as the biologically active polymers including proteins, RNA and DNA of which I referred. How do we justify the extension of tri-peptides to several thousand and in some cases hundreds of thousands of units long? I'll address the other two articles later.
  10. Gasoline hybrids like the comparable Prius are more efficient in city than the number I previously used. The Prius gets 51 mpg on city streets, so gasoline mileage basis should be raised further. Here is a handy online calculator. It gets results very similar to the ones I previously calculated. Obviously fossil fuel won't last forever, but that was not the point to which I objected. The time it takes to build an energy infrastructure was also not an objection of mine. You characterized energy production outside the US as undergoing a "massive overhaul" (your words), and then you offered Germany and Spain as your sole evidence. I did not mischaracterize your evidence I simply read it back to you. Spain's solar initiative seems to be in crisis though so the story is mixed even for what I assume is your best example of countries investing themselves in alternative energy. But your claim was that for operating cars, electric power is cheaper now, but when all costs are considered, and full accounting of actual cost is made (regardless of who pays the cost), the statement is incorrect.
  11. There does seem to be a modest consensus opinion among those trained in science that they believe diversity occurred by evolutionary processes but I am not sure there is a consensus that the processes are scientifically validated to produce all observed biological diversity. Most scientists when questioned, admit that the known processes are not. You are trained in chemistry, what are you willing to admit? In the 1920's -1930's eugenics was the scientific consensus. That concept went horribly wrong in the late 30's and 40's. I don't think it is wise to judge correctness of reasoning by consensus, do you? Yes I will. I believe your post is thoughtful and the references are worth comment. I will return to them when I have a chance to review them carefully. I appreciate any time you might allow.
  12. When transportation or road (use) taxes are included as I have done in my US example, it helps make electricity appear more competitive as you have noted. I should have backed them out, since taxes would be applied to electricity for transportation use as well. Thanks for pointing out my error. When I back out use tax, I get electricity at about 130% more expensive. In the future relative energy costs will change no doubt, but this discussion is about today. The efforts of two counties hardly rises to the description of "massive overhaul". I would describe it more as a drop in a bucket. When outside the US, the percentage of total energy generated by fossil fuel has dropped by 5-10%, I would call that the beginning of an overhaul. When we use a automobile that is an apple to apples comparison its not so attractive. A Prius is technologically performance and space wise similar to the Chevy volt but costs about $15,000 less to purchase. At 48 mpg and and removing highway use tax we get $2.00 per gallon (If the government decides to subsidize electric cars by not adding road tax, that is fine, but it is an artificial savings). Using $0.12 per KW-hr and 360 W-hr/mile I get the Prius at 30% less expensive to operate not including the tremendous additional initial outlay and it is turtles all the way down for the electric car. Anybody wanting to replace their standard car now with something more efficient, should purchase a hybrid and continue to use gasoline as the primary power source.
  13. I don't think my time scale is off, though I have not spoken much about it in threads where you participated. I do agree selectable mutations are rare (research seems to confirm this) and I agree that multi-component structures require multiple neutral, unfavorable and selectable mutations by known evolutionary processes (also confirmed by research). Finally, I agree that time allows for additional probabilistic resources to provide opportunities for rare combinations to occur. However, there are two problems with making an appeal for more time. The first issue is that evolutionary processes are also constrained by time. The geologic clock provides standard measures of the time available for these events to occur. Humans and chimps are posited to have evolved from an ape-like ancestor around 7 million years ago. Whales from a land dwelling mammal over a period of 10 million years about 50 million years ago. Both of these transformations are thought to require many thousands of substantive simultaneous or near simultaneous (even if interdependent) evolutionary pathways of tens and hundreds of steps (neutral, detrimental and selectable) based on observed and presumed genetic differences. Do you agree with these estimates and timelines? If you do do you begin to see the issue? I will contend that even a few million years is not enough time based on the measured progression of known evolutionary processes. If you don't agree with let's take some time to agree on these points before proceeding. Thank-you for that, acknowledgment is rare at this site. I don't do it as often as I would like. Ok we can investigate this hypothesis as well to see if it has observable support at the level where you posit these transfers are supposed to occur. Antibody binding sites are not derived by evolutionary mechanism though as I mentioned before. To extend it as an analog for evolutionary processes is flawed. It is an interesting study of antibody to peptide binding selectivity and may well have application in immunology but I don't find this relevant to the question we are discussing. They may be interesting examples of protein interactions but the processes by which these binding sites are formed are not good analogs of evolutionary processes. First of all I reject your supposition because it follows from evolutionary theory that properly ordered backward pathways must result in organisms that are reproductively competitive in some way, but still, surely you don't believe that all or even most pathways from the recent past as short as 4 or 5 steps should be lost. I will come back to this topic as it is my second issue and we may have better dialog if we stick to one at a time. Biological systems contain with them pre-existing information encoded in the DNA sufficient to account for growth, development, management of cell function and reproduction and do so without any apparent net decrease in entropy. The issue comes in when one posits that new forms are derived by increasing the order and content of older forms. I don't see how embryonic development is an analog for posited evolutionary progression, it certainly does not duplicate or follow any genetic mutation pathway. Your claim above that these past pathways are lost certainly contradicts this new posit.
