An old Chinese fable and a Jewish kingdom out in the Far East
Jong Kim
news:463a74cb$0$28469$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:f1br8...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>>
> >>> RetroProphet's Rebuke of "Jong's Rebuke of an Anti-Christ"
> >>> from GoogleGroups archive:
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/2w3z6f
> >>
> >>Thanks for that link..interesting...
> >>I find it funny that they call it "rebuke" when it should really be
called
> >>squabble, slagging match or pissing competition.
> >>
> >
> > Here's a link to my Bulla Boys Cartoons:
> >
> > http://s204.photobucket.com/albums/bb15/RetroProphet/
>
>
> LOL!!!! Retro, you are hilarious! Well done....I am still hyperventilating
> from laughing ...
> Dumb question, are these real images of Art? I pictured him to look like
> this....scary.....
Liar.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, Pg.363, George Albert Smith, November 1, 1857:
This makes me think of an old Chinese fable. A man travelling through the
country came to a large city, very rich and splendid; he looked at it and
said to his guide, "This must be a very righteous people, for I can only see
but one little devil in this great city."
The guide replied, "You do not understand, sir. This city is so perfectly
given up to wickedness, corruption, degradation, and abomination of every
kind, that it requires but one devil to keep them all in subjection."
Travelling on a little further, he came to a rugged path and saw an old man
trying to get up the hill side, surrounded by seven great, big,
coarse-looking devils.
"Why," says the traveller, "This must be a tremendously wicked old man!
Only see how many devils there are around him!"
"This," replied the guide, "is the only righteous man in the country; and
there are seven of the biggest devils trying to turn him out of his path,
and they all cannot do it."
[end of Scripture quote]
I testify, by the Holy Ghost given me, that Art Bulla is the One Mighty and
Strong, i.e., Messiah to Ephraim and Manasseh. There's not a thing that the
Devil's Nurse can do about it. Unlike the kingdom of Kokuryo, the Prophet
Art Bulla will not decline and fall. For one thing, Art Bulla has not
reached a peak and never will, for he is always moving upward. Because
Kokuryo, though of Israelite origin, had peaked, it had to fall and did so,
according to a Scriptural dictum of the Prophet Brigham Young. Same thing
with Sir Isaac Newton. He peaked before the age of thirty, fueled by his
pure talent in mathematics. Then he went money and blood mad as the Master
of the Royal Mint, in his vicious hangings of Robin Hood-inspired
counterfeiters
and in his stealthy manueverings against his imagined rivals in scientific
circles,
all the while continuing to yield himself to his homosexual urges and his
denial of the trinity of the Godhead, imagining to himself in his private
writings a fictitious God instead, and through all this "with a little help
from his friends" (like Halley), to the public he masqueraded a sober and
pious Christian, actually managing to pen Scriptural sounding lines like
this:
Isaac Newton (The Principia):
Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and
everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of
natural things which we find suited to different times and places could
arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily
existing.
[end of a Scriptural-sounding quote]
Just another natural principle, folks, the peaking and then the inevitable
decline and fall of the Empire of the Sun. The Devil's Nurse has already
peaked, and you can all see that she's sinking toward oblivion of that
ugliness of death. The sad fate of the kingdom of Kokuryo is preferable in
comparison. Nurse Ratched would be proud of Mrs. Helen 'shady lady'
Robinson, who has more in common with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell than she
could ever know. Amen.
6 They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about
the city.
7 Behold, they belch out with their mouth: swords [are] in their lips: for
who, [say they], doth hear?
8 But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in
derision.
9 [Because of] his strength will I wait upon thee: for God [is] my defence.
10 The God of my mercy shall prevent me: God shall let me see [my desire]
upon mine enemies.
11 Slay them not, lest my people forget: scatter them by thy power; and
bring them down, O Lord our shield.
12 [For] the sin of their mouth [and] the words of their lips let them even
be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying [which] they speak.
13 Consume [them] in wrath, consume [them], that they [may] not [be]: and
let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth. Selah.
14 And at evening let them return; [and] let them make a noise like a dog,
and go round about the city.
15 Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not
satisfied.
16 But I will sing of thy power; yea, I will sing aloud of thy mercy in the
morning: for thou hast been my defence and refuge in the day of my trouble.
17 Unto thee, O my strength, will I sing: for God [is] my defence, [and] the
God of my mercy.
(Old Testament | Psalms 59:6 - 17)
http://www.euhaidong.com/About/history.php
The true principles of Haidong Gumdo to execute justice with the sword light
that is obtained at the break of day from majestic and brilliant sunlight
that glows over the east sea. Haidong Gumdo is a martial art that originates
from an ancient Korean country called
Kokuryo.
Founded by Saul-Bong-Sun-In who has understood the true
principles of the sword. He established a training camp and instructed his
disciples Haidong Gumdo so they could rid evil and practice righteousness.
The warriors who went trough training in the camp were named Samurang and
ideology of the Samurangs were: Jun (Respect), Sa (Master), Chung
(Importance), Do (The right
way), Chung (Love for our country), Whoo (Reverence for ones parents), Ye
(Respect for ones elders), Ui (Do good and right things). These Samurangs
with their knowledge of Haidong Gumdo and DO were a great help for the great
king Kuangeto to castigate the aggressive neighboring countries and
contributed a great amount for Kokuryo to be a strong nation with a vast
territory.
Kokuryo's Samurang system was introduced long before the knighthood of
Paekjea and the Hwarangdo of Sila and was used to bring up many talented men
and confirmed the
basis of a nation. Samurangs also aided Kokuryo's general Ulgymunduk to
defeat 2 million invaders from the country Su (One of ancient Chinese
countries) which was never done before in history, and defeated 600 thousand
Chinese invaders with the Il-dang-beak (one for a hundred) combative spirit
and kept peace and justice and also left; behind a valuable spiritual pride
to the descendants. Haidong Gumdo was a very valuable asset but due to the
passing age and many reasons such as Japanese invasions, the martial artists
left society and started to live hidden away in mountains, and after
Hideyoshi invasion of Korea in 1592, Japanese Kendo took root in Korea. But
due to our new campaign to bring back traditional martial arts, nowadays
many traditional martial arts are laying roots again in Korea. But still
there are martial artists who live in mountains training traditional martial
arts.
Living a lifetime keeping only a few disciples to keep on the tradition.
Amongst those martial arts, Haidong Gumdo is a traditional martial art
instructed by Grand master Jang Beak San about 40 years ago in an outskirt
mountain to the current World Haidong Gumdo Federation president Kim Jeong
Ho. As it can be seen above, Haidong Gumdo is based on techniques for war
and one warrior against many others which is different when compared with
Japanese Kendo which the techniques are based on a 1 on 1 combat. Also when
one looks at the Sang-soo Gumbup of Haidong Gumdo, it's obvious that the
fencing is in multiple directions and the positions are low, which requires
tenacious movements.
The basic techniques of Haidong Gumdo is fencing, cutting, thrusting, combat
and abdominal breathing exercises and is the background that formed
Kokuryo's Samurang becoming Kokuryo most powerful martial art and history.
Therefore, one of the special features of Haidong Gumdo is not the
simplicity of Japanese Kendo not the magnificence of Chinese Kung-Fu. It
takes pride in being the most realistic sword art. For ancient Kokuryo to
stand 700 years whilst China went through the Han dynasty to the Dang
dynasty and the rise and fall of many countries and be renown as a country
of Dongijock (People in the east who are good swordsmen and Bowmen and
take importance in the DO). After 2000 years of the Kokuryo dynasty, we
bring back the majestic history with Haidong Gumdo.
The reason that Kokuryo boils the blood of every Korean is maybe
due to the nostalgia of the large land. Every time we look at the map of the
globe, we look at the eastern part of Eurasia and without knowingly, we sigh
with an mixed emotion of pity. Kokuryo was risen whist fighting for
supremacy with Chinese nations and in that process became the leader of the
north. It was the core of the fight for supremacy in eastern Asia and
through the rise and fall of many dynasties, it was the leading nation. Like
this, we have great affection for Kokuryo but we have little knowledge to
fill our affection.
Thus, as descendents of Great Kokuryo that ruled over the north
for 700 years, We hope to inherit this will of the ancient Samurang and
teach the world the spirit of Kokuryo through Haidong Gumdo.
Pascoe Goard (The Post-Captivity Names of Israel):
Settled in Scythia, they undertook wide enterprises of colonization, which
they carried eastward to Lake Baikal, and even to China. It was during this
period of history that the Samurai established the Mikado rule in Japan. It
is more than probable--as many Japanese scholars believe--that they were of
Israel stock. Herodotus describes the Massagetae section of them as "a great
and powerful nation, whose territories extend beyond the river Araxes,
TO THE EXTREME PART OF THE EAST."
http://www.bongsoohanhapkido.com/history.htm
History
Thirteen centuries ago, the land currently occupied by North and South Korea
consisted of three kingdoms - Kokuryo, Paekche, and Shilla. The people of
Kokuryo were known for their military and intellectual skills (head); the
Shilla were craftsmen (hands); and the Paekche were agrarian (feet).
During this time it was felt that the security of many lay in the strength
of a select few. A group of elite young nobleman developed "a way of life."
This Way was based upon adherence to a strict code of ethics and a
disciplined life style dedicated to living in harmony with the natural laws
of the universe. This group came to be known as Hwarangdo.
Wars and insurrections were a common part of everyday life. King Chin-Heung
of Shilla, in concert with the Mongols, succeeded in over-throwing the
rulers of Kokuryo and Paekche. The remaining royalty of the defeated Kokuryo
and Paekche kingdoms fled to the mountains or to neighboring islands. One
group of people from Kokuyro sailed to the Island of Hokkaido, while another
group sailed from Paekche to Kyushu, and established some of the first
ancient settlements of Japan.
Paul the Apostle:
where is neither gentile nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,
Barbarous or Scythian, bond or free: but Christ is all in all things.
(1534 Tyndale Colossians 3:11)
12 ¶ Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I
declare [that] I will render double unto thee;
13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up
thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of
a mighty man.
(Old Testament | Zechariah 9:12 - 13)
56 And the graves of the saints shall be opened; and they shall come forth
and stand on the right hand of the Lamb, when he shall stand upon Mount
Zion, and upon the holy city, the New Jerusalem; and they shall sing the
song of the Lamb, day and night forever and ever.
57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which
were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his
everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity—
58 To prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth, and
for the Lord's errand in the day when the weak shall confound the wise, and
the little one become a strong nation, and two shall put their tens of
thousands to flight.
59 And by the weak things of the earth the Lord shall thrash the nations by
the power of his Spirit.
60 And for this cause these commandments were given; they were commanded to
be kept from the world in the day that they were given, but now are to go
forth unto all flesh—
61 And this according to the mind and will of the Lord, who ruleth over all
flesh.
62 And unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord shall
be given eternal life.
63 And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be
fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be
cut off from among the people.
64 And also that which was written by the prophet Malachi: For, behold, the
day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that
do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up,
saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 133:56 - 64)
RetroProphet
>the age of thirty, fueled by his pure talent in mathematics.
>Then he went money and blood mad as the Master of the Royal Mint,
Newton "peaked" in 1672? That would be news.
And, he didn't get involved with the Mint until 1696.
And, learn something about what alchemy was in the
17th century. Hint: it was not sorcery.
Have you even read his alchemy papers?
Jong Kim
> >Same thing with Sir Isaac Newton. He peaked before
> >the age of thirty, fueled by his pure talent in mathematics.
> >Then he went money and blood mad as the Master of the Royal Mint,
> >in his vicious hangings of Robin Hood-inspired counterfeiters...
>
> Newton "peaked" in 1672? That would be news.
The gay Teuton did solve a difficult math problem posed by the Bernoullis.
In a more generalized format, it is the calculus of variations of Lagrange,
then later made into Hamiltonian. Mathematical physics is not possible
without this crucial tool. In any case, there's no denying the pure
mathematical talent of Isaac Newton. I'm still in awe of it.
> And, he didn't get involved with the Mint until 1696.
> And, learn something about what alchemy was in the
> 17th century. Hint: it was not sorcery.
> Have you even read his alchemy papers?
No. It is true that many others were involved in alchemy in those days.
Newton wasn't the only one. Can't really say sorcery in his case. Much worse
is that he privately believed in a fictitious God, with his Arian heresy (at
least it was privately held for the most part) and he was sexually
perverted, again in the closet and very vindictive.
RetroProphet
How come every time I correct you, you do not admit your
error in precise terms, but only go off on some tangent?
Such a tactic does not divert attention from your error,
it only compounds it.
Face up to the fact that you tried to paint a picture
of Newton doing his greatest work up to the point where
you say he went wrong spiritually, but I exposed that
nonsense depiction of yours with a few sentences of fact.
And what are you left with after failing? Your fallback
position is that he didn't believe in your particular
brand of religion, he was a homosexual, and was sometimes
quite a bastard. The same sort of righteous crap you level
at Darwin to discredit his achievements, to no greater avail
than such can discredit Newton's. That you like Newton and
know that you cannot discredit his achievements is quite
beside the point, but this is what you are blind to.
There is no point to what you are doing.
What a clear example of what I constantly say:
that history makes no sense when it is filtered
through religious propaganda, and perfect sense
when it isn't.
As you are in such awe of Newton, you'll hopefully
find it easier to be more careful that what you
write about him in the future is actually accurate.
You just don't like that he used Hermeticist thinking
to arrive at a valid scientific expression of the
laws of gravity -- he discarded his own concept of
a tangible ether medium and found he didn't need it.
You brand his religious beliefs as evil and act as if
he had accepted the Trinity, or whatever else you would
prefer him to have done, it would have made a difference.
The only difference I can see it making is that if he was
like you, he would have steered clear of the tradition
that obviously inspired him to his breakthrough.
What do you think of that?
You've got all these notions about alchemy in the 17th century,
but no real knowledge. Alchemy was a proto-science, the very
beginnings of the serious modern application of experimentation,
the very beginning of modern chemistry and pharmacology, among
other things. It had nothing to do with spells and incantations,
and everything to do with subjecting nature in beaker and flask
to flame and formula, trying to figure out how it all worked.
At the time what was known to be valid was a far more open
question than it eventually became -- Newton's inquiries in
alchemy were as much science as anything else he did,
state-of-the-art theorizing and experimentation of his day.
By the way, how do you know that his interest in
Hermeticism wasn't inspired in the exact same way
as you imagine Joseph Smith was? -- it is a tradition
with Egyptian roots.
Art Bulla
himself entirely to his work does not mean he was a homosexual. The
following biography is probably the most accurate. I can relate, for the
derision and mockery he endured when he first published his "scientific
paper on optics" to a world of deluded fanatics, scoundrels and fools (as I
have, knowing my revelations to be the most important work in modern times)
further convinced him to withdraw. His mind could not grapple with dealing
with the frailty and embecility and brutishness of many of his fellow
creatures, who chose not to act out of any consistency or law, but wild
aimless and meaningless behavior as demonstrated by the majority on this
newsgroup, for instance, therefore loving order, he became a recluse. The
science of theology which is able to cope, he did not have access to, since
the Priesthood had not been restored at that time. But that does not make
him homosexual. It is fashionable among Sodomites to "out", with their
impure motives, historical figures, as they imagine to themselves. To the
impure all things are impure :
A good review:
A probing look into the greatest scientific mind of all time, August 10,
2004
By Daniel Jolley "darkgenius" (Shelby, North Carolina USA)
Most children idolize famous athletes, movie stars, and the like. I was
different - my two idols were Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton. I still
believe Newton to be the greatest genius to ever live. Certainly, I was
impressed by Newton's accomplishments (the theory of gravity, calculus, the
laws of motion, etc.), but I was perhaps more deeply impressed by his
unsurpassed commitment to his work. When I read that he would oftentimes
forget to eat while he worked days on end, I became convinced that this was
the type of man I wanted to become. My own path to scientific accomplishment
took a different turn when I got to college, but I still have nothing but
the greatest respect for and interest in this great man of science.
