The Freedom of Choice

Discussion on technology and how it could be used to assist spiritual development and NOT enslave us. This includes technology that will help us live in harmony with Nature (e.g.: "Lifter" technologies that could replace the petrol driven engine). Also, discussion of past and current scientific thought so that gems are not buried in the sands of time, and spiritual progress through science is achieved.

Moderator: Moderators

Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

The Freedom of Choice

Post: # 1635Post Meedan »

Here, we can post any comments about or problems/issues with "The Freedom Of Choice", its logic, structure, correlation to Thiaoouba Prophecy, etc...

If we ever have problems with a topic as important as this, it is vital that we try to resolve them, and not leave them. In this case, the problem may be with us, rather than with TFOC.



Note: Nobody can KNOW anything, since there can always be doubt. Perhaps this is all just an illusion, someone is playing this reality into my/our senses. Perhaps that someone even controls our reason, dictating what we find logical. There can always be doubt. The best we can do is have well-justified beliefs, and hope that our logic is correct. Let us hope that 1 + 1 = 2. We have to remember, then, that everything is possible. This is why we make use of terms like 'infinitesimally small' probabilities. (We can start a different thread if someone disagrees with something there.)

TFOC uses reason, more specifically the reasoning and logic of the reader. It is about what makes the most sense to the reader, and what seems to be most likely. So bear in mind that we will not find any indubitable, certain truths in TFOC.
Last edited by Meedan on Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
With Love
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1636Post Meedan »

On Page 7 we have the premise "It is MUCH easier to make a house than create Life."

'Easier to make' sounds too specific to humans. We don't know how to create Life, so pragmatically speaking, we can't say that it is any harder than building a house. However, I choose to interpret this as more an issue of complexity.
"Life is more complex than a house."

"A house cannot build itself."

Therefore

"Life cannot build itself."
Does anyone see any problems with this logic? I am not sure.

I do see a need for further clarification of 'Life', though. To try to further qualify the premise, I use the 'simplest known form of life'.
"The simplest known form of life is more complex than a house."

"A house cannot emerge unaided."

Therefore

"Life cannot emerge unaided."
Are there any problems with this?

Out of interest, I think the simplest known form of life is the Mycoplasma genitalium. Still very complex, obviously. 8)
With Love
User avatar
bomohwkl
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 4:56 pm

Post: # 1638Post bomohwkl »

'Easier to make' sounds too specific to humans? So, does it sounds speciffic to apes, monkeys, tigers? Or do you mean aliens? Any intelligent life-form? It seems that the Great Thora is the only person capable to generating a new physical body for other thiaoubians for thier mission.
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1639Post Meedan »

If I was going to assume that TP is true, I wouldn't have taken the time to further qualify my statements and get them as accurate as I can. You'll see that I am playing devil's advocate and being as sceptical as is reasonable. This also means that I have to think a bit more objectively. "Easier to make" is a subjective statement, it begs the question 'easier for who to make? perhaps nature can create it easily'. My interpretation does more to avoid this.
With Love
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1669Post Meedan »

"The simplest known form of life is more complex than a house."

"A house cannot emerge unaided."

Therefore

"Life cannot emerge unaided."
Looking at this again, I think this is inductive reasoning rather than deductive. This is because there is no proven, definite link between an object's complexity and its ability to emerge unaided.

From observation about this universe, we say that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to emerge unaided. Indeed, we have never seen anything to the contrary. So, how strong/reliable is the quote above?
With Love
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1758Post Meedan »

Ok, I've looked at this argument for a long time.

Tom makes two mistakes. The first is that he confuses the very different phrases 'easier to create', and 'create itself'. Secondly, we have never seen anything create itself. Nothing creates itself. Therefore we have no justification whatsoever for assuming that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to create itself.

So, I finally conclude that the argument is wrong.
With Love
User avatar
bomohwkl
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 4:56 pm

Post: # 1759Post bomohwkl »