  14. Your answer addressed thermal entropy only. You did not demonstrate that the net increase in thermal entropy offsets net decreases in molecular and information entropy, so you answer is either incomplete or incorrect. Can you validate a irreversible thermal cycle (one with a net increase in thermal entropy) drives/results in an net increase in molecular and information order? The claim that evolution accounts for some of the observable adaptations amongst the population within a species is accepted but it is not the topic. How is the posit that evolutionary processes account for observed diversity substantially different by describing it as if it were a conclusion? If it is a conclusion, should we then call it speculation or presupposition since it is not verified? With gravity the observed trajectories confirm the claim, or conclusion, if you prefer that word, that an attractive force draws all mass together. With evolutionary theory there are no observations that confirm known processes generate all biological diversity. This tread addresses the absence of evidence for all biological diversity by known evolutionary processes. That is the common meaning when one accuses another of making a "God of the Gaps" argument.
  15. No, I believe I am being consistent. No, it is significant in that my examples were of systems that contain functional information (the milling machine for example) to avoid having to endlessly discuss random strings of noise that were adequate to use in testing communication systems but are not suitable for this context. Biological systems require an information blueprint to replicate and to manage and control cell processes. The information is necessary.
  16. Really? I don't see any evidence that CO2 mitigation will experience productivity gains that will offset the large increases in energy costs that will occur with a switch away from petroleum for transportation. I'm not seeing any major overhaul of economies outside the US. China and India are building coal fired plants at an incredible rate. The net change in CO2 production outside the US is barely noticeable. It would be hard to argue it is an overhaul. I would like to see the calculations for this. If we compare similar performing vehicles I get the gasoline car at 42 miles per gallon and the electric car at .6 KW-hr/mile. Using Gas at $2.60 per gallon ( I paid $2.57 today) and electricity at $0.18 /KW-hr (I just looked at my bill), I get electric at about twice as expensive as gasoline.
  17. I am sorry to say that you misinterpreted what I said in #219. First of all I have not referenced "original intent" and have not been concerned with it. Now you too are changing my words and meanings. In #219, I was referring to Mr. Skeptic's use of the word intent as distinct from my use and commented further on his use of it and the difficulty with that use. Cumulative change is derived using calculus. As I noted before, absolute values for entropy are not required to derive cumulative change. Surely you are aware of this, as it is common practice. Since information formulas require an understanding of the probability of the described outcomes, I'm not sure where you are going with your concerns as the considerations you describe don't seem to figure into measures of total information content and information entropy. Quite frankly, I don't see any relevance to your questions. I don't see the contradiction and I believe I have used the term functional and information in an appropriate sense and with proper equations but unlike the article you identified, I have not attempted to isolate functional information alone and measure the information content according to a single specified function. I feel I am being quite precise in that my argument is concerned with the total change in information entropy as a result of deriving a system that also contains functional information. My specific argument does not rest on measurement of the amount of functional information alone. Since my argument is not limited to a single function or even just the functional information, I am having difficulty understanding why you are so focused on it. I would prefer you address the issue I raised which is the change in information entropy that must occur in generating new and additional information and most importantly the source of the increased order that must come into the system or pre-exist in the system. My argument is about all the information and the order contained within the system and the inputs and outputs. I continue to be interested in your complaint about my use of the words function and functional information, but if you will be more clear and precise about your issue, I can address that specific point. If you could describe from evolutionary theory the source of all forms of order that allows for the decrease in system entropy after all inputs and outputs are concerned I would be grateful.