This is an excellent look at Newton's life, one that does not shy away from
the genius' negative qualities. Newton was a complex man who struggled in
terms of his relationships with human beings, living a rather reclusive life
devoted solely to his work. The story of his early years helps explain his
adult character. His father died before he was born, and he rarely saw his
mother between the ages of 3 and 8. In school, he did not socialize with his
classmates, devoting himself to his work instead. His brilliance was obvious
to his instructors, though, and his mother was eventually convinced that
Newton should continue his studies rather than return to run the family
farm.
Amazingly, many of Newton's greatest discoveries originated in an 18-month
period he spent at home while Cambridge was closed down because of the
plague. In private study, he discovered the refraction of light, began to
recognize the principles of gravity, and basically invented the refracting
telescope. He was most reticent to publish any of his work, however, and the
ridicule that greeted his first scientific paper on optics convinced him to
never publish again. He continued his work, of course, and some of the great
discoveries in scientific history were only to be discovered later in
Newton's life, years after he had actually made them. He did want the credit
for his discoveries, however, a fact which led to some less than admirable
actions on his part later in life. He developed a bitter, life-long feud
with Robert Hooke, for example, fought stridently against the claims of
Leibnitz in order to secure the credit for his discovery of calculus, and
later behaved rather unethically in regard to an astronomer who dared stand
in the way of his wishes. True fame would not come until 1687, when Newton
published the Principia. It was Edmund Halley who came to Newton inquiring
as to the great mystery of planetary rotation. Newton, to his surprise, had
already provided an answer to the question, and in the Principia Newton was
to describe the laws of gravity, put forth his famous three laws of
thermodynamics, explain the celestial rotation of heavenly bodies, and
basically postulate and demonstrate a mathematical structure to the universe
itself. Never has a single publication changed the course of science and
indeed human culture in the way the Principia did; its influence is still
heavily with us today and helped push man into outer space successfully.
I was most surprised to learn the incredible scope of Newton's work.
Everyone knows about his invention of calculus and other scientific
achievements, but Newton was also an intense theologian and alchemist. He
strove to discover the true nature of God in nature, for he believed the
world to be a rational creation of a rational God, built upon universal laws
that man could discern through focused analysis and then explain via
mathematics. He also had a few strange ideas, such as his belief that
Protagoras acquired his mathematical knowledge from a meeting with Moses the
Prophet.
The reclusive Newton enjoyed the incredible fame he attained after
publication of the Principia and went on to occupy a political post as
Warden of the Mint; in this capacity, he recoined the monetary system of the
realm to great acclaim. His final years were not necessarily happy ones,
though. Bitter rivalries with those he felt had wronged him revealed a
rather nasty side of the genius' character, and Newton actually suffered a
nervous breakdown in 1693 when his only true intellectual friend left
England for the Continent. He recovered his mental health quickly and,
despite the negative conflicts he had with select peers, he went to his
grave as Sir Isaac Newton, the most famous scientist of his era and, to
many, the great scientific mind the world has ever seen.
"Jong Kim" <rh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1352n1m...@corp.supernews.com...
> 12 ś Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope: even to day do I
> declare [that] I will render double unto thee;
>
> 13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised
> up
> thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword
> of
> a mighty man.
>
> (Old Testament | Zechariah 9:12 - 13)
>
> 56 And the graves of the saints shall be opened; and they shall come forth
> and stand on the right hand of the Lamb, when he shall stand upon Mount
> Zion, and upon the holy city, the New Jerusalem; and they shall sing the
> song of the Lamb, day and night forever and ever.
>
> 57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories
> which
> were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his
> everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity-
>
> 58 To prepare the weak for those things which are coming on the earth, and
> for the Lord's errand in the day when the weak shall confound the wise,
> and
> the little one become a strong nation, and two shall put their tens of
> thousands to flight.
>
> 59 And by the weak things of the earth the Lord shall thrash the nations
> by
> the power of his Spirit.
>
> 60 And for this cause these commandments were given; they were commanded
> to
> be kept from the world in the day that they were given, but now are to go
> forth unto all flesh-
RetroProphet
>Yes, I am the One Mighty and Strong, but because Newton chose to devote
>himself entirely to his work does not mean he was a homosexual. The
>following biography is probably the most accurate. I can relate, for the
>derision and mockery he endured when he first published his "scientific
>paper on optics" to a world of deluded fanatics, scoundrels and fools (as I
>have, knowing my revelations to be the most important work in modern times)
>further convinced him to withdraw. His mind could not grapple with dealing
>aimless and meaningless behavior as demonstrated by the majority on this
>newsgroup, for instance, therefore loving order, he became a recluse. The
>science of theology which is able to cope, he did not have access to, since
>the Priesthood had not been restored at that time. But that does not make
>him homosexual. It is fashionable among Sodomites to "out", with their
>impure motives, historical figures, as they imagine to themselves. To the
>impure all things are impure :
That's a good assessment of Newton's character, Art.
I think his Black Plague isolation period was also
a factor in his becoming reclusive. I appreciate you
taking Jong to task for his bizarre project, and I am
moved to remove the last two nasty cartoons I did of
you permanently from my site, not to curry favor, but
because I think I went a bit too overboard with them.
What can I say. When you type something pristinely
rational, I actually like you...but, seriously,
you're not really suggesting your scientific work
as being as significant in our time as Newton's was
in his, are you? Just the non-scientific, right?
A simple "all of it" will suffice -- I'm not looking
for a fight, just a clarification.
Jong Kim
What I meant with Newton's solving a difficult problem posed by the
Bernoullis is that he did it, as I recall, while occupying the office of the
Master of the Royal Mint, long past his prime as mathematician and
scientist. He peaked, then it was inevitably downhill from there, but as
evidenced by his solving the Bernoullis' problem overnight (so the legend
goes, which I believe to be fact), he showed himself quite capable many
years after reaching his peak. (I think the problem was,
braychiost--something, where one is asked what is the path that a point
object takes to go down from point A to point B, not a free fall that is,
and takes the minimum amount of time, while being uniformly accelerated at
g. Another way to put that is, lay out a string or a chain naturally in the
same 'gravitational' field -- it's really a problem of the Principle of
Least Action as expressed by Lagrange, reflecting on the economy of the
heavens, as Brigham would say). In any case, the man was a nutcase,
basically his whole life. He really needed to be locked up, in some ways. A
Lagrange or a Hamilton could have done what Newton did, as evidenced by
their own achievements. But I just respect the good side of him, the
marvelous mathematical abilities and his attempts to be a good Christian at
times, as evidenced in his diaries as a young man. It's mostly negatives,
though, as he failed and tried to ruin the careers of budding scientists. It
appears that the devil's Newton overcame the Lord's Newton, more or less. I
still don't think (my opinion) he is a son of perdition, as his zealous
prosecution of the counterfeiters of his time can't seriously be considered
shedding of innocent blood, and he mostly kept his Arian heresies to
himself. I am certain that, whatever his eternal fate, Isaac Newton was the
original Dr. Strangelove, before there ever was an Edward Teller. It is up
to the Lord to judge whether Newton denied the Holy Ghost or not. Since he
came before the time of Joseph Smith and after the ancient Apostles had
passed from this scene of action, he's got an excuse I suppose.
Isaac Newton turned 30 in 1672 or 1673, depending on what calendar is used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Soon after Newton had obtained his degree in 1665, the University closed
down as a precaution against the Great Plague. For the next 18 months Newton
worked at home on calculus, optics and the law of gravitation.
...
He was elected Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669.
...
From 1670 to 1672, Newton lectured on optics. During this period he
investigated the refraction of light, demonstrating that a prism could
decompose white light into a spectrum of colours, and that a lens and a
second prism could recompose the multicoloured spectrum into white light.
He also showed that the coloured light does not change its properties, by
separating out a coloured beam and shining it on various objects. Newton
noted that regardless of whether it was reflected or scattered or
transmitted, it stayed the same colour. Thus the colours we observe are the
result of how objects interact with the incident already-coloured light, not
the result of objects generating the colour.
...
In his Hypothesis of Light of 1675, Newton posited the existence of the
ether to transmit forces between particles. The contact with the theosophist
Henry More, revived his interest in alchemy. He replaced the ether with
occult forces based on Hermetic ideas of attraction and repulsion between
particles. John Maynard Keynes, who acquired many of Newton's writings on
alchemy, stated that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: he was
the last of the magicians."
[end of Wikipedia excerpt]
Isaac Newton turned 30 in 1672 or 1673, depending on what calendar is used.
As you can see, he peaked at about 30, and then it was downhill from there.
Any notable work by Newton after 30 was based on his work before turning
about 30.
It is by the Force, saith Redtrollnames Berserk Relaxwell, that there is
Evolutionary organization.
Yikes! I presume the Hermetic Force, sir?
Please don't waste my time.
> And what are you left with after failing? Your fallback
> position is that he didn't believe in your particular
> brand of religion, he was a homosexual, and was sometimes
> quite a bastard.
It is true that I have failed to convert you to the truth. But that isn't my
fault. I get credited for trying.
> The same sort of righteous crap you level
> at Darwin to discredit his achievements, to no greater avail
> than such can discredit Newton's. That you like Newton and
> know that you cannot discredit his achievements is quite
> beside the point, but this is what you are blind to.
> There is no point to what you are doing.
>
> What a clear example of what I constantly say:
> that history makes no sense when it is filtered
> through religious propaganda, and perfect sense
> when it isn't.
>
> As you are in such awe of Newton, you'll hopefully
> find it easier to be more careful that what you
> write about him in the future is actually accurate.
>
> You just don't like that he used Hermeticist thinking
> to arrive at a valid scientific expression of the
> laws of gravity -- he discarded his own concept of
> a tangible ether medium and found he didn't need it.
Okay, you recognize the historical fact. Newton apparently got the right
answer for the wrong reasons. Coulomb's inverse square law of
electrostatics, which proved to be a part of the Maxwell equations of
electrodynamics, is based on the existence of anisotropic aether. I give
credit to Newton for coming up with the right mathematical insight (if he
did not get it partly from another's efforts) of the inverse square
expression to make the results of his theory consistent with the equations
deduced by Johannes Kepler from Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations. His
Principia is a masterpiece of geometry. Marvelous, but he didn't think like
that to come up with his theory. Clearly, he had used his own brand of
calculus and Cartesian thinking. P.A.M. Dirac said that just because a
theory produces correct results doesn't mean it's entirely true, to
paraphrase him from memory.
> You brand his religious beliefs as evil and act as if
> he had accepted the Trinity, or whatever else you would
> prefer him to have done, it would have made a difference.
> The only difference I can see it making is that if he was
> like you, he would have steered clear of the tradition
> that obviously inspired him to his breakthrough.
>
> What do you think of that?
I think that I could not have done what Newton did. I think that a Lagrange
or a Hamilton could have done what Newton did. I definitely think that a
Clerk Maxwell (Hamilton was one of his instructors) or a Gauss would have
done what Newton did, and a lot more, esp. the former (depending on how long
the former lived, as he died around 48). I tend to think that there were
ancients at least, if not Newton's contemporaries, who somehow got the
inverse square insight, as Newton apparently tried to prove that some of the
ancient Greeks or others (I think the Hebrews) possessed this knowledge.
Well, if the Greeks had it, such as Pythagoras, surely the Hebrews had it
before them, for all these things came through Father Abraham.
> You've got all these notions about alchemy in the 17th century,
> but no real knowledge. Alchemy was a proto-science, the very
> beginnings of the serious modern application of experimentation,
> the very beginning of modern chemistry and pharmacology, among
> other things.
I tend to agree, that there were actually beneficial aspects to alchemy.
Certainly it was the forerunner of modern chemistry. But, when you engage in
empiricism or what you call science for the sake of money (obssessing over
turning something baser into gold), that is science based on impure motives.
I have a problem with that. "It ain't what they call rock and roll." Dire
Straits. Do it for love of the truth, rather than love of money, which is
the root of all evil, as the Apostle says, or in Tyndale's translation,
covetousness is the root of all evil, basically same thing. Newton seems to
have yielded to covetousness. There were signs of that before thirty, and it
certainly did happen after about thirty. Brigham Young did talk about, as I
recall, turning the native elements to gold, but he was talking about
arriving at that point of knowledge and power through obedience to Christ,
the source of righteousness. And, modern pharmacology has got to go. That's
apothecarism at its worst, but Sir Francis 'shakespeare' Bacon and his ilk
delight in it.
> It had nothing to do with spells and incantations,
> and everything to do with subjecting nature in beaker and flask
> to flame and formula, trying to figure out how it all worked.
> At the time what was known to be valid was a far more open
> question than it eventually became -- Newton's inquiries in
> alchemy were as much science as anything else he did,
> state-of-the-art theorizing and experimentation of his day.
Newton seems to have done it with an impure motive. Nearly all alchemists
seem to have done it with an impure motive, is my opinion. Clerk Maxwell, on
the other hand, was just curious about how things worked. I recommend Clerk
Maxwell's example over Newton's example. Would Clerk Maxwell have engaged in
alchemy had he lived in Newton's time? Perhaps, somewhat. None of us can
know, as it is entirely hypothetical.
> By the way, how do you know that his interest in
> Hermeticism wasn't inspired in the exact same way
> as you imagine Joseph Smith was?
I think that Newton's great talents for tinkering to make his own apparatus
and in mathematics were of the Lord God of Israel, based partly on his
voluntary efforts (God offers but doesn't force things down His children's
throats) in heaven as a spirit offspring of Michael the Archangel, or Father
Adam. It appears he misused them in some ways, while being tested in the
flesh. He produced good fruits as well as bad fruits. I am starting to
remember mostly the latter.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.14, Pg.84 - Pg.85, Brigham Young, April 9, 1871:
Our education should be such as to improve our minds and fit us for
increased usefulness; to make us of greater service to the human family; to
enable us to stop our rude methods of living, speaking, and thinking. But
you take those who bear the sway among men, those who hold the affairs of
the nations in their hands, catch them in the dark, and they are the lowest
of the creations of God. Many of them descend to the lowest gutters they
can find, and there, in darkness and in private, wallow in filth and
wickedness. This is a waste of their lives, a prostitution of their
knowledge and of the blessings Providence has bestowed upon them.
...
They are accomplished to the highest degree; they understand languages, and
amongst them are to be found lawyers, doctors, statesmen and members of the
highest classes of society.
[end of Scripture quote]
Newton was a member of the Parliament, as well as being appointed the Master
of the Royal Mint, lifetime as it turned out. He knew Latin thoroughly and
was a Bible scholar, etc. Sir Isaac Newton indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
With the Principia, Newton became internationally recognised. He acquired a
circle of admirers, including the Swiss-born mathematician Nicolas Fatio de
Duillier, with whom he formed an intense relationship that lasted until
1693. The end of this friendship led Newton to a nervous breakdown.
> -- it is a tradition with Egyptian roots.
John Maynard Keynes agrees with you, hence his intense fascination with
Isaac Newton, or just one of the reasons. Babylon was the word he used, as I
recall. Same thing.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.270, Brigham Young, August 14, 1853:
Again, the Saviour changed water into wine, in the same manner, by
commanding the elements. Can that be done by a chemical process. I admit
it can by the persons who understand the process; and that men can make
bread also. As quick as I admit that the history Moses gives of himself is
true, I cannot have any question in the world but what in ancient days they
understood in a measure how to command the elements. The magicians of Egypt
were instructed in things pertaining to true riches, and had obtained keys
and powers enough to produce a bogus in opposition to the true coin, as it
were, and thus they deceived the king and the people. They could cause
frogs to come upon the land, as well as Moses could. They could turn the
waters of Egypt into blood, and in many more things compete with Moses.
