News:

If you can't abuse it, it's not power.

Main Menu

In Re: Rev. Roger's Sermon #31

Started by the other anonymous, July 30, 2005, 07:40:59 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Irreverend Hugh, KSC

I didn't even know Roger had a pipe. Or a bandwagon. Damn. Why does he get to go to the circus and not us?

Very good ideas. It reminds me of "The Fabric of the Cosmos" cited above.
"Time for the tin-foil hats, girls and boys!"

LMNO

[Semantic Alert]

Your word "creation (1)" does not equal my word "creation (2)"

creation (1) means making more of the little bits which universe is made out of, from scratch, from nothing.

creation (2) means an intentional arrangement and combination of said bits in such a way that did not exist before in that space-time.

and so on, through your other definitions.

Sort of.  To sleepy to elaborate, but I have a feeling you get the idea.

[/Semantic Alert]

the other anonymous

Quote from: LMNO[Semantic Alert]

Your word "creation (1)" does not equal my word "creation (2)"

creation (1) means making more of the little bits which universe is made out of, from scratch, from nothing.

creation (2) means an intentional arrangement and combination of said bits in such a way that did not exist before in that space-time.

and so on, through your other definitions.

Sort of.  To sleepy to elaborate, but I have a feeling you get the idea.

[/Semantic Alert]

I get the idea, but you have failed to understand the subtlety of my definitions:

I define creation as the formation something which did not exist before, including "Order".

Your "creation(2)" is rearranging things to form a new Order.

But what you've failed to notice is that the Law of Conservation applies to "order(2)" in as much as there are a finite number of bits in the universe to arrange in certain ways. To "create(2)" one thing, something else must be "destroyed" to provide the necessary materials.

In other words, "creation(2)" is simply "creation(1)" as applied to emergent and apparent existence ("arrangement"). Remember: the hamburger does not exist; it is an illusion created by protons and electrons. ;)

LMNO

Not always:

Let's say I take a deck of playing cards, and I make a house of cards with it.  I have not "destroyed" the playing cards, but I have "created" the house of cards.

Then, let's say I take a picture of it with a digital camera.  I have not "destroyed" the house of cards, nor the cards themselves, but have "created" a picture, which could be considered "art"

Then, let's ay I reproduce and print the picture hundreds of times, to make an istallation exhibit based upon repitition.  I have now "created" another work of art, without "destroying" the original picture, the house of cards, or the cards themselves.

And it's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.

DJRubberducky

In the act of reproducing it, assuming it's onto paper, then you've participated in the destruction of a tree in order to make that paper.  That's the obvious one.

And I will argue that you *have* in fact destroyed the playing cards, because for as much time as they are your house of cards, they are not playing cards.

Also note that TOA only said that *something* had to be destroyed.  I could also say you've destroyed a section of empty space by building the house of cards in it, and you've destroyed the blank piece of paper by reproducing an image onto it.  The digital camera thing is a little more iffy, since one of the great things about digital cameras is that the images stored in them are ultimately temporary, but for the time that it's there, you've destroyed part of the camera's capacity to store images.

It isn't necessarily obvious to think of it in that way, since the destruction and creation are more or less simultaneous, but it can be broken down that way if one is sufficiently latched on to the notion of creation requiring destruction.
- DJRubberducky
Quote from: LMNODJ's post is sort of like those pills you drop into a glass of water, and they expand into a dinosaur, or something.

Black sheep are still sheep.

LMNO

If "creation" can be defined as the intentional re-ordering of things to achieve an aesthetic result, cold not then what you are calling "destruction" merely be part of that re-ordering process; therefore making destruction actually be creative?

DJRubberducky

I figured that was part of why you had the insight about the expanded chart. :D

(I was gonna phrase that as a question, but remembered I wasn't in that thread. :D)
- DJRubberducky
Quote from: LMNODJ's post is sort of like those pills you drop into a glass of water, and they expand into a dinosaur, or something.

Black sheep are still sheep.

LMNO

Indeed!

The New Chart explains All!


what?  oh, um...






The new chart explains some.  There.

Iron Sulfide

when we breed and live and grow and die all backwards, is it so strange
that an inability to admit fallibility in language is common?
Ya' stupid Yank.

LMNO

Quote from: N'yo B?©, Terrorist Zenjawhen we breed and live and grow and die all backwards, is it so strange
that an inability to admit fallibility in language is common?

Nope.


That's why we're here, discussing it.

the other anonymous

Okay, we're getting close!

DJRubberducky, you're right on the nose except for one thing: nothing digital is created or destroyed. Some zeros became ones and some ones became zeros. You need not "destroy" storage space to create an image since there is no actual creation of an image, merely flipping of bits.

Quote from: LMNOIf "creation" can be defined as the intentional re-ordering of things to achieve an aesthetic result, cold not then what you are calling "destruction" merely be part of that re-ordering process; therefore making destruction actually be creative?

Take it one step further. Right now, you can't see the forest because there are too many trees in the way. Allow me to rephrase:

If "creation" can be defined as changing the arrangement of things, then couldn't "destruction" be defined as changing of the arrangement of things?

"Creation" and "Destruction" are merely categories of "Change" (where "change" is the opposite of "stasis").

Now, the question is: is the categorization of "creation" and "destruction" based on reality or is it an illusion?

LMNO

We already know it's an illusion.

Cf: The Erisian/Anerisian illusions.

What the difference seems to be is intent.  And intent is subjective.

And all things change.  So it's up to us to keep the spin positive.

