You can't prove something right

[lostmente]

just prove something else more wrong

[dpayne]

lol the fun that can be had from such mindsets

[Richard_smoker]

yeah...you can SUPPORT a statement (if it is, in fact, true).

and if it ain't true, you can DISPROVE IT with your evidence.

-DICK

[Alfa]

Everything is proven wrong at some point and replaced with a more accurate thesis.

[lostmente]

yup things to get surpassed pretty much continuously. Swim wonders though if at some point special relativity will apply to a thread of truth getting larger and larger

[Richard_smoker]

Originally Posted by lostmente

yup things to get surpassed pretty much continuously. Swim wonders though if at some point special relativity will apply to a thread of truth getting larger and larger

that is how all non-disproveable theories withstand the test of time. either they're TRUE, or they're just too far out there to even begin to address.

examples: Darwinism (yes, evolution has not been proven, but since it has withstood the test of time for so long, and to have endured the rigorous tests of time and people TRYING to disprove it, for these reasons, we generally accept that it is PROBABLY true...so probable, in fact, that scientists today will devote their entire careers to accepting this theory as if it were established scientific fact), Germ Theory of Disease... now for this one, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who disagrees, except maybe a chiropractor who is either really stupid or really out to make some money!

fought in a similar stage as Darwinism, "creationism / intelligent design" is an example of something so far-fetched that it's almost impossible to reason with, and thus equally difficult to disprove. In this example, even the laws of physics and the physical properties of our world have been modified to accept this theory as being a possibility (i.e. "a long time ago, before God invented the laws of physics, He first decided to CREATE everything on Earth...") very hard to disprove this to someone who has already wrapped his/her own mind around the understanding that he/she must totally disavow all knowledge of gravity, motion, mass, and energy in favor of a "supreme being" who is quite elusive to modern man, to say the very least.
-DICK

[lostmente]

I'm sure those theories could be proven more wrong than some other theory. The fortunate nature of a suceeded theory is that it can include aspects of the old theory,

Darwinism, orginially put new genes down purely to genetic randomisation. But documented cases of evolution (recently a strain of yeast developing the ability to consume a previously undigestable sugar) was done in a number of generations that was well below what was statistically predictable. Also, plasmid gene transfers are an ample supply of genetic material...it's (slightly) odd that a bacterium would house a gene that had a particular impact on humans (eg race), not completly odd but its a stretch of the imagination that two very dissimilarly niched entities could benefit so strongly from a apparently random abberation of dna...

germ theory doesn't readily account for oppurtunistic infections and while a definite improvement in treatment in illness, often there (say) are changes in the persons diet say that could have prevented infection in the first place. The tendancy for communicable disease strains to have a wave like pattern of effect (building up in mortality, infection rate etc) then a drop...rinse and repeat

lostmente added 5 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

its a def throwing out the baby with the bath water argument. It's just that people have a tendancy to hold too tightly onto old ideas longer than need be

[sylenth]

with the competitive nature humans have, the hunger for knowledge & the mixture of egos, it creates some interesting results that are built up stronger constantly... time will tell.

[KomodoMK]

Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.

[lostmente]

still seems relative, truth that is...maybe you can't force free will

[KomodoMK]

Would you accept a theory as being true just because it has stood the test of time and can't be disproved? At the same time it's never been proved, so I find the best way is to be open minded to the concept but neither be a believe nor disbeliever.

Anyway Rich, you should spend more time posting your friend mrpeterscveltsomethingorothers trip reports on 4-Methylmethcathinone than in threads like this.

[Richard_smoker]

Originally Posted by KomodoMK

Would you accept a theory as being true just because it has stood the test of time and can't be disproved? At the same time it's never been proved, so I find the best way is to be open minded to the concept but neither be a believe nor disbeliever.

Anyway Rich, you should spend more time posting your friend mrpeterscveltsomethingorothers trip reports on 4-Methylmethcathinone than in threads like this.

to the first question...yes, there is certainly something to be said about a theory being able to withstand the test of time. While it shouldn't be the ONLY consideration, time is a measure of the ROBUSTNESS of a claim. consider the flip-side: if I were to just make up a "theory" of how we all came into existence, and I posted that theory on this board...I hope that your honest answer is that you wouldn't give me that much credibility. why? because my claim is a zero on the robustness-scale.

and in answer to your second topic. I agree. it almost made me piss myself when I read the name of my friend: mrpeterscveltsomethingorothers in your post! hahaaha... i guess there's nothing quite so funny to someone than his own joke!

I promise that tomorrow (if i remember this conversation), I will post mrpeterscvelt et al's experience! -DICK

[KomodoMK]

Originally Posted by Richard_smoker

to the first question...yes, there is certainly something to be said about a theory being able to withstand the test of time. While it shouldn't be the ONLY consideration, time is a measure of the ROBUSTNESS of a claim. consider the flip-side: if I were to just make up a "theory" of how we all came into existence, and I posted that theory on this board...I hope that your honest answer is that you wouldn't give me that much credibility. why? because my claim is a zero on the robustness-scale.