There was one thing, however, they could not do, though they produced a very
good bogus, but it was not quite the true coin. When they threw their
staffs on the floor before the king, they could not swallow the staff of
Moses, but the staff of Moses swallowed the staffs of the magicians. I have
no doubt that men can perform many such wonders by the principles of natural
philosophy.
[end of Scripture quote]
Some masterminds are liar ingrates dying to play God. They'll find
themselves in dire straits, in that hell spoken of.
Leibniz's calculus notations are superior to Newton's, as we all know.
Enables insights much quicker. Language and the mode thereof are important.
Math notations are a type of language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Most modern historians believe that Newton and Leibniz developed calculus
independently, using their own unique notations. According to Newton's inner
circle, Newton had worked out his method years before Leibniz, yet he
published almost nothing about it until 1693, and did not give a full
account until 1704. Meanwhile, Leibniz began publishing a full account of
his methods in 1684. Moreover, Leibniz's notation and "differential Method"
were universally adopted on the Continent, and after 1820 or so, in the
British Empire. Whereas Leibniz's notebooks show the advancement of the
ideas from early stages until maturity, there is only the end product in
Newton's known notes. Newton claimed that he had been reluctant to publish
his calculus because he feared being mocked for it. Starting in 1699, other
members of the Royal Society (of which Newton was a member) accused Leibniz
of plagiarism, and the dispute broke out in full force in 1711. Newton's
Royal Society proclaimed in a study that it was Newton who was the true
discoverer and labeled Leibniz a fraud. This study was cast into doubt when
it was later found that Newton himself wrote the study's concluding remarks
on Leibniz. Thus began the bitter Newton v. Leibniz calculus controversy,
which marred the lives of both Newton and Leibniz until the latter's death
in 1716. This dispute created a divide between British and Continental
mathematicians that may have impeded the progress of British mathematics by
at least a century.
Newton is generally credited with the generalized binomial theorem, valid
for any exponent. He discovered Newton's identities, Newton's method,
classified cubic plane curves (polynomials of degree three in two
variables), made substantial contributions to the theory of finite
differences, and was the first to use fractional indices and to employ
coordinate geometry to derive solutions to Diophantine equations. He
approximated partial sums of the harmonic series by logarithms (a precursor
to Euler's summation formula), and was the first to use power series with
confidence and to revert power series. He also discovered a new formula for
pi.
Jong Kim
You once wrote Art via a post on a.r.m., "Join us, Art". Keep trying,
if you want, but Art Bulla will never join your Keynesian cause.
Redtrollnames Berserk Relaxwell:
I hate the sheriff, so I'm gonna shoot the deputy.
And I will try and fetch me a nursing beauty.
When I'm looking for a puppet,
I have in mind some fan of the Muppets.
Ain't nothin' on me, for the killing of the deputy,
For the blood of the deputy.
[end of song]
The Jesuit Order
The Society of Jesus (Jesuits)
The complete Oath of Extreme Induction
Library of Congress, Washington D.C., Library of Congress Catalog
Card #66-43354, made public in 1883.
...
Superior:
My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman
Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to spy even among your own brethren;
to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer;
among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a
Calvinist; among the Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and
obtaining their confidence to seek even to preach from their pulpits and to
denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the
Pope; and to descend so low as to become a Jew among the Jews, that you
might be enabled to gather together all information for your Order as a
faithful soldier of the Pope.
You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred
between communities, provinces and states that were at peace, and incite
them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create
revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and
prosperous, cultivating the arts and sciences and enjoying the blessings of
peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly in concert with
your brother Jesuit, who may be engaged on the other side, but openly
opposed to that with which you might be connected; only that the Church
might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for
peace and that the end justifies the means.
You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and
information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the
confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class
and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer,
among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and in
the judiciaries councils of state, and to "be all things to all men," for
the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death.
You have received all your instructions heretofore as a novice, a neophyte,
and have served as a coadjutor, confessor and priest, but you have not been
invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the
service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and
executioner as directed by your superiors; for none can command here who has
not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for "without the
shedding of blood no man can be saved." Therefore, to fit yourself for your
work, and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former
oath of obedience to your Order and your allegiance to the Pope, repeat
after me.
...
Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name
of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his
Viceregent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.
[Finis]
http://www.thenazareneway.com/society_of_jesus_jesuits.htm
> but, seriously,
> you're not really suggesting your scientific work
> as being as significant in our time as Newton's was
> in his, are you? Just the non-scientific, right?
> A simple "all of it" will suffice -- I'm not looking
> for a fight, just a clarification.
All of The Revelations of Jesus Christ, received by Art Bulla and John
Taylor and Mosiah Hancock, are scientific, being of God. Art Bulla's
writings are more significant than Newton's. Whereas the great works of
Newton could also have been done by a Lagrange or an Euler or a Hamilton, no
one in this generation could have done what Art Bulla has done. Not even
Allais. At the time of Newton, there were other mathematical masterminds,
like Leibniz. Several others, reflective of the age, as the Spirit of God
worked mightily upon the Europeans, as a prelude to the advent of Joseph
Smith and the notable technological advances that followed his
administration. These men of European science, combined, brought in our
so-called scientific age, a recovery of the forgotten scientific knowledge
of earlier ages. Great accomplishment, but it pales in comparison to saving
souls in these the last days, and that is what The Revelations of Jesus
Christ given to the world through the Prophet Art Bulla is for. There's more
to spiritual things than being able to wrap one's mind around things, which
was the talent of Newton and his colleagues. Joseph Smith and Art Bulla are
even greater intellects, as well as being more honest and pure in heart.
That is why the Lord has chosen them to carry His Gospel to the Gentiles. By
their fruits ye shall know them. The RJC, truly the most important written
work in modern times, granting in the English language the mind and will of
the Lord and of His Father concerning salvation from this fallen world. The
Spirit has testified to me of the contents thereof on many occasions, just
as with the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and
the sayings of Brigham Young.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, Pg.202 - Pg.203, Brigham Young, February 1,
1857:
What do you know on natural principles? I do not say natural philosophy,
because my religion is natural philosophy. You never heard me preach a
doctrine but what has a natural system to it, and, when understood, is as
easy to comprehend as that two and two equal four. All the revelations of
the Lord Almighty to the children of men, and all revealed doctrines of
salvation are upon natural principles, upon natural philosophy. When I use
this term, I use it as synonomous with the plan of salvation; natural
philosophy is the plan of salvation, and the plan of salvation is natural
philosophy.
[end of Scripture quote]
Art Bulla's statistical calculations demonstrating the fallacy of Evolution
is a notable scientific achievement. It's found in The Revelations of Jesus
Christ, section 14. It facilitates the layman's understanding of the fallacy
of Evolution and the truth of the second law, etc. You disagree because you
subscribe to the Keynesian schoool of thought concerning probability, the
use and the interpretation thereof.
Murray N. Rothbard (Keynes, the Man, 1992):
In a notable contribution, Skidelsky demonstrates that Keynes's first
important scholarly book, A Treatise on Probability (1921), was
not unrelated to the rest of his concerns. It grew out of his attempt to
copper-rivet his rejection of Moore's proposed general rules of morality.
The beginnings of the Treatise came in a paper, which Keynes read to
the Apostles in January 1904, on Moore's spurned chapter, "Ethics in
Relation to Conduct." Refuting Moore on probability occupied
Keynes's scholarly thoughts from the beginning of 1904 until 1914,
when the manuscript of the Treatise was completed. He concluded
that Moore was able to impose general rules upon concrete actions
by employing an empirical or "frequentist" theory of probability, that is,
through observation of empirical frequencies we could have certain
knowledge of the probabilities of classes of events. To destroy any
possibility of applying general rules to particular cases, Keynes's
Treatise championed the classical a priori theory of probability, where
probability fractions are deduced purely by logic and have nothing
to do with empirical reality. Skidelsky makes the point well:
Keynes's argument, then, can be interpreted as an attempt to free
the individual to pursue the good.by means of egotistic actions,
since he is not required to have certain knowledge of the probable
consequences of his actions in order to act rationally. It is part,
in other words, of his continuing campaign against Christian morality.
This would have been appreciated by his audience, although the
connection is not obvious to the modern reader. More generally, Keynes
links rationality to expediency. The circumstances of an action become
the most important consideration in judgments of probable rightness.
By limiting the possibility of certain knowledge Keynes increased
the scope for intuitive judgment. (Skidelsky 1983: 153-54)
We cannot get into the intricacies of probability theory here. Suffice it
to say that Keynes's a priori theory was demolished by Richard
von Mises (1951) in his 1920s work, Probability, Statistics, and Truth.
Mises demonstrated that the probability fraction can be meaningfully
used only when it embodies an empirically derived law of entities which
are homogeneous, random, and indefinitely repeatable. This means,
of course, that probability theory can only be applied to events which,
in human life, are confined to those like the lottery or the roulette wheel.
(For a comparison of Keynes and Richard von Mises, see D.A. Gillies
[1973: 1-34].) Incidentally, Richard von Mises's probability theory was
adopted by his brother Ludwig, although they agreed on little else
(L. von Mises [1949] 1966: 106-15).
a priori
1. reasoning from cause to effect, deductively.
2. presumptively, without investigation.
3. (of knowledge) existing in the mind independently of experience.
Latin, = from what is before.
This Rothbard passage incidentally shows that Art Bulla's use of probability
in his epistle on the fallacy of Evolution is grounded on sound reasoning.
Btw, I'm guessing that Prof. Rothbard titled his revealing essay on Keynes
after the latter's famous essay on Newton, titled "Newton, the Man".
Until I read RJC 14 by Art Bulla, I had only previously heard (not even
read) of some Creationists' view that the second law of thermodynamics
invalidates Evolution. I forgot about the second law and merely assumed
Evolution to be false but would not have been able to explain my position if
asked to. I was fully convinced after perusing the Prophet Art Bulla's
epistle on the fallacy of Evolution. Many months afterward, I fortuitously
found James Clerk Maxwell's statement of the second law (important because
of the clarity of his language, besides the fact that it was the eminent
Clerk Maxwell that wrote it), and primarily by using these two weapons
provided by the Lord of hosts, we have been able to demolish Evolution on
the Usenet, to the point of both of us being cast out of talk.origins. Once
again, I call upon you to repent, for God is a God of mercy while it is yet
called day:
11 ś The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of
the night? Watchman, what of the night?
12 The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will
enquire, enquire ye: return, come.
(Old Testament | Isaiah 21:11 - 12)
RetroProphet
>All of The Revelations of Jesus Christ, received by Art Bulla
>and John Taylor and Mosiah Hancock, are scientific, being of God.
>Art Bulla's writings are more significant than Newton's.
>Whereas the great works of Newton could also have been done
>by a Lagrange or an Euler or a Hamilton, no one in this
>generation could have done what Art Bulla has done. Not even
>Allais.
>
>
>Art Bulla's statistical calculations demonstrating the
>fallacy of Evolution is a notable scientific achievement.
>It's found in The Revelations of Jesus Christ, section 14.
>It facilitates the layman's understanding of the fallacy
>of Evolution and the truth of the second law, etc.
>You disagree because you subscribe to the Keynesian schoool
>of thought concerning probability, the use and the
>interpretation thereof.
>
>
>We cannot get into the intricacies of probability theory here. Suffice it
>to say that Keynes's a priori theory was demolished by Richard
>von Mises (1951) in his 1920s work, Probability, Statistics, and Truth.
>Mises demonstrated that the probability fraction can be meaningfully
>used only when it embodies an empirically derived law of entities which
>are homogeneous, random, and indefinitely repeatable. This means,
>of course, that probability theory can only be applied to events which,
>in human life, are confined to those like the lottery or the roulette wheel.
>(For a comparison of Keynes and Richard von Mises, see D.A. Gillies
>[1973: 1-34].) Incidentally, Richard von Mises's probability theory was
>adopted by his brother Ludwig, although they agreed on little else
>(L. von Mises [1949] 1966: 106-15).
Jong, you are correct that probability theory can only
be applied to events that are homogeneous, random and
indefinitely repeatable, like a lottery.
In Chapter 14 of his book "The Revelations of Jesus Christ"
Art Bulla says he is applying probability theory to the
formation of a protein molecule consisting of 100 amino acids.
He starts out by reasoning that since there are 20 possible
amino acids at each of the 100 positions, the number of
possible different proteins with a length of 100 amino acids
is 20 to the 100th power.
From this observation he concludes that the probability of
any unique possible sequence is 1 in 20 to the 100th power.
My question is: What precisely is the "lottery" scheme that
he is assuming and employing as a model here?
It can only be as follows. Imagine a huge dartboard with
squares covering it like a checkerboard. The number of
squares is 20 to the 100th power, and each square represents
one of the unique possible protein configurations.
You stand there and throw a "random dart" at this dartboard.
The probability of hitting any particular square chosen
beforehand is indeed 1 in 20 to the 100th power.
Is applying probability theory to this dartboard
lottery scheme a valid application of probability
theory? Yes, it is, because it is homogeneous, random
and indefinitely repeatable.
It is homogeneous because each dartboard square is just
like each other. It is random because it is presumed
we are throwing a random dart, and it is indefinitely
repeatable because we can just keep on doing precisely
the same thing an infinite number of times.
Here's the problem.
This lottery scheme is NOT an accurate model for the
process of proteins forming, or any other chemical
reaction for that matter.
Chemical reactions are NOT random -- they only follow
very definite physical laws which makes some reactions
more likely than others, and some impossible.
Doesn't sound like a very homogeneous process
-- yup, that's right, because of this it's not
a homogeneous event-set either.
Is it infinitely repeatable? Nope. Instead of the
lottery being identical over and over again, each
event is different from the last because the overall
configuration is altered by each event.
So, the conclusion that we reach here is that though
probability theory may be applied to the scheme that
Art has envisioned, it may not be applied to chemical
reactions in the real world, and certainly not the
process he attempted to model.
In other words, that process (unlike games of chance)
does not possess the "emperically derived law of entities"
required for probability theory to be applicable.
Art Bulla's approach, let alone his result,
is therefore invalid, and so is certainly not
"a notable scientific achievement" as you had
maintained.
Ask Richard von Mises.
P.S.: You've got your head so far up your ass with
your mania for sorting scientists and scientific
ideas into good and evil so that you can use them
in bizarre religious apologetic arguments, that you
have completely disengaged yourself from understanding
and applying the scientific concepts themselves
-- this time to such a severe degree that you didn't
even realize that the concept you were offering as
support for Art Bulla's idea, actually refutes it surely.
And rather elegantly, too. I've offered a number of
different refutations of Chapter 14 over the years,
but I must say this one does it best.
You just nuked Chapter 14.
If I was Art, I'd be so pissed at you.
Jong Kim
By analogy, it's the same empirically derived idea as flipping a coin. There
are only two outcomes, and it is assumed that the probabilities of the two
outcomes are equal to each other. It is a reasonable assumption, based on
real life experience. With the hypothetical protein molecule under
consideration, a similar reasoning can be applied: One could have 2000
pieces of plastic figures (or of any other material) fitting to each other
in a certain way (where there are 20 classes of these pieces, multiplied by
100), shake them up and begin, with blinded eyes, pulling out one piece at a
time (or better yet, have a hole wide enough for one piece to pass through
when opened, at the bottom of the container, preferably of spherical shape)
and assemble a 'molecule' of one hundred 'amino acids' in length. Repeat
this procedure for any *very large* number of tries, and the expectation is
that the percentage of the occurence of any particular order will be seen to
*approach* 1/(20^100). I also recommend an attempt at laboratory synthesis
of protein molecules without resorting to applying electricity (or any other
external stimuli) to a soup of amino acids.
