Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

perrymiller821

Member
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. perrymiller821

    Meaning in Science

    All I need for the point of my argument is that there is no verifiable premise of evolution. Evolution as an idea had to have a beginning, so there must be a premise somewhere. How many universities fully discuss this premise, account for all the possibilities we know of, and try to get close to truth? On the other hand, how many universities mention it briefly in a five minute segue leading to a masters degree in evolutionary psychology? To me, proving this premise to be possible is the most important aspect of evolution which could lead to an actual science. So, why not pursue that in earnest? Here are some prerequisites for the existence of biology. Immeasurably complex genetic programming must enable not just one function, but a specific multifaceted set of functions, which are appropriate to the size of the cell in the existing world, and goldilocks conditions of the micro environment within the ever changing macro environment into which it is born. For the sake of argument, I will assume that a glob of amino acids did form without any toxic right handed aminos in it. That glob had the ability to eat, defecate, breathe, sense, and do the innumerable stuff of life. Do amino acids and enzymes equal life? One little example of a single function of life is to be able to follow a specific set of behavioral instructions based on the principles of self preservation according to the specific situation of that particular cell within a particular environment. It must also be able to stay alive long enough to reproduce. Reproduction must be perfect and complete. Is that too complicated for chaos to handle? Does (the number of perfectly sequenced amino acids manufactured by the earth or fall from the sky) divided by the (prerequisites for the existence of biology) approach the possibility of one, or does it approach the possibility of zero? Instead of looking into it, and trying to understand it, evolution is taught as fact to everyone. And getting back to my original point, evolution is another very useful social engineering strategy to create the mindset of meaninglessness. While I am on the subject of evolution, I have always wondered in my heart of hearts. What is life? Here is my example question. We could speculate that the first cell had all of the necessary stuff of life and then electricity became the spark of life. A dead body has the innumerable stuff of life, but where is life? Ok, Maybe the heart stopped beating. Why? Well, the spark of life was no longer there. The incomprehensible amount of stuff needed for life is right there. Where did it go? Where did it slip off to? Where did life go when lungs filled up with fluid? Discontinued existence was not due to a lack of electricity in that situation. My idea is that there is no single part of life that we can point to as life. Everything in, around, and in between has to be lined up with the stars in perfect harmony for life to exist and continue. But, I digress. Maybe that is a dead argument. I just wanted to point out that we don’t even know exactly what life is. I can imagine that life is as simple as a train taking off from a stop. The train horn blows. The wheels start turning, but wait. Trains are kind of complicated. Trains have to be engineered and built. Tracks have to be laid, and it has to have an energy source, etc. Are random acts of chaos going to produce life and keep that first living thing alive long enough to reproduce perfectly? I suggest that there is a mindset of meaninglessness being taught in our education systems and evolution is part of that indoctrination. Also, finding 65 million plus year old bones with viable marrow tissue inside is just silly.
  2. perrymiller821

    Meaning in Science

    I suggest that philosophy is born out of man's search for meaning. Many scientist do well in this search. Yet, why do scientists, priests of the new age, have no grounding in ethics? Scientists are supposed to present dedication to knowledge. They are supposed to have a deep desire to learn the truth. They do, in fact, search diligently. That is the nature of scientists. But many of them apply a bit of fantasy, some aspects of the scientific method, and a lot of government money into ideas which have no premise. The belief that, Out of Chaos comes Order, holds no water. Those ideas offer only, jumped to, conclusions of ultimate meaninglessness. (Consensus in Science) is propaganda, because that consensus is taught as fact in schools. The consensus and conclusions of ultimate meaninglessness are nothing more than one of the dogmas of the Socialist religion. If they are believed, then a foothold into the mind is there and is very dangerous. Government schools teach children, Life doesn't matter, therefore subject your life to the state. The state will take such good care of you until you die a loathsome and meaningless death. I try to be very careful and make certain that what I think I know, isn't something else entirely. This requires intense focus on everything all the time. I can't just say, well we know this or that so therefore. That is intellectual laziness. The truth is we know next to nothing. I have to become fighting mad to activate the necessary recruitment of neurons to begin to accomplish the task of deciphering what is propaganda and what is reason.
  3. perrymiller821