Never thought of it like that, but I think you have a very valid point there with the robustness of the claim.

Originally Posted by Richard_smoker

and in answer to your second topic. I agree. it almost made me piss myself when I read the name of my friend: mrpeterscveltsomethingorothers in your post! hahaaha... i guess there's nothing quite so funny to someone than his own joke!

I promise that tomorrow (if i remember this conversation), I will post mrpeterscvelt et al's experience! -DICK

Don't forget or I'll poke you in the eye! :P

Sadly I don't think it's going to come anywhere close to the entertaining posts/pm's whilst under the influence, but a great read nonetheless.

[lostmente]

well...you can't use time in an abstract sense of being a commodity, but you could justify it in saying given reasonable (hehe) exposure a theory will be encountered so many times. But all that depends on where it is exposed and whom it is exposed to. Some people might only come up with a few statements about an idea, mostly the same statements....others may come up with many variations.

It can seem rather luck of the draw, but then maybe theres a pattern

Idiot savants are a good example of how easily some of the deepest observations of reality could have existed only to fall on deaf ears

[sylenth]

if you go on the chaos theory... with chaos there's actually order along the way of the pattern & at the end of the day every thing comes together if there is an answer.

if people are all debating about things with mixed levels of mixed concepts you will have an end result eventually depending if & when the end is.

picture it as a few grains of garden sand being blown in to a 90 degree corner in a room. the grains of sand are all different, not all moving together at the same time, they are all not in the same distance from each other, but they going to all be forced in to the corner eventually. 'if there is a corner'

then you'll have a pile of sand instead of grains of sand, over more time this sand becomes mud with no gaps in between them at all & then you have your answer. but there does'nt seem to be an end.

[Richard_smoker]

The majority of chaos theory is not so much "theory" as it is a philosophy, and an observable, repeatable experiment of all physical things to exhibit enthalpy. Enthalpy--or the tendency of all ordered physical entities, given sufficient time, to move toward a state of disarray (chaos), is one of the most basic Laws of Thermodynamics. I don't really think that chaos is a theory inasmuch as it is a physical law of both matter and energy.

-DICK

[lostmente]

yup, you mean entropy. enthalpy is the energy barrier of transition.

Entropy is most relevant in a open system, where there is exchange between the system and the environment. It's the basis of why all perpetual motion machines (or unity + 1) are immediately dismissed.

Anyone can observe it, that no matter what you do it will take more energy to reverse an action than you gained from performing the reaction in the first place.

Realistically nothing is reversible, you cannot literally undo something...because the process of both doing it and undoing it will alter the situation, thus you cannot relive that moment.

Smash an egg, you get a bit of momentum...a neat sound and access to the egg. Now un-smash an egg...fuck that

lostmente added 9 Minutes and 41 Seconds later...

A counter argument for entropy...society? I mean its a hard stretch to say whether or not society has been in a state of improvement...or if even the majority of people have changed...on top of that theres what it took for society to get where we are today.

Does the chaos created by burning down rain forest equal more than the order created from the people having the chance to live off that land and hence the chance to co-operate with one another? co-operation being a very ordered activity

Reputation Comments on this post:

	you'
	interesting descriptions

[Richard_smoker]

You're exactly right!

Entropy is what I meant (it was late last night...i was wrong)...jesus, entropy/enthalpy are practically opposites...

Entropy essentially describes the state of disorder; a measurement of chaos in a system; everything that has been created or built-up or formed out of mass and energy will eventually move to a state of total entropy.

Enthalpy is kinda like the opposite from a thermodynamic point of view. BASICALLY, enthalpy is the total potential energy of a system...

Although I said it wrong in my last post, I remember thinking of a brick building to explain the 2 concepts.

EXAMPLE: If you erect a brick building, enthalpy is the amount of work and energy that you put into this building. when the building has been erected, it can be said to have a high value of enthalpy, and a low entropy (chaos) value. Enthalpy is the total amount of potential energy held in that building (same as kinetic energy used to construct it).

Entropy describes where the building will be in several thousand years--out of its organized state--into shambles, a pile of rubble, which will eventually become a flatter pile, eventually spread all over the world as tiny pieces of broken brick dust...

agree with that discription? (sorry, I just stumble over the closed vs open system description...I need baby talk explanation!)
-DICK

Richard_smoker added 21 Minutes and 50 Seconds later...

A counter argument for entropy...society? I mean its a hard stretch to say whether or not society has been in a state of improvement...or if even the majority of people have changed...on top of that theres what it took for society to get where we are today.

Does the chaos created by burning down rain forest equal more than the order created from the people having the chance to live off that land and hence the chance to co-operate with one another? co-operation being a very ordered activity

I think that this view is near-sighted. Man is a destructive force on his environment and on other men. But, Entropy, as I understand it, can take eons to be observed. If you imagine our planet from the origins of time until now, and then forward the same amount of time into the future, the effect of humanbeings on this planet will probably not be noticeable at all.