Rothbard's description, "Mises demonstrated that the probability fraction
can be meaningfully used only when it embodies an empirically derived law of
entities
which are homogeneous, random, and indefinitely repeatable. This means,
of course, that probability theory can only be applied to events which, in
human life, are confined to those like the lottery or the roulette wheel,"
can be easily visualized by any layman in terms of the flipping of a
quarter. Reasonable probability calculations are based upon the extension of
this idea or assumption, based on empiricism. I believe any mathematical
consideration, probability or otherwise, is founded on a certain set of
axioms or assumptions. Note Euclidean geometry as a typical example. Those
axioms or assumptions must be sensible, or else the outcome of the
mathematical treatment, no matter who does it, is nonsense.
A lot of words, and it all boils down to common sense, which isn't so common
in this willfully benighted age.
> It can only be as follows. Imagine a huge dartboard with
> squares covering it like a checkerboard. The number of
> squares is 20 to the 100th power, and each square represents
> one of the unique possible protein configurations.
> You stand there and throw a "random dart" at this dartboard.
>
> The probability of hitting any particular square chosen
> beforehand is indeed 1 in 20 to the 100th power.
>
> Is applying probability theory to this dartboard
> lottery scheme a valid application of probability
> theory? Yes, it is, because it is homogeneous, random
> and indefinitely repeatable.
>
> It is homogeneous because each dartboard square is just
> like each other. It is random because it is presumed
> we are throwing a random dart, and it is indefinitely
> repeatable because we can just keep on doing precisely
> the same thing an infinite number of times.
You're getting there, except with darting such a board, one is mostly going
to hit within a certain general area. I suggest a blinded person to improve
on this model. I believe the analogy of the plastic pieces is more evenly
random.
> Here's the problem.
>
> This lottery scheme is NOT an accurate model for the
> process of proteins forming, or any other chemical
> reaction for that matter.
>
> Chemical reactions are NOT random -- they only follow
> very definite physical laws which makes some reactions
> more likely than others, and some impossible.
>
> Doesn't sound like a very homogeneous process
> -- yup, that's right, because of this it's not
> a homogeneous event-set either.
You are starting to make no sense at all, as with disputing when Newton
peaked, the meaning of Maxwell's "discriminative destruction", etc. Amazing,
that you would continue to choose to be consciously muddled in your mind.
The point of Art Bulla's statistical example is summed up by a thoughtful
dictum of Maurice Allais, an eminent French physicist and economist:
"Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order." (About the Aether Concept, 2003)
Don't think that Art Bulla's example is simplistic. Thomas Young's slit
experiment to demonstrate the wave nature of light was simplistic also but
just as effective in demonstrating the truth to all.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/whipple/explore/models/wavemachines/thomasyoung
Thomas Young started his career as a medical man, but his interests were
broad and he soon began studying the properties of light. From 1801 to 1803
Young served as Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institution in
London. During this time, he conducted a series of experiments demonstrating
that light appeared to behave like waves, as it could be made to break up
into coloured fringes (this is known as diffraction).
This wave-like behaviour suggested that "light is not a substance but a
process going on in a substance" - as the physicist James Clerk Maxwell
(1831-1879) later said. This was not a new idea: it had been suggested by
Christiaan Huygens and others in the 17th century. However, Young's
experiments offered new evidence in favour of this wave theory of light.
Unfortunately for Young, this theory conflicted with the dominant
particle theory of light, which described light as a stream of particles
that are emitted from a light source. Young did not find much support for
his research and his work was criticised as being contrary to the teachings
of Newton's famous book Opticks, which supported the particle theory.
One notable critic, Henry Brougham (1778-1868), wrote that Young's wave
theory was "destitute of every species of merit ... the unmanly and
unfruitful pleasure of a boyish and prurient imagination".
As a result, Young's work was generally ignored for more than a decade.
Interest in the wave theory was revived when Augustin Fresnel
(1788-1827) developed an explanation of diffraction around 1816, which
explained the phenomenon in terms of the wave theory. Young's experiments
then became seen as potentially significant.
[end of excerpt]
Many actually bought into Brougham's lies, contibuting to Young's obscurity.
A brief mention of him in optics and engineering textbooks is about it.
Maybe a few other things, as he was a genuine polymath. Reminds me of Dire
Straits' "In the Gallery". Will discuss Young, Maxwell, the wave nature of
light, the correct interpretation of photons in another post.
> Is it infinitely repeatable? Nope. Instead of the
> lottery being identical over and over again, each
> event is different from the last because the overall
> configuration is altered by each event.
>
> So, the conclusion that we reach here is that though
> probability theory may be applied to the scheme that
> Art has envisioned, it may not be applied to chemical
> reactions in the real world, and certainly not the
> process he attempted to model.
No lottery is truly identical over and over again. Same with flipping a
coin. You'd have to start with the exactly same position before the coin is
flipped. A close approximation to starting at the same position is easily
achievable and even the impetus by which the coin is flipped, but it's never
truly identical and besides, no matter how hard or soft the surface upon
which the coin lands, by repeated contacts, the shapes of the coin and the
surface will begin to be altered, no matter how slight. Mathematically, or
abstractly modeling reality, one may reasonably assign probabilities in such
and such ways, based on real life experiences. It is but an attempt at
approximation and trying to come as close to reality as possible. And the
rest of your statement above, now you have really stopped making any sense.
By your nonsensical reasoning, Maxwell and Boltzmann had no business
applying statistics to gaseous thermodynamics.
> In other words, that process (unlike games of chance)
> does not possess the "emperically derived law of entities"
> required for probability theory to be applicable.
>
> Art Bulla's approach, let alone his result,
> is therefore invalid, and so is certainly not
> "a notable scientific achievement" as you had
> maintained.
>
> Ask Richard von Mises.
You ought to ask him. And Maurice Allais. I hear they know probability and
statistics pretty good. If not the former, the latter should still be alive
for your questioning.
> P.S.: You've got your head so far up your ass with
> your mania for sorting scientists and scientific
> ideas into good and evil so that you can use them
> in bizarre religious apologetic arguments,
I'm doing the Lord's errand and do not apologize for the Lord or His
servants the Prophets. You know that this is a strange work of the Lord,
Scripturally speaking. I merely assist in defending and advocating the
unchanging truth of Jesus Christ, by applauding and by singing praises and
by copying and pasting, as guided by His Spirit.
> that you
> have completely disengaged yourself from understanding
> and applying the scientific concepts themselves
> -- this time to such a severe degree that you didn't
> even realize that the concept you were offering as
> support for Art Bulla's idea, actually refutes it surely.
>
> And rather elegantly, too. I've offered a number of
> different refutations of Chapter 14 over the years,
> but I must say this one does it best.
>
> You just nuked Chapter 14.
>
> If I was Art, I'd be so pissed at you.
You're once again emitting by the dictum of that noted Keynesian (i.e.,
Teutonian) physicist, Steven Weinberg:
"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a
constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been,
if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious,
then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.
We should not retreat from this accomplishment."
("A Designer Universe?", based on a talk given in April 1999 at the
Conference on Cosmic Design of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science in Washington, D.C.)
As seen several paragraphs previously, Brougham was adept at this Keynesian
art long before Weinberg. And Brougham wasn't the first to defend
subjective, a priori, truths.
You ought to retreat and repent of dark sarcasms and blasphemies, etc.,
instead of (apparently) trying to waste my time. Or pick fights or whatever.
If it wasn't for the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, I would deeply regret
the massive amount of time over the years I've spent on exposing your lies
and obfuscations. Though the truth about Isaac Newton (the original mad
scientist of the modern age, but Tesla never was one) has scarred my mind
for life, there have been priceless compensations for my private
investigations. Unfortunately for the most part, the will of Sir Francis
'shakespeare' Bacon is still being done in this ungodly world.
Keynes once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
sir?"
I say unto you, "When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
wrong. What do you do, sir?"
Art Bulla
say that Newton, without any argument from me, contributed preeminently to
the building up of "a gentile nation" or culture of the west. However,
whole cultures (the majority of the world) ignore "scientific
understanding". The Arabs, for instance, want to revert to a medieval
outlook and are quite content with a lack of technology, though they use it
of necessity in warfare, to fight the west.
Jesus of Nazareth spoke nothing of technology, traveled no further than 100
mi from his home (despite spurious legends to the contrary, which are false,
saith the Lord), and walked on dusty roads in sandaled feet. John the
Baptist wore the skins of animals and ate grasshoppers for food. These two
contributed nothing directly to the advancement of science. Yet these two,
certainly Jesus, are the most important figures in human history. Your
science cannot overcome death. But my science can. Your science cannot deal
with origins correctly, if at all, the purpose of life is forever hidden
from them. But my science does. Therefore your science and its advancement
is of limited importance. A correct undertanding of who we are, why we are
here, where we are going, of who Jesus is and the true religion of heaven
is the most satisfying and the only thing which will satisfy the human
intelligence and will grant the persistent and careful devotee eternal life
which is the greatest of the gifts of God, and before which all human
endeavor, unaided by the spirit of revelation, is insignificant and even
distracting and in many ways deletorious to the ultimate happiness and
well-being of mankind. My revelations, clearly and precisely enable one to
grasp hold and lay hold on eternal life, and will guide the true seeker to
glory unspeakable and the ability to enter into the rest of the Lord in this
life and eternal life in the world to come, by explaining the principles and
ordinances, and where these can be found and administered, and what to do
after these are acquired. Is this not more important than the ability to
spend billions of taxpayer monies on futile and erroneous trips to Mars, for
instance, to discover that which every humble soul can find for free,
without error for himself by entering into the straight and narrow path by
the gateway which leads to an eventual resurrection and literally, not
figuratively, eternal life? As Jesus said, "What doth if profit if a man
gain the whole world and lose his own soul." Therefore my work is much more
important than even Newton's, as much as I do respect and admire his genius.
6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I
thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.
7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his
feet and ankle bones received strength.
8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the
temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
(Acts 3:6 - 8)
"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f2ujq...@drn.newsguy.com...
Art Bulla
theory of evolution, had its origins, ultimately in randomness, for the
proximities of polar to non-polar, electronegativity, brownian motion,
temperature, and a myriad other factors which science cannot even name and
catalogue, assure that without a creator, the process is even more random,
not less. The model I presented is geatly simplified, not taking into
account all these and the myriads of other phenomenae. This simplification
thus greatly favors the evolutionist, making the possibility of hitting the
right combination better for them and their theory, not worse. And even
still, with this simplification, the probablity is only 1 in 10^45, or
simply zero.
"RetroProphet" <RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3114...@drn.newsguy.com...
RetroProphet
>
>But the selectivity which favors certain combinations, according to the
>theory of evolution, had its origins, ultimately in randomness, for the
>proximities of polar to non-polar, electronegativity, brownian motion,
>temperature, and a myriad other factors which science cannot even name and
>catalogue, assure that without a creator, the process is even more random,
>not less. The model I presented is geatly simplified, not taking into
>account all these and the myriads of other phenomenae. This simplification
>thus greatly favors the evolutionist, making the possibility of hitting the
>right combination better for them and their theory, not worse. And even
>still, with this simplification, the probablity is only 1 in 10^45, or
>simply zero.
What I have demonstrated is that your model
is not a simplified version of an accurate
model for chemical reactions, but rather is
not an accurate one -- precisely because it
does not take into account "myriads of other
phenomenae."
Look at it this way. You've got an enormous universe
with an enormous number of events that have occured in it
over an enormous length of time -- you effectively have very
nearly no definitive information about this enormous set
of events. If you WERE able to make a list of every single
interactive event, you'd find that every single one of them
was fully describable by physical laws as apply to the
specific circumstances of each event.
"Randomness" is only another way of saying that you
don't have this list -- if you did, nothing would be
described as random and in fact what you did ascribe to
randomness would be seen as causation in events ranging
fully from improbable to very common.
Mow, IF you had such a list, you COULD then run a probability
analysis on the data and see which events were common and
which were rare, but in the absence of such data,
no meaningful probability analysis is possible.
Your model may be subjected to probability analysis,
as you do, but NO model of the history of chemical reactions
can be because it is not the same event (like the dart thrown)
repeated over and over, but rather a chain of events,
each of which is completely different from the last.
The probability analysis for your model cannot be
meaningfully substituted.
The argument I made using Mise's dictum merely reflects
the arguments I have made before, that your model does
not model the actual process for protein chains forming.
RetroProphet
The history of chemical reaction events in the universe
is NOT like a lottery and cannot be modeled the same way
for purposes of probability analysis -- it violates all
three of the conditions of Mises' dictum.
You are missing the point. Apply Mises' dictum precisely
to the actual problem under consideration. A "simplified"
model will not do.
I have posted a more in-depth response to Art.
If you don't believe I am right, pose my analysis vs yours
to the expert of your choice. You like e-mailing scholars.
Jong Kim
The notion of self-organization is based on the assumption of randomness,
i.e. no God. That there is no need for the 'hypothesis' of God. Therefore,
such an explanation for the origin of things, living or non-living, can be
modeled like a lottery (and flipping of a coin, etc.), so that the Mises
conditions for applying probability analysis are satisfied, as already
demonstrated at length in my previous post.
> You are missing the point. Apply Mises' dictum precisely
> to the actual problem under consideration. A "simplified"
> model will not do.
The Newtonians didn't like the findings of Thomas Young by simple means
(concerning the wave nature of light) either. What Art Bulla has done is
entirely valid, a simple model but not oversimplified to the point of being
irrelevant. His probability calculation is consistent with the following two
statements by eminent mathematical scientists:
"Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is
impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any
part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat
to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature."
James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat (1871).
"Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order." Maurice Allais, About the Aether Concept
(2003).
> I have posted a more in-depth response to Art.
>
> If you don't believe I am right, pose my analysis vs yours
> to the expert of your choice. You like e-mailing scholars.
Only Charles Petzold has ever bothered to reply. I email them, so that they
may be left witout excuse, for one thing. In the case of Steven Weinberg, I
was expressly commanded by the Spirit to do so. Discussion of this issue is
finished, and besides I can't afford to spend a long time posting any more.
I know I've been saying that for a while, but I really must slow down now. I
have no problem submitting my previous post on Mises conditions, etc. to any
so-called expert. Who should I send it to? In any case, I'll be posting but
not focusing on replying you, since the more sensible of your inquiries have
been answered. Feel free to emit dark sarcasms, if you like.
1 Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O
ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in
the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be
born, speaking lies.
(Old Testament | Psalms 58:1 - 3)
Now I'll be moving on to the true meaning of photons and also to the fact
that Newton once tried to publish his erroneous views on the nature of the
Godhead.
Jong Kim
> I have posted a more in-depth response to Art.
I just read it. It was rubbish. You're retrograding even faster now.
RetroProphet
Nonsense.
You are the one who is assuming randomness to be a property
prevelent throughout the history of chemical reactions
-- but randomness is only a label for specific information
that we do not have about nearly all of this history.
Whenever we DO have information about an specific interaction
we can see exactly why it resulted as it did. Unless you do,
you cannot meaningfully make a probability analysis.
Take the case of snowflakes forming.
Let's say that you lived in a place where snowflakes
have never been seen and I told you that it was possible for
water to form complex shapes but didn't tell you how, I just
showed you a picture.
If you were ignorant of how this occurred, you would be puzzled
as to how it would be possible for "randomness" to result in
such complex structures.