Tom makes two mistakes. The first is that he confuses the very different phrases 'easier to create', and 'create itself'. Secondly, we have never seen anything create itself. Nothing creates itself. Therefore we have no justification whatsoever for assuming that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to create itself.
From a normal human perspective, people think that randomness can create something more complex out of something completely random.
Therefore, Tom uses
What is easier:
to make a house
or
bring a dead body to Life?
In other words, is it easier to create a house or create Life?
It is MUCH easier to make a house than create Life.
At least to throw doubt on people how can life can be created out of randomness and yet we haven't seen a house create out of randomness. Can computer generate a book of literature by random letters? Probably a computer can write a short sentence by randomly generating letters.
Therefore we have no justification whatsoever for assuming that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to create itself.
I think Tom never ever say that. Tom says that more complex it is the less likely that it create itself. I would say, the more complex and yet functional the less likely that it is generated from randomness. Yet this is not an assumption. But I do think that Tom should put emphasis on randomness. It is inderectly imply in
Can we determine exactly what is the CHANCE of a house
building itself?
From our experience, we have to conclude, that a house cannot
just build itself. The probability of a house creating itself is
ZERO. 1 You may say that this probability is infinitesimally small and it is not quite zero. In this case, let's focus on the scenario that is an infinite number of times more probable.
that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to create itself.
We cannot mathematically quantify it. So the phrase inversely proportional is inappropriate.
ability to create itself is not equal to or confused with the likelihood to create itself from randomness.
complexity might be insufficient. Complexity, functionality and beauty could be the better choices.
You need to understand the keywords. Answering exam questions, the examiner always look at the keywords. Have I show you how to study for exams?
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1764Post Meedan »

bomohwkl wrote:Tom says that more complex it is the less likely that it create itself.
Exactly, but we haven't seen anything create itself so it is incorrect to think this.
Can computer generate a book of literature by random letters?

Certainly. If 'shakespeare' is the aim ("fitness"), then a computer can generate a work of shakespeare in minutes. The computer randomly selects letters, if any letter matches what would be in the book, it will keep that letter and proceed on to the others. Quickly getting all of the letters correct. The point is that evolutionists don't think life was created purely out of 'randomness'. We could call this 'shakespeare selection'. (A better example would be one with numbers though.)

So, am I right in thinking that you would prefer something like this:
Life is more complex and functional than a house.

A house cannot be generated from randomness.

Therefore

Life cannot be generated from randomness.
This is slightly better logic than Tom's. In fact, everyone would agree with the conclusion here, including evolutionists. The reason for this is that nobody is saying that life is generated from randomness.

Learn about the concept of 'natural selection' and 'fitness' if you don't understand this.
Last edited by Meedan on Sat Nov 27, 2004 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
With Love
User avatar
bomohwkl
Posts: 741
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 4:56 pm

Post: # 1768Post bomohwkl »

also note that something which is useful has to be IMAGINED in the mind. Look at our technology!
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1919Post Meedan »

Have I explained it clearly now Bomo? I'm willing to explain again, if you still don't know the problem.
Meedan wrote:Ok, I've looked at this argument for a long time.

Tom makes two mistakes. The first is that he confuses the very different phrases 'easier to create', and 'create itself'. Secondly, we have never seen anything create itself. Nothing creates itself. Therefore we have no justification whatsoever for assuming that complexity is inversely proportional to ability to create itself.

So, I finally conclude that the argument is wrong.
So, Tom's claim that the logic in his book can "withstand the highest scientific scrutiny" has been shown to be wrong, anyone else agree?

(I know, I know, Vesko, you noticed this ages ago :lol: )
With Love
Vesko
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:13 pm

Post: # 1920Post Vesko »

It was not ages ago, Meedan. True, I had my suspicions but it was your post in "Evidence of Design in the Universe" that lead me to the conclusion, which in turn you then fully realized, too -- tell me if I'm wrong. So you were a catalyst :)
Do you REALLY practice meditation? If your REALLY do, do you practice a GOOD method? Are you sure this is REALLY so?
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1924Post Meedan »

Woh, What you said in that post inspired me to conclude this, and what I said in that same post inspired you to conclude this, even though there were seperate lines of thought in reaching the conclusion. :shock:

I've just got to think of a phrase for that, ummm 'catalytic reciprocation'? :lol:
With Love
Vesko
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:13 pm

Post: # 1925Post Vesko »

Right :).
Do you REALLY practice meditation? If your REALLY do, do you practice a GOOD method? Are you sure this is REALLY so?
Meedan
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 6:05 pm
Location: UK

Post: # 1926Post Meedan »

So now it's my job to put the case for the same conclusion being true of Thiaoouba Prophecy, or at least put counter-points occasionally. Remember, it's what you said that led me here. :lol:
With Love
User avatar
ET-1
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:46 pm

Meedan Re: The Freedom of Choice

Post: # 11994Post ET-1 »

Meedan,

Last time I asked the following question I sort of got into hot water with someone and hope that here it will be different...

How do you in fact know that "Nobody can KNOW anything"?

Those that hold that 'there are no absolute truths' have a paradox on their hands for they resort to an absolute truth that denies its veracity... similar to a relativists who in rejecting the absolutist way invalidate the relativist way and in embracing the absolutist way invalidate the relativists way... besides the absolutist can alway choose to become a relativist and absolutist at the same time.

I believe that actually some can know things... though it may be impossible, and irrelevant to prove prove them.

namaste
Post Reply