I mean, the Earth has already undergone Ice Ages, etc. and if you consider the vast amounts of time necessary for the evolution of our species and the environment... I mean, we've already built the means necessary for destroying ourselves and every living thing several times over... some would say it's only a matter of time before we eventually succeed at that end. then, the process of evolution would inevitably begin again...maybe after a few million years of radioactive decay "cleansing"...or perhaps out of this destruction, a whole new breed of animals/bacteria/fungi/plants who thrive off radioactive waste may come into being.

hmm...but the idea of life itself and evolution both stand in direct opposition to the entire concept of entropy...wait a minute--WHY DOES LIFE EXIST?? WHAT IN THE HELL KIND OF LOGICAL SENSE DOES A LIVING, REPRODUCING BIOLOGICAL ENTITY MAKE? For who or what necessity would LIVING things coming into existence assist?? the environment?? the universe?? What's to prevent our galaxy from being an energy-producing elecron-shuttle in a giant mitochondria of a single cell in the TOE of a HUMONGOUS DOG-LIKE CREATURE?

Is this where the concept of "GOD" comes from??
-is GOD the missing link? --the thing that lends the tendency for lifeforms to emerge from chaotic bullshit-soup? or are lifeforms just random silouettes of transient "order"? likewise, the Nitrogen Cycle, Oxygen Cycle...all, just brief chance occurences--that mean very little in the history of time?

-DICK(?)

[lostmente]

its been so long

In a social context, a idiot savant who has very poor communication ability may well hold the cure for cancer in his mind, but to access it is very difficult

Entropy speaks of the difficulty in harnessing something that is of value, example: the majority of gold on earth is colloidal gold in the sea. But to extract it from the sea requires far more resources than the gold will get you. So even though the value is definitely there, it's practically worthless for what you would want to achieve with it.

A closed system is when you have a process that doesn't exchange with the outside world...sort of like the inner mind, you can cut yourself off from reality and be within yourself, where as when you are interacting with the world, there is a constant flow going on. You act, someone acts upon you...an exchange of energy or information that doesn't have to be consistant...you WONT have what you started with when you have an open system. With a closed system, you have what you started with but in a different arrangement...theres no actual loss, until you open the system

lostmente added 10 Minutes and 52 Seconds later...

Originally Posted by Richard_smoker

hmm...but the idea of life itself and evolution both stand in direct opposition to the entire concept of entropy...wait a minute--WHY DOES LIFE EXIST?? WHAT IN THE HELL KIND OF LOGICAL SENSE DOES A LIVING, REPRODUCING BIOLOGICAL ENTITY MAKE? For who or what necessity would LIVING things coming into existence assist?? the environment?? the universe?? What's to prevent our galaxy from being an energy-producing elecron-shuttle in a giant mitochondria of a single cell in the TOE of a HUMONGOUS DOG-LIKE CREATURE?

Is this where the concept of "GOD" comes from??
-is GOD the missing link? --the thing that lends the tendency for lifeforms to emerge from chaotic bullshit-soup? or are lifeforms just random silouettes of transient "order"? likewise, the Nitrogen Cycle, Oxygen Cycle...all, just brief chance occurences--that mean very little in the history of time?

-DICK(?)

Relativity is a bitch
I could live a hundred life times in the blink of an eye if I wern't so caught up in how it relates to this reality. But that force, of moving forward, of achieving more than we once had...of persisting? having an impact over a larger and larger area in order for it to hold for longer?

If I were to write my name in the sand, it would be gone in a few hours, if I had a bulldozer and did it again, it could stay for months, If I wrote it on the moon then people would remember it for many generations. But if I were to write it on an ant? or write it into the dna of humans...

[Richard_smoker]

Originally Posted by lostmente

I could live a hundred life times in the blink of an eye if I wern't so caught up in how it relates to this reality. But that force, of moving forward, of achieving more than we once had...of persisting? having an impact over a larger and larger area in order for it to hold for longer?

If I were to write my name in the sand, it would be gone in a few hours, if I had a bulldozer and did it again, it could stay for months, If I wrote it on the moon then people would remember it for many generations. But if I were to write it on an ant? or write it into the dna of humans...

yep, it wouldn't make any difference in the end...

that's some pretty good shit there...sounds like you copied that out of the bible or something. although I never saw "bulldozer" or "DNA" in the good book, it still sounds pretty scripturey! did you cough that up out of yer own noggin? -DICK

[lostmente]

I came up with it I think, but yeah who knows with so much information flying around in the world where any ideas originally come from..

fucked up things like how a puzzle that comes out will get solved faster and faster by each new person to come along without those people communicating, like some how just one person doing something makes it easier for others to do it. Regardless of not physically being connected. Trips me the hell out, maybe thats why paranoia is so easy....because people have been paranoid about so many things for such a long time.