  18. They don't arise by observed evolutionary processes and I think they don't because the observed processes lack the necessary capability to derive the information required to facilitate change at this scale. Other more capable processes seem to be required. I do not know if some unknown natural processes can or can't generate these systems but thus far, no natural system has been observed with this capability. The research offered did not address natural selection. All selection in the research was done by the researchers. If you meant that natural selection is known to select for alterations in the biologically active peptides, then I would not disagree since it is established that natural selection is capable of adapting existing function to environmental changes. If you are suggesting that natural selection acts on biologically active peptides to form components of the complex multicomponent protein systems, I would be suspicious of that claim. If I understood the paper correctly, the substitutions were made to the peptide sequences but the antibody binding sites remained unchanged. However what I intended to say was that because the research involved an antibody and because antibodies are derived by processes that are not similar to evolutionary processes, the antibody is not a good analog to gene derived protein binding sites. Yours is the traditional description of evolutionary progression which require stepwise pathways where the forward steps are advantageous over the previous steps given the environmental conditions in place when each step occurs and propagates. But if this were the case, then we should have observed several short 5-10 step evolutionary pathways in the 70 year search, and more to the point, researchers should be able to reverse engineer multitudes of these past pathways. I'm not so sure. Devices that violate entropy laws also lack evidence that they function as described and those who promote them make this same argument on the basis that one cannot disprove the claim since improbable events can occur. In the evolutionary narrative, natural selection is ascribed capabilities similar to that of Maxwell's Demon. It is assigned a fitness function that slopes smoothly upward but no one ever bothers to explain what physical law allowed for this specific shape of function that allows it to override entropy laws as applied to order of all kinds. Describing the alterations as an evolutionary pathway with selectable steps is incorrect since the antibody - peptide pairings do not appear to be biologically active and seem to be artifacts of the the research. Im fine with the idea of neutral steps in an evolutionary pathway but I don't know of any examples of snapshots of evolutionary progression as you have described. This article is interesting but it is clearly not an example of an evolutionary pathway.
  19. Your example is hypothetical, were it an actualized or real example, would we know or even need to know the intent of the designer in order to calculate information content? Would it matter what the designer's intent was? I don't see any component in the formulas for intent. The measure of information does not seem to be a function of designer's intent. Determining every possible (energy, molecular, or information) state or outcome and then comparing the set of states that contains the current state but are otherwise probabilistically indeterminate from the current state to all the possibilities is perhaps one method of calculating the absolute value of entropy and then from that calculating the measure of absolute internal energy or molecular configuration or information, but I am not convinced that it is the only method. As you noted, the absolute entropy of a system is very difficult to determine, thus it is more useful to discuss changes in information entropy and changes in information. Should we say that entropy is not a useful concept since we don't know the absolute value of entropy in the universe? Clearly this is not the approach that is being taken. I am surprised to learn that you don't understand what it means for a system to be functional vs. damaged or have diminished function. This question was raised before and answered. The answer resulted in Skeptic's attempt to change the meaning of my use of the word intent. But I am having difficulty understanding the relevance of the line of question in the first place. The information formulas do not contain a variable for degree of function so I am your critical approach makes no sense. It seems more of a diversion from the primary issue which is change in information entropy at the system level. Damage or improvement to function only enters (indirectly) into the the measure if the change that results in damage or improvement represent changes in the probability of the set of outcomes that includes the actualized outcome, but since it is the probability that is important and not the degree of function of this outcome set, we need not consider degree of function. Random noise introduced into a closed ordered systems (including information sets) when integrated over the number of interactions, results in reduction in order and an increase in probability of the set of indistinguishable states. This is the very meaning of the entropy law. The only known ways to increase order of a system is to introduce additional order into the system or remove disorder from the system. Since function is not a component of the equations, as I described above, it seems irrelevant to the issue. Anyone can but it will make no difference. Physical laws simply don't care who defines what, they are what they are. The total amount of information is equal to the amount of information regardless of its kind. As described above there seems to be no need to split it out in order to make my point about entropy laws as applied to all order in this universe including information and molecular order.
  20. What about the energy required to generate the mass of the universe and to displace the volume that the universe displaces? The energy balance seems to consider gravitation and kinetic energy but I don't see an accounting of internal energy (enthalpy).