DJRubberducky

I don't like the use of the word "illusion" in your question, mostly because in my life it's picked up connotations of willful deception.  I would say instead that it's a perception, and that it's connected to the progression of time.  (If the word "illusion" is not thus sullied for you, feel free to keep using it.)

Let's say we start with a chunk of marble, and end up with a marble sculpture of an elephant.  Some artists may claim that the elephant was there the whole time ("...then carve away everything that doesn't look like an elephant"), but most of us saw the chunk as being there first, ergo we perceive that it was destroyed for the sake of creating the sculpture.

I think it's one of the laws of thermodynamics that says that there's really not such a thing as outright destruction or creation - it's merely reorganization.  But words like "creation" and "destruction" are usually adequate to describe our perceptions of what is transpiring, and when it comes down to it, our perceptions are the only thing we've got when it comes to trying to make sense of the world.

So while it's certainly fun to kick back and contemplate the fact that nothing is created or destroyed, or that the soft drink I'm about to buy from the vending machine is composed of atoms that are in turn composed of 99% empty space (and so are the can, and the machine, and the dollar which I'm spending, and my hand which is feeding that dollar into that machine), I spend the vast majority of my time interacting with the world through the model of Newtonian physics, because it's a more accurate description of what I *perceive*.  That can of soda may be 99% empty space, but the can feels solid to me and the soda feels liquid and gaseous to me.  Chaos theory is fun to think about (and I am truly blessed that I have enough comfort and leisure in my life that I can spend time thinking about it), but it doesn't manifest very much in my day-to-day experiences, so it's not my day-to-day reality model.
- DJRubberducky
Quote from: LMNODJ's post is sort of like those pills you drop into a glass of water, and they expand into a dinosaur, or something.

Black sheep are still sheep.

Iron Sulfide

QuoteI think it's one of the laws of thermodynamics that says that there's really not such a thing as outright destruction or creation - it's merely reorganization. But words like "creation" and "destruction" are usually adequate to describe our perceptions of what is transpiring, and when it comes down to it, our perceptions are the only thing we've got when it comes to trying to make sense of the world.
agreed there. (opinions may differ greatly, see side panel for details.)

(conservation of energy, i believe that 'law' is called.)

we can 'destroy' an object, but then it is still existent as a 'peice.'
we can then break apart it's molecules, but it still exists as atoms.
we can break apart the atoms, but it still exists in protons, neutrons
and electrons.
we can break those down, too, i'm sure, forever and ever (as long as we can
come up with a new name for what's smaller...i think 'quarks' was a recent
thing they called them, and now we have superstings.)

so that mode of creation/destruction is moot.

perceptual creation and destruction, though, are existent in the terms
of perception. even that is not True(tm) though. a buddhist or taoist or
similarly minded person would tell you that no such things are real.
when you see a bike get smashed, the bike's intended functionality is lost,
and even the image we ar acustomed to of the bike is lost, but even if
it is ground down into aluminum powder, it is not destroied. eastern thought
achieves this by- instead of calling the appearance of creation or destruction
an illusion- saying that our assigning a seperate identity for that group of
matter is the illusion. (it would be forced to follow that creation/destruction
from a perceptual point would be moot if no 'object' was concieved of
in the first place. instead, when the 'bike' is demolished, you would
effectively witness [in your mind] the rearranging of that matter..

Quote...it's certainly fun to kick back and contemplate the fact that nothing is created or destroyed, or that the soft drink I'm about to buy from the vending machine is composed of atoms that are in turn composed of 99% empty space

atoms are NOT 99% empty space, not even from a quantum approach.
what is said is that in the representational model of an atom devised by
neils bhor, the appearance is given that 99% of an atom is 'empty space.'
bhor's account of what an atom might or even probably looks like
was a simple model to demonstrate to lay people, mostly. vast amounts
of things were not taken into account when he described the model, or
it's funcionality as a convienient map, but not the territory. [i.e. bhor's
model fails to account for any activities occuring between (a) nucleus and
orbitals (electrons) such as electromagnetic or gravitational fields,
(b) energy exchanges between nucleus and orbitals (protons<~>electrons). if nothing existed between the nucleus and
the orbitals, the polarity would have no seperation...positive and negative
attract, remember?]

Quotebut it doesn't manifest very much in my day-to-day experiences, so it's not my day-to-day reality model.

it could be. ultimately the way we experience the reality around us is
to interpret data through our senses and a system of sense-ordering
programs (our beliefs, ideas, perception..) if your per ception is changed
then, ultimately, the way that you will interpret data will be changed and
the experience you have will be changed. none is better than the other,
though.
Ya' stupid Yank.

nurbldoff

I don't know what you mean by that "classical" physics is better tested than quantum physics, in fact quantum theories are extremely well tested and have been found to be entirely accurate down to the finest measurements possible today in lots of systems. Humanity has no other theory that is this accurate. The thing is, we know that quantum theory can't really be "correct" (if a theory can ever be correct; how would you know?), because there are certain conditions under which quantum theory no longer produces correct predictions (namely, gravity).

Classical physics have even bigger limitations; it only works for systems that approach the "everyday" scale where individual atoms don't matter and space doesn't have any appreciable curvature. Both QP and GR (general relativity) merge into CP (classical physics) when the system approaches this middle scale, QP from the small and GR from the large. But they don't *really* meet, which kind of falsifies all of them.

Also, thermodynamics, while considered "classical" physics, can be derived from statistical quantum mechanics. The thing to remember is that the laws of termodynamics are statistical, i.e. probabilistic. It's just that "everyday" systems are so large that their behaviour becomes, for most intents and purposes, deterministic.
Nature is the great teacher. Who is the principal?