You would speculate as to all the possible configurations that
water molecules could assume and consider it to be a very
improbable thing to occur -- this is exactly what you are
doing when you use the dartboard method in attempting to
determine the probability of protein chains forming.
What happens to your speculations when I reveal the
actual process by which snowflakes form? It is shown
to have been a pointless speculation in light of actual
knowledge.
The reason Mises' dictum makes the distinctions it does
is because in games of chance ALL possible processes
that lead to results in the game are known and accounted
for. This is obviously not true in the case of proteins
forming under all possible conditions throughout the
universe over vast lengths of time.
For this reason, the simplified game model cannot be
meaningfully substituted.
>> If you don't believe I am right, pose my analysis vs yours
>> to the expert of your choice. You like e-mailing scholars.
>
>Only Charles Petzold has ever bothered to reply. I email
>them, so that they may be left witout excuse, for one thing.
>In the case of Steven Weinberg, I was expressly commanded by
>the Spirit to do so. Discussion of this issue is finished,
>and besides I can't afford to spend a long time posting any more.
>I know I've been saying that for a while, but I really must
>slow down now. I have no problem submitting my previous post
>on Mises conditions, etc. to any so-called expert.
>Who should I send it to?
I have given you the chance to demonstrate the strength
of your position versus mine to the expert of your choice,
someone you respect, because if I choose someone, you might
take exception to their opinion, rendering the effort pointless.
I could summarize our contention and post it to various
math and science newsgroups, but you would not consider
anyone who responded who took my side to be credible.
So that would be pointless as well.
I am willing to be peer-reviewed by ANYBODY, but you
have proven to be very picky about who you are willing
to be peer-reviewed by -- arguably you limit the possibilities
to exactly one man, Art Bulla.
In light of this limitation imposed by you, not me,
the ball must be considered to be in your court, and
your unwillingness to take the initiative is in essence
a concession. That you are quick to quote others in supposed
support of your position, but shy from submitting the conclusions
you have derived, is a stance that is indistinguishable from
one that would be taken by someone unsure of their conclusions.
There is nothing more cowardly in science than demanding
that the resolution of a question stops with their proclamation.
That is what you are demanding.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> The notion of self-organization is based on the assumption of randomness,
> i.e. no God.
Does god make each and every crystal? When I put salt on my tomatoes
(tomatoes and cottage cheese are a really great snack) should I thank
god for making each of those little tiny crystals? When it snows,
should I stand in awe at how fast god makes each and every snow
crystal?
How about tornadoes? That's a very interesting example of self
organization. All that air moving in a tight circle so very fast.
Since you assert that self organization can't happen without god,
should we assume that each and every tornado is personally organized
by him/her/it? Does that mean he/she/it also personally organizes
each and every hurricane?
Hmm. Does that mean we should personally blame god for the people
killed by tornadoes and hurricanes?
Here's a nifty little experiment you might try. Get a bottle and put
pebbles, tiny pea gravel, sand, silt, and crushed leaves in it. The
bottle should be about half full of this stuff. Mix it all around so
the materials are randomly distributed.
Now pour water into the bottle. Fill it almost to the top and then
put on the lid. Shake the bottle (be careful not to let it break).
Now you've got a big sloshy mess in the bottle. Things are hopelessly
disorganized.
Remove the lid and set the bottle on a shelf. Wait about a week (long
enough for the water to evaporate) and then look at your experiment.
The materials in the bottle are now nicely sorted with the heavier
materials on the bottom and the lighter materials on top.
Did god do it (organize the material in the bottle)?
How about orbits? Circular orbits are such beautiful, organized
things. Does god put each and every star, planet, moon, or asteroid
into orbit?
The other day I saw a rainbow. All the colors were blazing across the
sky in an ordered progression from blue to red. Does god make each
rainbow?
Last weekend I went to clean out the attic. All the dust that'd been
in the air had settled in a neat, orderly film that covered all the
surfaces. Had god been busy in my attic, organizing the dust?
I like to climb mountains, and I love glaciers. Glaciers organize
gravel by pushing up nice piles of the stuff called "moraines." Or do
they? Is god secretly working behind the scene building moraines, and
it only looks like the glacier is doing it?
Hey, have you ever been kayaking? It's one of the things I like
best. The Columbia River is a great place to kayak. Last October I
kayaked from Saint Helens to Astoria and had a great time. One of the
things you're very aware of on the Columbia River are the currents and
waves. How does the Columbia River get organized so that all the
water is moving in the same direction? Is god organizing this
collective behavior of those trillions of water molecules? And how
about those waves? I always thought the wind organized the waves, but
I assume you think god makes the waves and it only looks like the wind
is doing the organizing?
While kayaking on the river I'd pull over every once in a while to
take a rest and eat some food. The river has some nice sandy beaches
and in areas where the wind blows hard there are miniature dunes on
the beach. Nice, organized, dunes. How'd they get so organized? Did
god do it?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
> i.e. no God.
Jong Kim
I'm a bit weary of posting new things, written extensively. I'll try to
remember to answer you further on this thread, but if I don't, take this for
an answer:
When you go berserk, you emit unholy wrath;
When you relax well, you're proven a fake polymath.
polymath, n.
a person with knowledge of many subjects, a great scholar.
Jong Kim
news:1180028917.7...@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The planetary orbits are elliptical, albeit nearly circular.
I believe that Nature exhibits behaviors, as man observes them, according to
natural principles of natural philosophy, or physics, as it is now called.
Here I use use the word "physics" to encompass all fields of inquiry
pertaining to behavior of matter, both living and non-living. By receiving
various temporal principles of natural philosophy, man has shown himself
able to predict the behavior of matter to some extent. One of the most
notable and earliest example of this intellectual power is predicting the
planetary orbits by the mathematical theory of Isaac Newton, and his name is
celebrated to this day for mathematically accounting, the key being the
inverse square relation, for Kepler's empirical laws concerning planetary
orbits, as well as for his initiating the development of present-day
calculus (along with Leibniz) and for his pioneering observations in the
field of optics.
God formed the world and all things therein, and unless He should directly
interfere here after His creation of this planet, His works upon this earth
(as elsewhere) move about according to the natural principles of natural
philosophy, which are descriptions, mathematical or otherwise, of how things
behave. (The accounts of healing recorded in the New Testament are an
example of the direct interference of the Almighty, by the power of the Holy
Ghost. Another is the prolonged daylight during the battle waged by Joshua
and his host of the children of Israel. I know by the Holy Ghost given me
recently that the global warming phenomenon is another -- it has very little
to do with industrial pollution of the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect and
the like, and some scientists have come out and stated that man's pollution
plays a negligible role in global warming.)
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.50 - Pg.51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852:
They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the
herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought
from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the
brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was
cursed.
[end of Scripture quote]
Two of the most relevant natural principles of physics in this discussion
are, as I see it, the following two, the first being the second law of
thermodynamics:
"Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is
impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any
part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat
to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature."
James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat (1871).
This is why Evolution is not observed. The great beauty and order, not
randomness, that we consistently observe in Nature are partly accounted for,
as I see it, by another natural principle, called the Principle of Least
Action, or Stationary Action (so named due to the more generalized
mathematical works of Lagrange and Hamilton) among the Gentiles -- I prefer
to call it the Principle of the Economy of Heaven (I begin by presenting you
the problem of the curve of fastest descent):
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~eremenko/bernoulli.html
While Newton made a secret of his discovery of fluxions, Leibniz publicized
his calculus, and by the year of 1695 he and his student John Bernoulli
developed calculus into a magnificent tool for solving a variety of
problems.
To find out how much Newton really knew, Leibniz and Bernoulli devised the
following test. According to the custom of that time, John Bernoulli,
published in June 1696 a challenging problem, which he addressed "to acutest
mathematicians of the world''
'To find the curve connecting two points, at different heights and
not on the same vertical line, along which a body acted upon
only by gravity will fall in the shortest time'.
Leibniz and Bernoulli were confident that only a person who knows calculus
could solve this problem. Bernoulli allowed six months for the solutions but
no solutions were received during this period. At the request of Leibniz,
the time was publicly extended for a year in order that all contestants
should have an equal chance. On 29th of January 1697 the challenge was
received by Newton from France and on the next day (according to his
nephew's memoirs) he sent to Montague, who was then President of the Royal
Society, his solution. The only other solutions were sent by Leibniz and
L'Hopital. (The latter, another student of Leibniz, was the author of the
first calculus textbook). Following Bernoulli's suggestion the curve which
solves the problem is called the 'brachistochrone', which is the Greek for
'the shortest time'.
[end of excerpt]
By this Principle of the Economy of Heaven, when a cord or a chain is placed
between two points A and B, one above the other but not entirely vertical,
and without being stretched to form a straight line, it is observed that a
brachistochrone curve is *NATURALLY* formed by the same. Consider the
building of a suspension bridge. The most stable and strongest of such a
structure can be raised up in accorance with such a brachistochrone curve.
Likewise, by observing the spiritual natural principles (faith including
prayers of humility, repentance, baptism), any person can obtain the
salvation of the Lord, by enduring to the end. He or she is enabled to
endure to the end because as long as he or she perseveres in observing the
spiritual natural principles, the Holy Ghost bears witness to him or her,
and by this means, though he or she does not know all things, his or her
faith is increased, for his or her understanding and knowledge have
increased.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.221, John Taylor, April 8, 1853:
The principles of justice, righteousness, and truth, which have an endless
duration, can alone satisfy the capacious desires of the immortal soul. We
may amuse ourselves like children do at play, or engage in the frivolities
of the dance. We may take our little enjoyments in our social assemblies,
but when the man comes to reflect, when the Saint of God considers, and the
visions of eternity are open to his view, and the unalterable purposes of
God are developed to his mind--when he contemplates his true position before
God, angels, and men, then he soars above the things of time and sense, and
bursts the cords that bind him to earthly objects; he contemplates God and
his own destiny in the economy of heaven, and rejoices in a blooming hope of
an immortal glory.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~cherk/teach/calc-var1.html
Clear and elegant methods of modern Calculus of Variations allow to solve
large number of problems in Science and Engineering. Originated by
Bernoulli, Newton, Euler, and systematically developed beginning from XVIII
century, these days Calculus of Variations attracts attention of
mathematicians and provides new tools to find the best possible solutions,
and to understand the essence of optimality.
...
The main question of the classical theory of Calculus of Variation is: What
curve or surface is in a sense 'the best one'? For example,
* What curve with the fixed length covers maximal area? (of course, the
circle!)
* What curve corresponds to the fastest glide along it? (the
brachistochrone problem)
* What surface with a fixed boundary has the smallest area? (the minimal
surface problem)
* What variable thickness of a plate maximizes its stiffness? (an
optimal design problem).
In these problems, the extremal property is attributed to an entire curve
(function). A group of methods aimed to find 'optimal' functions is called
Calculus of Variations.
From ancient times, geometers noticed extremal properties of symmetric
figures and bodies. The circle has maximal area among all figures with fixed
perimeter; the right triangular and the square have maximal area among all
triangles and quadrangles with fixed perimeter, respectively, etc. However,
regular proofs of these extremal properties usually are not easy. Even more
difficult task was to develop a regular theory that was able to search for
optimal curves and surfaces. This theory of extremal problem has been
actively developed for the last three centuries.
Calculus of Variations has been originated by Bernoulli, Newton, Euler;
systematically developed beginning from XVIII century; it still attracts
attention of mathematicians and it helps scientists and engineers to find
the best possible solutions. The study of Calculus of Variations was
fruitful for mathematics: it led to development of Analysis, Harmonic
analysis, Operator theory and distributions, and other important branches of
math.
Modern branches of Calculus of Variations include Control theory, Optimal
design theory or Structural Optimization, Differential games theory,
Operation research, Programming, etc. The goal of the theory is to analyse
extremal trajectories. In the last decades, interest to these approaches
grows thanks to advances in numerical methods: it becomes possible to solve
equations for extremals and to use them in many scientific and engineering
applications.
Extremal problems are attractive due to human's natural desire to find
perfect solutions, they also root in natural laws of physics. The last ones
can often be formulated as extremal problems: the true trajectory delivers
minimum of a functional called 'the energy' among all admissible
trajectories. In mechanics, a real motion minimizes the mechanical energy;
in thermodynamics, the dissipative processes maximizes the dissipation rate,
etc. This phenomenon looks mysterious, and it has caused a lot of
philosophical speculations.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.8, Pg.160 - Pg.161, Brigham Young, September 2,
1860:
All, so far as they have heard, are convicted that the work in which we are
engaged is true--that it is the Gospel of salvation--the voice of God from
the heavens to all people. Hear it, O ye inhabitants of the earth! The
Lord has again spoken from the heavens, and revealed the holy Priesthood, to
save the children of men from impending ruin. Though this is true, they
fancy that they can devise systems by which they can save themselves, enter
into the gate of rest, and secure to themselves that eternal repose the
heart aches for all through life. There may be some exceptions to this
general truth, but the existence of a Supreme Being is universally
acknowledged by man. This is to be found in the lowest of the heathen
nations, and they worship according to the best knowledge they have. The
inhabitants of Hindostan, Japan, &c., are devotional people, though they
worship before images, not knowing better. The aborigines of this country
also worship according to their traditions, as do all the heathen nations.
They make their graven images of brass, wood, silver, and gold to represent
the Deity they seek to please. The Roman Catholic Church uses paintings and
images of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary; but ask them if they worship
these pictures and images, and they will tell you, "No: the picture or
image only represents to the eye the Being we worship." So it is with the
worship of the heathen nations: they will tell you they "do not worship the
inanimate image, but that the God they worship is in eternity. We do not
see him, but our fathers have taught us many things which we wish to retain
in memory." You present to your children the image or picture of the
Saviour, or any good being, and teach them to imitate his example, and by
this means strive to create the best possible impression upon their young
minds. And which is best--to do this, or to present them a pack of cards
and teach them the use of them? Then do not depreciate the heathen worship,
nor the brethren of our former Christian faith; for the majority of them
worship according to the best knowledge they have. Intelligent beings are
organized to become Gods, even the sons of God, to dwell in the presence of
the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligencies that dwell
in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practise upon what we
receive. Wickedness now dwells upon the earth; but as we are exhorted from
time to time by words, deeds, and examples, and by the faith of the good,
let us continue in this labour of love until we overcome the evil that is
within ourselves. With all the rest of the good that you can commit to
memory, be sure to recollect that the Gospel of salvation is expressly
designed to make Saints of sinners, to overcome evil with good, to make
holy, good men of wicked, bad men, and to make better men of good. Wherein
we are wicked, wherein we have evil passions, the gospel will aid us in
overcoming evil. It gives us the influence, the power, the knowledge, the
wisdom, and the understanding to overcome our weaknesses and to purify
ourselves before the Lord our God. How often we have heard it said that "a
Saint will be a Saint, a devil will be a devil, and the wicked will be
wicked!" People should understand that there is no man born upon the face
of the earth but what can be saved in the kingdom of God, if he is disposed
to be. There is not a word to contradict this in all the sacred writings.
When the wicked man forsakes his wickedness, though he has rolled it under
his tongue as a sweet morsel, he can be saved. If God has foreordained
certain men to certain ends, it is because he knew all things from eternity,
as in the case of Pharaoh, who he knew would do wickedly; consequently,
selected him to be put upon the throne. "You are determined to be wicked and
to carry out the schemes of the Devil; therefore I will use you to promote
my kingdom on the earth and to exalt me among men, for I know that you will
do all you can against my children, against my work, and against my grace to
save the children of men." God raised him to the throne of Egypt, because
he foresaw that in this position he could use him to the greatest advantage
to His cause,--not because he was foreordained to that position.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, Pg.203, Brigham Young, July 31, 1859:
We must have our day of trial--an opportunity to become acquainted with the
bitter and the sweet. We are so organized as to be able to choose or to
refuse. We can take the downward road that leads to destruction, or the
road that leads to life. We can constantly act upon the principles that tend
to death, or refuse them and act upon the principles that pertain to life
and salvation. This is a day of trial; or faith and patience can now be
tried: now is the time for your fortitude and integrity to be tried. Let
the trials come; for if we should be so unspeakably happy as to obtain a
crown of eternal life, we shall be like gold tried seven times in the fire.