    The Infinite Universe

    Is there a theory which allows for an infinite universe? Scientists say that it took 13.8 billion years for light to travel from the edges of the known Universe to get here. I call everything into question. If the big bang occured, I assume the matter of galaxies did not travel the speed of light. How much time would it take for a Universe this size to form? Then we have the expanding Universe which complicates matters even more. “But over the last 13.8 billion years, the Universe has been continually expanding – and at first it did so very rapidly. Taking that into account, astronomers have worked out that the galaxies right on the edge of the observable Universe, whose light has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, must now be 46.5 billion light years away.That is our best measurement for the radius of the observable Universe. Doubling it, of course, gives the diameter: 93 billion light years. And where things get really complex is when we try to think about the Universe beyond that which is observable. The "whole" Universe, as it were. Depending on which theory of the shape of the Universe you prefer, the whole Universe could actually be finite or infinite.” http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160610-it-took-centuries-but-we-now-know-the-size-of-the-universe The farther we are able to look into space, the more galaxies we are able to see. Just as an example, If we were to develop a technology that allowed us to look a trillion times farther into space, would we still see galaxies? Here is my ultimate question. Assuming that matter moves slower than the speed of light, at what size Universe does the age of the Universe approach infinity? How could it be possible for a physical construct to exist forever? What theory could be used to explain that? As the age of the Universe approaches infinity, would the chance of the Universe having a beginning approach zero?
  4. perrymiller821

    The Multiverse

    Old equipment, but they were reliable. I think the quick build circuits were the issue.
  5. perrymiller821

    The Multiverse

    To me the philosophy of beginnings is the most critical of philosophies. To philosophize how the universe began, for example, is the path to understanding the universe. Let us say that my belief of how the universe began just happens to be correct. I have no way of knowing it. I just base my assumptions on that belief. If my assumptions are consistently proven true by analysis, I may consider my belief to be more of an understanding. If someone puts forward a belief that mathematically seems accurate, yet doesn’t make much sense, I would give pause to that belief. Yes, I would give pause to a mathematically indicated belief. Many years ago while studying electronics, I learned how to use an oscilloscope. Sometimes the circuit I was building picked up voltages from fluorescent lights. I had to physically manipulate resistance and use the resultant math to check that I didn’t have interference in the circuit. The first, most important step to understand anything is to make certain that what you think you know or see isn’t something else entirely. The notion of 11 dimensions, 9 of which are physical, seems to me to be quite unsound. This belief may be indicated by math. However, if an initial belief is incorrect, the math involved can indicate all kinds of impossibilities. There may be people out there more knowledgeable than I am, but for the sake of argument, let us look at imaginary voltage. If I am incorrect in anything I say, please correct me. Motors in a factory have an inductive load. Most factories have capacitor banks to better utilize energy. Energy is present at the source, yet with induction motors, part of that energy becomes imaginary until capacitance is introduced in the circuit. When inductance and capacitance are in balance in an ac circuit, then real power is being used. Now, let us get back to the Universe. The math may indicate a possibility of 9 spatial dimensions and 2 temporal dimensions. Yet, I can not help but think that is absurd. If my math skills were competent enough to begin to analyse the situation, I would first try to see if the math may indicate that we only have 3 spatial dimensions and maybe 3 or 4 temporal dimensions. We may know that time varies depending on mass and/or velocity. I would look into the possibility of imaginary temporal dimensions. Before I go off on some unexplainable theory that somehow 9 physical dimensions exist where we can only experience 3, I would make certain that what I think I am looking at isn’t something else entirely.
  6. perrymiller821

    Hello

    Thank You. I hope I am able to learn something and contribute as well.
  7. perrymiller821

    Hello

    Yes, I have found it difficult to have debates on twitter, so I gave that up. I have been listening to Stefan for several months now. I have always been interested in philosophy, but with only so much time in life, never found it to be in a palatable form. Now that I am older, and more convinced than ever of the absolute necessity of philosophy, I am making it more of a priority. In public school years, in the eighth grade, I was introduced to some philosophy. The teacher, however, was a leftist. I didn't know what was wrong with her at the time. She must have been indoctrinated into the leftist religion in college. She said things like there is no difference between males and females. Everyone in the class had puzzled looks of disbelief. This was in 1987. The philosophy of the older generation were sayings like don't bite the hand that feeds you. Once, I told that saying to a teenager. The response was, I don't know what that means. So, I explained, Like you feed a dog and it bites you. That dog is not likely to get fed well in the future. The response to that was, Your calling me a dog! That was a wake up call for me that the younger generation is so indoctrinated with bitterness, that they can not process basic survival knowledge. Taking offence never crossed my mind when that saying was told to me. But I don't mind being compared with a dog if the situation is right for it. The single mother aspect, education, and media of the younger generation is creating an imbalance in proper k and r gene ratios. After listening to Stefan about r and k, I think that there has to be a proper ratio of those gene sets for society to exist in a more harmonious fashion. In America, people used to believe certain things. There was a general consensus of ideology, mostly about freedom. It is fine that people don't have consensus ideologies anymore, but even discussion is out of the question. I feel like I am in the middle of a war where my fellow soldiers for American values are too busy to pay attention to the battle all around. They are worried about the football game, or just unable to pay attention to what is going on. There are people I personally know who still vote democrat that have no idea about the grenade of socialism rolling around at our feet. There are people who won't vote so they don't have to be called for jury duty if it ever comes up. Trump changed a lot of that. I hope I can as well.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.