  21. I would also be interested in your response to this question I posed to you earlier.
  22. Information that simultaneously describes multiple outcomes or states is more informative than information that describes only one by virtue of the formula. Your example of functional information that also describes poetry contains more information than an alternate instruction set that describes the milling machine outcome. Previously offered. Here it is once again. Information is a description of state or outcome. The amount of information, I = -logP where P is the probability of the set of outcomes or states described by the information. The formula is unchanged regardless of the kind of information being measured. We have done and continue to do several experiments to confirm that the theory of gravity explains observed trajectories, and every time the experiment is done properly, the theory is confirmed. Near my home is a Gravitational Wave Observatory. It has existed for about 20 years now. The purpose is to confirm the presence of gravitational waves as predicted by the modern theory of general relativity as applied to gravity. Thus far they have not succeeded. The theory of gravity does make grand claims and but it's grandest claims are confirmed while some of the implications are still yet to be understood. Evolution, the idea that idea that all biological diversity is explained by evolutionary theory, its fundamental premise, the basic idea, has yet to be demonstrated, and this is very different than the case of gravitational theory who's basic idea is confirmed, and is in fact confirmed daily by students across the world. You are changing my argument and committing a logical fallacy, which is unusual for you. I am not saying that because evolution has not been confirmed therefore there is a creator who made life and caused all diversity. Is there something wrong with admitting where we are at with a theory,and on that basis, suggest that other avenues be explored? If on the other hand I am wrong and there have been numerous four and greater step evolutionary pathways verified, I would like to review them. If someone has verified that material processes alone acting on a system do generate higher molecular and information order as measured by probability and entropy when inputs and outputs are considered (sorry pioneer, crystals are not examples of this, I bet if you went through the equations you would see why) I would be interested in that verification also. When a backyard engineer offers a design for an engine that violates entropy laws as applied to thermodynamics, we dismiss him, we don't say, "wait perhaps some day he will show how entropy laws don't apply to his device", but when the subject is molecular order and the information encoded into the sequences of molecules unencumbered by the deterministic nature of chemical bonding affinities many here wish to give the idea that formation of these sequences can occur spontaneously over time by natural processes without due consideration or even an inkling of source for the massive increase in molecular and information order, a pass. They want to imagine that thermodynamic order, the distribution of energy among the discrete states can magically be substituted for molecular order, the distribution of molecules among spacial dimension, or information order, the distribution of syntactical characters amongst the discrete set of characters containing the information, but they don't want to have to demonstrate that it is acualized.
  23. I have provided adequate definitions for functional information by way of formulas, descriptions, and examples and I described what I intended when I chose the word intent. The fact that Skeptic chose a meaning other than I intended is on him to explain. I predict skeptic will continue to shirk the responsibility, but to insist that I prove a claim I that was thrust upon me by a poster who chose a different meaning seems silly. Skeptic made the claim that function does not require intent and I called him on it. He will, in all likelihood, not answer the call but instead continue to shift the burden to others or change up what he meant by intent as he did in his most recent post. The real issue is that Evolutionary theory makes an incredible grand claim that it explains all of biological diversity and the reality is that advocates of the theory, despite the hundred and fifty plus years attempting to do so, are unable to demonstrate this grand claim. Others are fond of pointing out that incredible claims require incredible evidence and this evidence seems to be missing. Help me understand the precise question you have. Provide me more information so I can narrow down my search. Help me focus on the precise issue rather than all of the possible issues that exist. Show me where you don't get that an an instruction manual or the programming in a computer control system are examples of functional information, whereas a weather report eliminates alternatives, and is therefore information, but it is not directly functional. With good understanding of your specific issue I may be able to help you.
  24. cypress

    Spin Motion

    We believe that electrons have a spin moment because empirical measurements indicate that the electron has an intrinsic angular momentum and an intrinsic magnetic field. What is not known is the precise cause of these intrinsic properties. Magnetism of a substance seems to be the result of alignment of the angular moments of the electrons that are unmatched by electrons with an opposite "spin". One popular explanation is that the electron's mass and spin have an electromagnetic origin. If the spin has electromagnetism as its origin, then we could say that spin is a result of the angular momentum of the electromagnetic field. Furthermore the electron would be the smallest magnet. if the electron is an electromagnetic field with an angular moment (as opposed to a photon which seems to be a traveling electromagnetic field) and has apparent mass due perhaps to its standing nature, if the angular moment stops, it would cease to be an electron.
  25. The discussion regarding intent was independent of the broader thread context which as you noted is Evolution has never been observed. My contention that evolution (the idea that evolutionary processes account for all observed biological diversity) has not been established, is the what I need to support. Skeptic on the other hand claimed that function does not require intent. He offered no support for his claim and I'm fairly certain that he never will. Only to illustrate the challenge skeptic is facing with his speculation, did I responded as I did. I am quite willing to support the claims I make including that evolutionary theory has not been demonstrated. Two of the many issues that have been described here are one, the incongruence evolutionary theory has with the wider sense of entropy laws and the tendency to disorder of all physical systems under the influence of random processes for all kinds of order when inputs and outputs are included, and two, the fact that evolutionary pathways greater than 3 steps have not been confirmed despite the rigorous experimental attempts to discover them and the fact that if the theory is correct as posited, there would have to be millions and millions of pathways many thousands of steps in length.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.