Let the fiery furnace burn, and the afflictions come, and the temptations be
presented;--if we wish to be crowned with crowns of glory and exalted to
dwell with our elder brother Jesus Christ, we must choose the good and
refuse the evil.
42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by
which they move in their times and their seasons;
43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the
earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.
44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in
their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their
months, in their years-all these are one year with God, but not with man.
45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and
the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as
they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?
47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the
least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own
was not comprehended.
49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not;
nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being
quickened in him and by him.
50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the
true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not
abound.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 88:42 - 50)
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~eremenko/bernoulli.html
Bernoulli's problem was an early example of a class of problems called
Calculus of Variations now. These are extremal problems (finding maxima and
minima), where the independent variable is not a number, not even several
numbers, but a curve or a function. A rule which assigns a number to each
curve of a given collection is called a "functional". It is like an ordinary
function, except that a collection of curves instead of numbers serves as an
independent variable.
A general approach to this class of problems, based on differential
equations, was first found by Euler. In the end of XVIII century, Lagrange
discovered that the fundamental laws of mechanics can be formulated as
Variational Principles. About optics a similar discovery was made much
earlier, by Fermat. Thus ALL fundamental laws of nature, known by the XIX
century could be formulated in terms of Calculus of Variations. Amazingly,
this also applies to all new fundamental laws discovered in XIX and XX
century. (For quantum mechanics this was shown by R. Feynman in 1942; his
beautiful lecture for undergraduates about variational principles is
mentioned below).
Thus it turns out that Calculus of Variations is a kind of universal
language of physics. In XVIII century this curious fact was even considered
as a proof of the existence of God. (That Nature achieves its goals in "best
possible" ways, that is by minimizing some functional depending on "all
possible ways").
Sources:
L. T. Moore, Isaac Newton. A Biography, Dover, NY, 1934.
Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 2, ch. 19.
[end of excerpt]
The Principle of Stationary Action is a strong temporal evidence of the
existence of God. So are His miracles and also His works we see all around
us. The definitive proof, besides His immediate presence, can be received by
anyone with sufficient faith to receive the power of the Holy Ghost. Deny
not the Spirit of Christ. Amen.
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Even more impressive. Does god plan and organize each and every
oribit?
I see no reason not to consider life one of those natural principles.
> Here I use use the word "physics" to encompass all fields of inquiry
> pertaining to behavior of matter, both living and non-living. By receiving
> various temporal principles of natural philosophy, man has shown himself
> able to predict the behavior of matter to some extent. One of the most
> notable and earliest example of this intellectual power is predicting the
> planetary orbits by the mathematical theory of Isaac Newton, and his name is
> celebrated to this day for mathematically accounting, the key being the
> inverse square relation, for Kepler's empirical laws concerning planetary
> orbits, as well as for his initiating the development of present-day
> calculus (along with Leibniz) and for his pioneering observations in the
> field of optics.
But I thought you said order can't happen unless god does it. Now you
seem to be agreeing that there's order without god.
And if god is required for order, then who organized god?
> God formed the world and all things therein,
VOE, please.
> and unless He should directly
> interfere here after His creation of this planet, His works upon this earth
> (as elsewhere) move about according to the natural principles of natural
> philosophy, which are descriptions, mathematical or otherwise, of how things
> behave. (
VOE, please.
> The accounts of healing recorded in the New Testament are an
> example of the direct interference of the Almighty, by the power of the Holy
> Ghost. Another is the prolonged daylight during the battle waged by Joshua
> and his host of the children of Israel.
VOE, please.
> I know by the Holy Ghost given me
> recently that the global warming phenomenon is another -- it has very little
> to do with industrial pollution of the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect and
> the like, and some scientists have come out and stated that man's pollution
> plays a negligible role in global warming.)
So much for the accuracy of the holy ghost!
> Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.50 - Pg.51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852:
>
> They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the
> herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and
> every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought
> from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the
> brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was
> cursed.
Okay, so Brigham Young was wrong. Was that your point?
> [end of Scripture quote]
>
> Two of the most relevant natural principles of physics in this discussion
> are, as I see it, the following two, the first being the second law of
> thermodynamics:
>
> "Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is
> impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any
> part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat
> to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature."
> James Clerk Maxwell, Theory of Heat (1871).
>
> This is why Evolution is not observed.
Evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics [hint:
sunlight is hot] and it is observed.
> The great beauty and order, not
> randomness, that we consistently observe in Nature are partly accounted for,
> as I see it, by another natural principle, called the Principle of Least
> Action, or Stationary Action
Ah .. inventing your own physics here?
> (so named due to the more generalized
> mathematical works of Lagrange and Hamilton) among the Gentiles -- I prefer
> to call it the Principle of the Economy of Heaven (I begin by presenting you
> the problem of the curve of fastest descent):
VOE, please.
> http://www.math.purdue.edu/~eremenko/bernoulli.html
> While Newton made a secret of his discovery of fluxions, Leibniz publicized
> his calculus, and by the year of 1695 he and his student John Bernoulli
> developed calculus into a magnificent tool for solving a variety of
> problems.
>
> To find out how much Newton really knew, Leibniz and Bernoulli devised the
> following test. According to the custom of that time, John Bernoulli,
> published in June 1696 a challenging problem, which he addressed "to acutest
> mathematicians of the world''
>
> 'To find the curve connecting two points, at different heights and
> not on the same vertical line, along which a body acted upon
> only by gravity will fall in the shortest time'.
>
> Leibniz and Bernoulli were confident that only a person who knows calculus
> could solve this problem. Bernoulli allowed six months for the solutions but
> no solutions were received during this period. At the request of Leibniz,
> the time was publicly extended for a year in order that all contestants
> should have an equal chance. On 29th of January 1697 the challenge was
> received by Newton from France and on the next day (according to his
> nephew's memoirs) he sent to Montague, who was then President of the Royal
> Society, his solution. The only other solutions were sent by Leibniz and
> L'Hopital. (The latter, another student of Leibniz, was the author of the
> first calculus textbook). Following Bernoulli's suggestion the curve which
> solves the problem is called the 'brachistochrone', which is the Greek for
> 'the shortest time'.
Okay, so you can past stuff that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Can we get back to evolution?
> [end of excerpt]
>
> By this Principle of the Economy of Heaven, when a cord or a chain is placed
> between two points A and B, one above the other but not entirely vertical,
> and without being stretched to form a straight line, it is observed that a
> brachistochrone curve is *NATURALLY* formed by the same. Consider the
> building of a suspension bridge. The most stable and strongest of such a
> structure can be raised up in accorance with such a brachistochrone curve.
>
> Likewise, by observing the spiritual natural principles (faith including
> prayers of humility, repentance, baptism), any person can obtain the
> salvation of the Lord, by enduring to the end. He or she is enabled to
> endure to the end because as long as he or she perseveres in observing the
> spiritual natural principles, the Holy Ghost bears witness to him or her,
> and by this means, though he or she does not know all things, his or her
> faith is increased, for his or her understanding and knowledge have
> increased.
Okay, so you can past stuff that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Can we get back to evolution?
>
> Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.221, John Taylor, April 8, 1853:
>
> The principles of justice, righteousness, and truth, which have an endless
> duration, can alone satisfy the capacious desires of the immortal soul. We
> may amuse ourselves like children do at play, or engage in the frivolities
> of the dance. We may take our little enjoyments in our social assemblies,
> but when the man comes to reflect, when the Saint of God considers, and the
> visions of eternity are open to his view, and the unalterable purposes of
> God are developed
I fail to see the point of anything here.
Jong Kim
> On May 24, 7:40 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > The notion of self-organization is based on the assumption of
> > randomness, i.e. no God.
<snip>
> While kayaking on the river I'd pull over every once in a while to
> take a rest and eat some food. The river has some nice sandy beaches
> and in areas where the wind blows hard there are miniature dunes on
> the beach. Nice, organized, dunes. How'd they get so organized? Did
> god do it?
'Tis the economy of heaven.
===
Tidal sand patterns, (c) Wayne Roberts
The above image shows a naturally-occurring 'scale structure'-with its
typical asymmetric balance, lyricism, and resonance of forms-and therefore
espousing the principles of music. The word 'scale' in this document is thus
applied in the musical sense of the word, -a Scale Structure theory of
Nature.
http://www.principlesofnature.net/index.htm
James Clerk Maxwell (The Life of, p. 178):
The special educational value of this combined study of music and acoustics
is that more than almost any other study it involves a continual appeal to
what we must observe for ourselves.
The facts are things which must be felt; they cannot be learned from any
description of them.
All this has been said more than 200 years ago by one of our own
prophets, William Harvey of Gonville and Caius College:-"For whosoever they
be that read authors, and do not, by the aid of their own senses, abstract
true representations of the things themselves (comprehended in the author's
expressions) they do not represent true ideas, but deceitful idols and
phantasmas; by which means they frame to themselves certaine shadows and
chimaeras, and all their theory and contemplation (which they call science)
represents nothing but waking men's dreams and sick men's phrensies."
http://www.principlesofnature.net/principle_of_least_action.htm
Wayne Roberts (c) 2003
It all adds up - the principle of Least Action
...
Least Action
Least Action has a special meaning in physics. It's a very simple idea but
with far-reaching consequences. Basically it states that Nature always finds
the most efficient course from one point to another. (It seems it might be
somehow hardwired into numbers and physical law in a way we still do not
fully understand, but the effects of which have been well-documented and
established experimentally time and again-the orbits of planets, the path of
a thrown ball, the path of a photon of light-all these will follow (of their
own 'volition' it seems) paths of least action (defined as paths in which
the total energy needed to get from point A to point B is minimised).
http://www.d3.dion.ne.jp/~kiyohisa/tieca/242.htm
2 The principle of least action
i) Lagrangian
The principle of least action for electric circuit is
<equation snipped>
ii) Legendre transformations
Using Legendre transformation for electric circuit as followings
<equation snipped>
iii) Canonical Action
We here regard the total parity of action in general is odd as a basic
parity such as charge, space and time. In electric circuit, we can formulate
action for variational principle such as,
<equation snipped>
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180029407....@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 24, 7:40 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The notion of self-organization is based on the assumption of
> > > randomness, i.e. no God.
>
> <snip>
>
> > While kayaking on the river I'd pull over every once in a while to
> > take a rest and eat some food. The river has some nice sandy beaches
> > and in areas where the wind blows hard there are miniature dunes on
> > the beach. Nice, organized, dunes. How'd they get so organized? Did
> > god do it?
>
> 'Tis the economy of heaven.
VOE, please.
> ===
>
> Tidal sand patterns, (c) Wayne Roberts
> The above image shows a naturally-occurring 'scale structure'-with its
> typical asymmetric balance, lyricism, and resonance of forms-and therefore
> espousing the principles of music. The word 'scale' in this document is thus
> applied in the musical sense of the word, -a Scale Structure theory of
> Nature.http://www.principlesofnature.net/index.htm
Hmmm. No mention of god. Was that what you wanted?
> James Clerk Maxwell (The Life of, p. 178):
>
> The special educational value of this combined study of music and acoustics
> is that more than almost any other study it involves a continual appeal to
> what we must observe for ourselves.
> The facts are things which must be felt; they cannot be learned from any
> description of them.
Hmmm. No mention of god. Was that what you wanted?
> All this has been said more than 200 years ago by one of our own
> prophets, William Harvey of Gonville and Caius College:-"For whosoever they
> be that read authors, and do not, by the aid of their own senses, abstract
> true representations of the things themselves (comprehended in the author's
> expressions) they do not represent true ideas, but deceitful idols and
> phantasmas; by which means they frame to themselves certaine shadows and
> chimaeras, and all their theory and contemplation (which they call science)
> represents nothing but waking men's dreams and sick men's phrensies."
>
> http://www.principlesofnature.net/principle_of_least_action.htm
> Wayne Roberts (c) 2003
Okay .. so you can assert claims (over and over again) -- but got any
VOE?
> It all adds up - the principle of Least Action
But what's that got to do with god? It's a natural situation that
results in order -- all without the need for god.
<snip to end>
Jong Kim
> Okay, so you can past stuff that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> Can we get back to evolution?
John Maynard Keynes:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
sir?
===
Jong Kim
> But what's that got to do with god? It's a natural situation that
> results in order -- all without the need for god.
29 For where is the disputer that there is a God in that day which shall
burn, even as an oven, saith the Lord?
Revelations of Jesus Christ 8:29
Jong Kim
In a way, any mathematical analysis based on the principle of least action
is a probability analysis, where one does not necessarily have complete
information about a specific interaction. This has been made very obvious in
the case of the Feynman path integral approach to quantum electrodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics is a description of
quantum theory which generalizes the action principle of classical
mechanics. It replaces the classical notion of a single, unique history for
a system with a sum, or functional integral, over an infinity of possible
histories to compute a quantum amplitude.
The path integral formulation was developed in 1948 by Richard Feynman. Some
preliminaries were worked out earlier, in the course of his doctoral thesis
work with John Archibald Wheeler.
This formulation has proved crucial to the subsequent development of
theoretical physics, since it provided the basis for the grand synthesis of
the 1970s called the renormalization group which unified quantum field
theory with statistical mechanics. If we realize that the Schrodinger
equation is essentially a diffusion equation with an imaginary diffusion
constant, then the path integral is a method for the enumeration of random
walks. For this reason path integrals had also been used in the study of
Brownian motion and diffusion before they were introduced in quantum
mechanics.
...
Feynman proposed the following postulates:
1. The probability for any fundamental event is given by the square modulus
of a complex amplitude.
2. The amplitude for some event is given by adding together all the
histories which include that event.
3. The amplitude a certain history contributes is proportional to
e^(iS/h-bar), where h-bar is reduced Planck's constant and S is the action
of that history, or time integral of the Lagrangian.
In order to find the overall probability amplitude for a given process,
then, one adds up, or integrates, the amplitude of postulate 3 over the
space of all possible histories of the system in between the initial and
final states, including histories that are absurd by classical standards. In
calculating the amplitude for a single particle to go from one place to
another in a given time, it would be correct to include histories in which
the particle describes elaborate curlicues, histories in which the particle
shoots off into outer space and flies back again, and so forth. The path
integral includes them all. Not only that, it assigns all of them, no matter
how bizarre, amplitudes of equal magnitude; only the phase, or argument of
the complex number, varies.
[end of excerpt]
What Art Bulla did, he calculated the probability of one particular process,
the Evolutionary or self-organizing one (no interference by a being or
beings of intelligence), to transition from a state of disorganization to a
state of organization of a protein molecule 100 amino acids in length, and
demonstrated this process to be statistically improbable, even after adding
up or integrating over time of billions of years and over space of billions
of solar systems. So that, by means of this example, not only is Evolution
contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, but it is also contrary to
Nature's optimizing, oft-confirmed principle of least action (and not even
the less stable stationary action), being an inefficient process of
organization in the worst way.
Maurice Allais (About the Aether Concept, 2003):
Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order.
James Clerk Maxwell (Theory of Heat, 1871):
Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is
impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any
part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat
to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature.
[end of quote]
For clarification: The "unaided action of natural processes" in the
preceding Maxwell quote, of course, is not referring to the mathematical
formula of the Lagrangian 'action' used in the mathematical statement of the
principle of least 'action'.
