Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:59:39 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 22, 1:32 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John S. Wilkins <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:10:19 +1100, in talk.origins ,
j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) in
<1iwxop3.15wggmwdg0wbyN%j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:56:28 +1100, in talk.origins ,
j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (John S. Wilkins) in
<1iweu45.1hbfnxa1ph1zq2N%j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul J Gans <g...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[snip]
Which is why Stephan Wolfram says that it takes the entire universe
to "compute" the next state of the universe in real time.
Or we could abandon representational notions and just say that the
entire universe causes its next state. Informational and computational
accounts of anything that is not a computer or information processor
cause nothing but confusion.
Which is, in part, why I don't think there are any physical laws.
Stuff has a nature and acts in accordance to that nature, it does not
follow some laws external to the stuff.
Laws are, at best, representations of the natures of things. But they
are also periphrases for those regularities, as in "the inverse square
law of gravitational attraction" is a way of saying "the fact that
things inverse squarely attract each other".
Periphrases and representations are both human creations. The stuffOf course. It's like the mistake of thinking that because genes can be
does not calculate its probability or "know" its momentum/position.
For the quanta (or whatever) Heisenberg and such is not relevant nor
are any "chaos" issues.
*represented* as information, that what they do is computational, when
in fact they are just molecules doing thermodynamic and other physical
things.
And hence my continual objection to applying information theory
to biological thermodynamics.
Indeed. All I see are chemicals interacting with other chemicals in
the same way that chemicals have ALWAYS interacted with other
chemicals.
Carbon is carbon, whether it is in a DNA molecule or a lump of coal.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
.
- References:
- God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: James Redford
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Jeffrey Turner
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Boikat
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Steven L.
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: John S. Wilkins
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: John S. Wilkins
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: John S. Wilkins
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Matt Silberstein
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: John S. Wilkins
- Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- From: Paul J Gans
- God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- Prev by Date: Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- Next by Date: Re: CIVIL discussion group
- Previous by thread: Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- Next by thread: Re: God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|