James Clerk Maxwell (The Life of, p. 178):
All this has been said more than 200 years ago by one of our own
prophets, William Harvey of Gonville and Caius College:-"For whosoever they
be that read authors, and do not, by the aid of their own senses, abstract
true representations of the things themselves (comprehended in the author's
expressions) they do not represent true ideas, but deceitful idols and
phantasmas; by which means they frame to themselves certaine shadows and
chimaeras, and all their theory and contemplation (which they call science)
represents nothing but waking men's dreams and sick men's phrensies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman
Challenger disaster
...
Feynman felt that the Commission's conclusions were not compatible with its
findings, and could not in good conscience recommend that such a deeply
flawed organization should continue without a suspension of operations and a
major overhaul. His fellow commission members were alarmed by Feynman's
dissension, and it was only after much petitioning that Feynman's minority
report was included at all: as an appendix to the official document.
Feynman's book What Do You Care What Other People Think? included a
copyedited version of the appendix in addition to his narrative account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman
Quantum electrodynamics. The theory for which Feynman won his Nobel Prize is
known for its extremely accurate predictions. He helped develop a functional
integral formulation of quantum mechanics, in which every possible path from
one state to the next is considered, the final path being a sum over the
possibilities (also referred to as Sum-over-paths or Sum over histories).
Richard Feynman:
There can be little doubt that the most significant event of the 19th
century will be judged as Maxwell's discovery of the laws of
electrodynamics.
[end of quote]
Actually, arguably the second most significant of the 19th century, being a
temporal achievement, for the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
through Joseph Smith is the most significant event of the 19th century,
being more spiritual and eternal in nature, to save the children of men. The
Law of Light, or the electrodynamic nature of the Universe, for the
anisotropic aether lies at the foundation of all things, worked according to
the Principle of the Economy of Heaven or Least Action as mathematicians
would say, was first declared in the 19th century through the mouths of
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, (on the temporal or scientific side, the
groundwork was paved by the likes of Thomas Young, Michael Faraday, Joseph
Henry, Ampere, etc. and mathematically formulated by James Clerk Maxwell and
the possibilities thereof illustrated by Nikola Tesla's inventions) and now
redeclared through Art Bulla, who is the One Mighty and Strong, uttering
precious words, yea eternal words:
2 The same light which enlighteneth your eyes quickeneth your
understandings, saith the Lord, and is the law by which all things are
governed, and which, saith the Lord, changeth not, but remains constant,
that ye may have a standard by which to judge truth, and which constant is
called the law of light.
3 And it is that science, saith the Lord, which abrogates or does away with
the basis of true science, or, saith the Lord, that which is known as
physics and mathematics, which are my statutes, or the laws by which the
planets as wheel upon their wings in the immensity of space, is it not
false?
Revelations of Jesus Christ 159:2-3
12 For the foundation of matter, is it not spirit, saith the Lord God?
13 And all things are spiritual in nature, even unto me, saith the Lord God
of Enoch and Moses.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 20:12-13
91 For true science and true religion, are they not the same things, O man?
92 For I the Lord God am the author of all truth, which cometh from me.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 3:91-92
> Take the case of snowflakes forming.
>
> Let's say that you lived in a place where snowflakes
> have never been seen and I told you that it was possible for
> water to form complex shapes but didn't tell you how, I just
> showed you a picture.
>
> If you were ignorant of how this occurred, you would be puzzled
> as to how it would be possible for "randomness" to result in
> such complex structures.
Yea, according to the principle of *stationary* action, as we'll see below.
> You would speculate as to all the possible configurations that
> water molecules could assume and consider it to be a very
> improbable thing to occur -- this is exactly what you are
> doing when you use the dartboard method in attempting to
> determine the probability of protein chains forming.
Like I said, through the summing up of the principle of *stationary* action,
as we'll see below.
> What happens to your speculations when I reveal the
> actual process by which snowflakes form? It is shown
> to have been a pointless speculation in light of actual
> knowledge.
I do not speculate. But when I do, I make it clear that I do. Now let me
speak thermodynamically first and take up your example of the formation of
snowflakes. This is a rare case of reversible thermodynamic process found in
Nature, though man is now able to grow snowflakes also. The mathematical
statement of the second law is this, that for any thermodynamic process,
this relation is satisfied (the entropy statement):
delta S total/universe = delta S system + delta S surroundings
delta S total/universe >= 0
Since snowflake formation is a reversible process, being a process of phase
transition (phase change), delta S total = 0. The local or system entropy
decreases in a phase change, but because delta G = 0 and delta S total = 0
in a phase change, delta S surroundings = -delta H system / T, T being the
temperature at which phase transition occurs and delta H system is negative
since heat is given off to the surroundings when
snowflake is formed. Thus delta S surroundings is a positive value, for
entropy of the surroundings must increase.
The point is that system entropy can, in such a case, decrease in Nature,
since it's thermodynamically allowed. But this does not mean that
self-organization is possible or that Evolution is possible, since
snowflakes do not form at any higher temperature (at a given pressure).
Snowflake formation is an example of phase change (phase transition), as
already stated. Now, according to at least one professor, the Principle of
Stationary Action accounts for phase transitions also, calling it an example
of a variational problem with unstable solution (and hence I wrote
Stationary Action in this sentence, instead of Least Action, since the
former is a more general description of calculus of variations):
http://www.math.utah.edu/~cherk/teach/calc-var1.html
M-675-2. Modern Problems in Calculus of Variations
...
Course description
The course introduces classical methods of Calculus of Variations,
Legendre transform, conservation laws and symmetries. The attention
is paid to variational problems with unstable (highly oscillatory)
solutions,
especially in multidimensional problems. These problems arrive in large
number of applications, including structural optimization, phase
transitions, composites, inverse problems, etc., where an optimal layout
are characterized by short scale inhomogenuities: patterns of unknown
shapes. We discuss methods of effective description of such solutions.
They are called relaxation methods and are based on theory of
quasiconvexity.
[end of excerpt]
Whether we precisely understand the exact mechanism of snowflake formation
at the molecular level or not (one thing we do know: snowflake crystals are
formed when water freezes around a speck of dust or other airborne particle
or in man's growing it, something that imitates this cause and effect), we
understand that this and other processes observed in Nature come to pass
according to natural principles of physics or natural philosophy. My point
is that if some systematic phenomenon varying from the expected norm occurs
for a prolonged period of time, it is either due to man or God, i.e. some
being or beings with intelligence. In the Old Testament, it is recorded that
by the will of the Almighty the expected rain was withheld for a determined
period of time from Israel as penalty for national transgressions against
God, and I maintain that the current global warming is occuring according to
the will of Jesus Christ and His Father, according to Their plans and
foreknowledge, for the rebellion of mankind against their Maker.
> The reason Mises' dictum makes the distinctions it does
> is because in games of chance ALL possible processes
> that lead to results in the game are known and accounted
> for. This is obviously not true in the case of proteins
> forming under all possible conditions throughout the
> universe over vast lengths of time.
In Art Bulla's statistical example, all possible outcomes are known and
accounted for, by assigning equal probability to each, seeing as how each
potential outcome in Art's example of 20 different amino acids is analogous
to the two possible outcomes of coin flipping.
> For this reason, the simplified game model cannot be
> meaningfully substituted.
When Evolutionists claim that vast lengths of time are required for
self-organization (no intelligent being involved, human or 'otherwise'), the
optimizing principle of least action, which has been confirmed repeatedly,
is inexplicably discarded. That is a strange reasoning, to say the least,
considering the fact that the principle of least action has been shown to be
somehow involved in both the things of Nature and the things of man.
Moreover, the principle of least action accounts for every single possible
path without necessitating man's knowledge of every single path for a given
mode of process, as Richard Feynman found in his application of this
universal principle in the field of quantum electrodynamics. I read that
James Clerk Maxwell had done the same when mathematically modeling the
aether as fluid. For this reason, the quantum theory works as well as it
does in its oft-observed agreements with experimental observations, giving
false confidence to a Steven Weinberg type, not that photon is a true
particle. The aether is, and the undulation thereof is manifested in the
measured and unmeasured electromagnetic spectrum. Some now call it the God
particle. Higgs boson, whatever. The photon concept is useful
mathematically, and the whole quatum theory works as well as it does because
the principle of least action is applied (Clerk Maxwell started with this
approach concerning the fluidity of aether particles themselves), while not
explicitly accounting for anisotropic aether, as least in Feynman's
approach, in which it is implicit, since quantum theory with or without
Feynman begins with zero-point energy, one of its starting points in the
solutions to Schrodinger equation. It is like with Newton's gravity theory.
Not everything is explicitly accounted for, but there's enough correct math
in it to make it workable in many cases, whether the reason is fully
understood or not. Planck, who used only what is known as 'classical'
physics, came up with the photon concept to make the theory come up with the
same result as experiments, not for any philosophical reason. There's no
difference between 'classical' physics and quantum physics. There's one
approach and there's more correct approach. Feynman did the best he could
under the prevailing academic circumstances, in my opinion. We see from his
Maxwell quote that he understood who had the whole truth.
> >> If you don't believe I am right, pose my analysis vs yours
> >> to the expert of your choice. You like e-mailing scholars.
> >
> >Only Charles Petzold has ever bothered to reply. I email
> >them, so that they may be left witout excuse, for one thing.
> >In the case of Steven Weinberg, I was expressly commanded by
> >the Spirit to do so. Discussion of this issue is finished,
> >and besides I can't afford to spend a long time posting any more.
> >I know I've been saying that for a while, but I really must
> >slow down now. I have no problem submitting my previous post
> >on Mises conditions, etc. to any so-called expert.
> >Who should I send it to?
>
>
> I have given you the chance to demonstrate the strength
> of your position versus mine to the expert of your choice,
> someone you respect, because if I choose someone, you might
> take exception to their opinion, rendering the effort pointless.
>
> I could summarize our contention and post it to various
> math and science newsgroups, but you would not consider
> anyone who responded who took my side to be credible.
> So that would be pointless as well.
>
> I am willing to be peer-reviewed by ANYBODY, but you
> have proven to be very picky about who you are willing
> to be peer-reviewed by -- arguably you limit the possibilities
> to exactly one man, Art Bulla.
Besides the above Univ. of Utah instructor of calculus of variations, how
about Wayne Roberts?
http://www.principlesofnature.net/principle_of_least_action.htm
What do you care what other people think? saith Richard Feynman.
Based on what little I've read of Roberts' work from his website, I am
guessing he has not denied the Holy Ghost, so I see no need to send this
exchange to him myself. I have no problem if you submit our discussion to
him or to anyone, as you did to get us started in talk.origins, from which
we were eventually cast out for telling the truth. In the case of Petzold, I
wrote him partly because the Spirit encouraged me to, which amounts to a
commandment more or less. In the case of Weinberg, I was most definitely
commanded to write him.
> In light of this limitation imposed by you, not me,
> the ball must be considered to be in your court, and
> your unwillingness to take the initiative is in essence
> a concession.
I've done what I can to point out your errors. Yesterday morning Duwayne got
me started on the principle of least action, which I had looked up several
days ago, wondering "Am I wasting my time doing this?" Guess not, as the
"least action" quotes were ready to be loosed by yesterday morning.
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three 1838-39 Pg.151:
The Spirit of Revelation
The Spirit of Revelation is in connection with these blessings. A person
may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for
instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you
sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled
the same day or soon; (i.e.,) those things that were presented unto your
minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the
Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of
revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.
[end of Scripture quote]
I believe this to be a more subtle form of suggestion from the Lord, not
expressly shedding His Light upon a person as much as it can be humanly
perceived. Indeed it is a doctrine first taught me by the Prophet Art Bulla
when I first asked him about how does one get revelation? I knew something
about the more explicit process described in Alma 32 (without knowing about
Alma 32 which was also taught me by Art Bulla), for the Spirit had borne me
testimonies that Art Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong, but I still wanted
to know more. It took me years to fully grasp the import of the above Joseph
Smith quote, and I do not say that I totally understand it still, because I
don't. In any case, the bit about "dark sarcasm" I got from a Pink Floyd
song, that happened several months ago last year, as you know. I still am
not totally sure if that was a revelation or not, though I tend to believe
it was. I flushed the toilet and was about to come out of bathroom
(answering you was in the back of my mind the whole time, consciously or
unconsciously) and all of a sudden some words from that song that goes, "We
don't need no education", etc. were presented to my mind (no, they were not
audibly heard), without expressly perceiving the Spirit of the Lord. I had
not heard this song played for years, that's what was amazing about it. So I
looked it up, and that's when I found the words "dark sarcasm" and realized
that that is what you do all the time, and ever since I've used the phrase
to concisely describe your Usenet behavior. It must have been a revelation
from God since the same wording was *expressly* presented to my mind to
refute your bogus argument about Clerk Maxwell's "discriminative
destruction". You have implied in past remarks, wondering about the nature
of the power I receive. So I say these things unto you. Normally it
shouldn't be talked about, I believe, being a holy thing, but in your case,
sometimes you inquire with some degree of honesty and besides, these are the
last days, so I give these holy things unto you, and if you reject them, it
is unto your condemnation, so be careful what you say or even think in your
heart. It's not about desiring this kind of power. No, not at all. It's
about wanting to save yourself from this world and serving the Lord, wanting
His righteous will to be done and for His kingdom to come upon the earth. If
you get any power at all from the Lord, it is given for the purpose of
serving Him, not yourself. Be humble and try to be intellectually honest
about what I tell you. In any case, I can't afford to spend any more time
writing these lengthy posts (though I will continue to post), and I received
another approval from the Lord 3 or 4 days ago to get ready for the things
that are coming up. Please take these things seriously. I may joke here and
there, but I'm not here to amuse you but to point out the correct doctrine
of Christ and the path of salvation by receiving the Holy Ghost and Art
Bulla the One Mighty and Strong.
> That you are quick to quote others in supposed
> support of your position, but shy from submitting the conclusions
> you have derived, is a stance that is indistinguishable from
> one that would be taken by someone unsure of their conclusions.
>
> There is nothing more cowardly in science than demanding
> that the resolution of a question stops with their proclamation.
>
> That is what you are demanding.
Surely you're joking?
I don't know all the details, but I know that much of what I've stated has
been given to me by the Holy Ghost. I know that my conclusions are correct,
notwithstanding your dark sarcasms.
9 Therefor come unto me and learn of me, saith the Lord, for because ye see
not, dispute not, for that which is seen by the physical eye is a type of
things which are to come.
10 Therefore look with an eye of faith, for it is by faith that all things
have their beings, and then if ye desire of me a further witness, ye shall
behold me at that day in the which ye shall feel of the prints of the nails
in my hands and my feet, saith the Lord, that then ye shall have a perfect
knowledge of me, even that which was prepared as a fitting sacrifice of the
Father that we should be one.
11 Even so I come quickly and my reward is with me and woe be unto them
saith the Lord who are found even on my left hand, but blessed forever is he
that heareth and doeth my will, saith the Lord, for him will I in nowise
cast out, but he shall be mine and we shall be one if it so be that be obey
mine ordinances, which ordinances were instituted from before the foundation
of the world as the only way that the children of men may be able to regain
that which was lost from the fall, even the salvation of their souls from
that evil one and from death which is the separation of the spirit of man
from his body.
12 Yea, thus saith the Lord, the ordinances are those of that order which
also is before the foundation of the world, of which there are many, and the
ordinances are the same forever worlds without end and the order thereof of
which order it is written that it is without beginning of days nor end of
years, yea even mine Holy Order which is after the order of Melchizedec,
which is after the Order of the Only Begotten Son by which order the worlds
were framed.
13 Even so call upon me and I shall by and by fill your body and spirit with
my power, saith the Lord.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 15:9-13
This is not a matter of claiming 'victory' over one another, but to show you
of your errors and calling you unto repentance. Be humble and honest. In the
name of Messiah, Amen.
RetroProphet
Pure sophistry, Jong.
In order to apply this method of analysis to the problem at hand,
you must first define the initial state of the system.
This would be: absolutely everything in the universe
at a point in time where there did not exist a protein chain
made up of one specific array of 100 amino acids.
You are calculating a probability for a final state that is
defined as: one in which there exists precisely one
protein chain with the specific array of 100 amino acids.
What you MUST HAVE in order to apply this method to the
ACTUAL QUESTION AT HAND is: ALL POSSIBLE HISTORIES of
the system in between the initial and final states.
You DON'T have this -- what you DO have is a list of all
possible configurations for a 100-length protein chain.
That is not the same thing.
A complete history from the initial state onward, would be
a precise enumeration of every bit of initial state matter
and every possible event each and every one could possibly
participate in, individually and collectively. In addition,
you must have a precise enumeration for all new combinations
of matter that might form as a result of every possible event
the initial state matter might participate in, and every possible
event these new combinations could possibly participate in.
And, so on, for each and every subsequent new potential
resulting combination.
If you don't have this, you can't apply path integral formulation.
It's as simple as that. And, you don't have this.
The conditions required for being able to perform a path integral
formulation analysis are in perfect accord with Mises' dictum,
and in fact acknowledges precisely the same limitation Mises placed
on the validity of doing probability analysis: if you don't have a
complete list of every possible result that might be yielded by
the ACTUAL process you are evaluating, probability analysis is not valid.
Feynman's path integral work does not provide a way around
Mises' dictum, it uses it as a basis for its own limitations.
Path integral analysis may be applied to your "game" model,
trivially so, but your game model is not an accurate model
of the process you are pretending it is.
This is still the problem you face. I will say it again.
Stop pretending that your "game" model accurately reflects
what you are trying analyze. It doesn't.
Apply Mises's dictum to the actual problem at hand,
the actual question.
Heck, apply Feyman's method to the actual problem at hand,
the actual process under consideration. You didn't do that.
Art did not "calculate the probability of one particular process"
because he does not accurately model the process he is supposedly
analyzing, and you are being disingenuous to suggest that he
"integrated" his results over time in the same sense that Feynman
uses the term.
If this were the case, you would be showing me pages of
mathematical calculations that constitute a real path integral
analysis, instead of the arguments you are offering instead.
As I said, you are only offering pure sophistry, couched in
scientific-sounding double-talk.
>> The reason Mises' dictum makes the distinctions it does
>> is because in games of chance ALL possible processes
>> that lead to results in the game are known and accounted
>> for. This is obviously not true in the case of proteins
>> forming under all possible conditions throughout the
>> universe over vast lengths of time.
>
>> For this reason, the simplified game model cannot be
>> meaningfully substituted.
>
>
>In Art Bulla's statistical example, all possible outcomes are known and
>accounted for, by assigning equal probability to each, seeing as how each
>potential outcome in Art's example of 20 different amino acids is analogous
>to the two possible outcomes of coin flipping.
>
>When Evolutionists claim that vast lengths of time are required for
>self-organization (no intelligent being involved, human or 'otherwise'), the
>optimizing principle of least action, which has been confirmed repeatedly,
>is inexplicably discarded. That is a strange reasoning, to say the least,
>considering the fact that the principle of least action has been shown to be
>somehow involved in both the things of Nature and the things of man.
>Moreover, the principle of least action accounts for every single possible
>path without necessitating man's knowledge of every single path for a given
>mode of process, as Richard Feynman found in his application of this
>universal principle in the field of quantum electrodynamics.
No. Feynman's application requires that ALL POSSIBLE HISTORIES
of the system in between the initial and final states be represented.
How is this requirement met in Art's analysis? The basic assumption
of his model only allows for ONE possible history -- each bit of
initial-state matter engaging in its first interaction. From there
his model assumes a precise repetition of the same thing -- ignoring
that beyond the first interaction, the system is NOT identical to
its initial state, that ALL of the matter in it is now altered
in some way, and that there is now in fact a completely new set
of possible histories in play.
And this goes on indefinitely, so that the requirement for all
possible histories MUST include all of the possibilities that might
arise.
Art's model is far too simplistic to satisfy this requirement.
>> I have given you the chance to demonstrate the strength
>> of your position versus mine to the expert of your choice,
>> someone you respect, because if I choose someone, you might
>> take exception to their opinion, rendering the effort pointless.
>>
>> I could summarize our contention and post it to various
>> math and science newsgroups, but you would not consider
>> anyone who responded who took my side to be credible.
>> So that would be pointless as well.
>>
>> I am willing to be peer-reviewed by ANYBODY, but you
>> have proven to be very picky about who you are willing
>> to be peer-reviewed by -- arguably you limit the possibilities
>> to exactly one man, Art Bulla.
>
>Besides the above Univ. of Utah instructor of calculus of variations, how
>about Wayne Roberts?
>http://www.principlesofnature.net/principle_of_least_action.htm
>
>What do you care what other people think? saith Richard Feynman.
>
>Based on what little I've read of Roberts' work from his website, I am
>guessing he has not denied the Holy Ghost, so I see no need to send this
>exchange to him myself. I have no problem if you submit our discussion to
>him or to anyone, as you did to get us started in talk.origins, from which
>we were eventually cast out for telling the truth.
Wayne Roberts is primarily an artist, which is not to say that
he is not well-versed in physics and math, but I would consider
Andrej Cherkaev to be an excellent choice to put the question to.
Do you consider that his opinion would be definitive?
Frankly, I don't think you would accept ANY expert's opinion
to be definitive. That was the point of me giving you absolute
freedom to choose someone whose opinion you would accept as
definitive.
But, if you say that he's your choice and someone whose opinion
you will consider definitive, I will prepare a synopsis of our
contention. You may then criticize the phrasing of the synopsis
until we both agree on it. After that, we will both append our
arguments, and send it to him or anyone else you choose.
I am willing to send it to ANYONE whose opinion you will
consider definitive in settling the question, but you must
commit yourself to this, or else the exercise is pointless.
Unless you are claiming to be the only person on earth who
fully understands probability theory and the physical sciences,
you will by definition have sufficient respect for the superiority
of at least one expert's opinion.
Jong Kim
Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, Pg.202 - Pg.203, Brigham Young, February 1,
1857:
You never heard me preach a doctrine but what has a natural system to it,
and, when understood, is as easy to comprehend as that two and two equal
four.
[end of Scripture quote]
Since you willfully refuse to recognize that 2+2=4, you must be
conscientiously observing the principle of least reflection.
reflection, n.
1. (b) The reverting of the mind to that which has already
occupied it; continued consideration; meditation; contemplation;
hence, also, that operation or power of the mind by which it is
conscious of its own acts or states; the capacity for judging
rationally, especially in view of a moral rule or standard.
You're forever stuck in a world of Newtonian force diagrams.
Any due consideration of Fermat's principle of least time, Lagrange's
principle of least action, and therefore of the Feynman path integral on
your part would be contrary to your hallowed principle of least reflection,
and therefore you willfully oppose the Principle of Economy of Heaven,
Prof. Relaxwell.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.203, Brigham Young, April 6, 1852:
The Millennium consists in this--every heart in the Church and Kingdom of
God being united in one; the Kingdom increasing to the overcoming of
everything opposed to the economy of heaven, and Satan being bound, and
having a seal set upon him.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.262, Brigham Young, August 12, 1866:
The economy of heaven is to gather in all, and save everybody who can be
saved.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, Pg.144 - Pg.145, Brigham Young, July 11,
1869:
When I look at the economy of heaven my heart leaps for joy, and if I had
the tongue of an angel, or the tongues of the whole human family combined, I
would praise God in the highest for His great wisdom and condescension in
suffering the children of men to fall into the very sin into which they have
fallen, for He did it that they, like Jesus, might descend below all things
and then press forward and rise above all. Our spirits once dwelt in the
heavens and were as pure and holy as the angels; but angels have tabernacles
and spirits have none, and they are anxious to take tabernacles and they
come to the meanest, lowest and humblest of the human race to obtain one
rather than run any risk of not doing so. I have heard that the celebrated
Mr. Beecher, of Brooklyn, once said that the greatest misfortune that could
ever happen to man was to be born; but I say that the greatest good fortune
that ever happened or can happen to human beings is to be born on this
earth, for then life and salvation are before them; then they have the
privilege of overcoming death, and of walking sin and iniquity under their
feet, of incorporating into their daily lives every principle of life and
salvation and of dwelling eternally with the Gods.
Steve Miller:
You know you got to go through hell
Before you get to heaven
I do have a complete list, as found in Art Bulla's epistle on the fallacy of
Evolution (The Revelations of Jesus Christ, section 14), for there are
20 different kinds of amino acids.
> Feynman's path integral work does not provide a way around
> Mises' dictum, it uses it as a basis for its own limitations.
Correct.
> Path integral analysis may be applied to your "game" model,
> trivially so, but your game model is not an accurate model
> of the process you are pretending it is.
Molecular Evolution is founded upon randomness. Evolution thus implies
that there is no underlying reason for any outcome produced in Nature.
Path integral analysis, on the other hand, implies that light and atomic
particles behave in a systematic way, that it's not by pure chance that
matter behaves in the way it does.
> This is still the problem you face. I will say it again.
> Stop pretending that your "game" model accurately reflects
> what you are trying analyze. It doesn't.
Stop pretending that you're being serious. You're not, just insane
according to the principle of least reflection.
> Apply Mises's dictum to the actual problem at hand,
> the actual question.
>
> Heck, apply Feyman's method to the actual problem at hand,
> the actual process under consideration. You didn't do that.
>
> Art did not "calculate the probability of one particular process"
> because he does not accurately model the process he is supposedly
> analyzing, and you are being disingenuous to suggest that he
> "integrated" his results over time in the same sense that Feynman
> uses the term.
>
> If this were the case, you would be showing me pages of
> mathematical calculations that constitute a real path integral
> analysis, instead of the arguments you are offering instead.
>
> As I said, you are only offering pure sophistry, couched in
> scientific-sounding double-talk.
You falsely accuse once again.
As you already know, I brought up the path integral analysis (which is
based upon probability and the principle of least action) as an analogy,
partly because you wrote:
"Whenever we DO have information about an specific interaction we
can see exactly why it resulted as it did. Unless you do, you cannot
meaningfully make a probability analysis."
> >> The reason Mises' dictum makes the distinctions it does
Art's model has much in common with the Feynman approach to quantum
mechanics. I've already shown that this is the case. Art's model
deliberately
favors Evolution as much as it can be assumed, and yet it was found that
random generation of molecules is improbable. I see how Art's model tries
to favor the success of Molecular Evolution in two ways: 1. It is assumed
that amino acids combine to form proteins, not every once in a while, but
every second. 2. While it is simplistic to assume that this happens
regularly
without incorporating a mathematical model for this molecular mechanism,
it keeps the math simple for the layman and more importantly the fact that
this model just assumes that it happens (and so often) means as much
"a sporting chance" (to quote from RJC 14) is given to favor Molecular
Evolution as conceivably possible. Based on the arbitrary assumption
of successful molecular combination every second, in the first second
the probability of formation of any particular sequence of 100 amino acids
is 1/(20^100); in the second second this probability is [1/(20^100)]^2;
in the third second this probability is [1/(20^100)]^3, and so on to result
in
a power series for the arbitrary period of time specified by Art Bulla in
his epistle, resulting in a total probability orders of magnitude lower than
his extremely low result, which was for a combined probability of random
sequences to form every second.
Art Bulla's probability calculation implies that even this small step in
Molecular Evolution is probable (for just moderately complex proteins of
different sequences to form) if and only if the time and the amount of raw
material it takes for molecular self-organization approach infinity
(a nonsense result), so that Evolution is proven grossly inefficient,
contrary to the universal principle of stationary action (which btw applies
to
both the eternal world and the temporal world, unlike the second law of
thermodynamics), on which the path integral analysis of quantum theory is
based, as is the analysis of macroscopic planetary orbits.
I know that you like Ockham's razor, so let me quote two articles on it:
Ockham's razor
also spelled Occam's razor, also called law of economy, or law of
parsimony, principle stated by William of Ockham (1285–1347/49), a
scholastic, that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate; “Plurality
should not be posited without necessity.” The principle gives precedence to
simplicity; of two competing theories, the simplest explanation of an entity
is to be preferred.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056716/Ockhams-razor
The term "Ockham's razor" first appeared in 1852 in the works of Sir William
Rowan Hamilton (1805–1865), long after Ockham's death circa 1349.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
The step from optics to dynamics in the application of the method of
“Varying Action” was made in 1827, and communicated to the Royal Society, in
whose Philosophical Transactions for 1834 and 1835 there are two papers on
the subject. These display, like the “Systems of Rays,” a mastery over
symbols and a flow of mathematical language almost unequalled. But they
contain what is far more valuable still, the greatest addition which
dynamical science had received since the strides made by Sir Isaac Newton
and Joseph Louis Lagrange. C. G. J. Jacobi and other mathematicians have
extended Hamilton's processes, and have thus made extensive additions to our
knowledge of differential equations.
[end of excerpt]
Why, in general I ask, is Darwin celebrated but not Hamilton, one of Clerk
Maxwell's professors?
http://www.hypercomplex.com
"Is there not an analogy between the fundamental pair of equations ij=k
ji=-k, and the facts of opposite currents of electricity corresponding to
opposite rotations?" -- W. R. Hamilton, June 1845, BAAS.
...
One simple theory now connects thermal, electric, and magnetic phenomena,
T,E,B.
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Peter Guthrie Tait (1831-1901), the Scottish Mathematician and Physicist,
close friend of James Clerk Maxwell, and understudy of Hamilton, was the
first person to take up Hamilton's Operator and attempt to develop the
theory.
...
Maxwell sought out Tait's help in trying to learn more about quaternions,
because Tait was as close as anyone could get to Hamilton without actually
contacting Hamilton himself, at least on the subject of Quaternions. And by
the time Maxwell develops his keen interest in quaternions, around 1870,
Hamilton has already long since passed on to the hereafter. But while Tait
was close to both Maxwell and Hamilton, he was more of a student of
Hamilton's, while he was literally classmates with Maxwell. Much of Tait's
ideas on Quaternions came, not from Hamilton, but from Tait himself,
reflecting on things Hamilton had said or written, and Tait's own
exploration into the field. Tait was as much a developer of quaternion
theory as Hamilton, and not simply a promoter of this new mathematical art,
as other quaternion advocates were. But, Tait did not have the same academic
interests as Hamilton, and therefore not the same influences, and so could
not share the vision Hamilton had concerning certain things. Hamilton's
interests in metaphysics gave him an appreciation for the extensive
reverberation simple themes and elementary principles expressed throughout
nature. And when he came to construct ideas in mathematics, he sought to
once again echo the universal principles in his conceptual and symbolic
constructions. The depth of thought behind the constructive ideas coming
from Hamilton were simply beyond the limits of Tait's intellectual exposure.
So, that which by "bare inspection" was obvious to Hamilton, was simply not
at all enlightening to Tait.
...
Tait's inability to comprehend Hamilton came from his own prejudice against
metaphysics, a favorite subject of Hamilton's musings, and the very subject
that was likely therefore to be the key to unlocking the meaning of the
symbol.
...
While Tait had very little tolerance for metaphysical arguments, Maxwell on
the other hand attends the lectures on metaphysics given by Sir William
Hamilton at Edinburgh in 1848-49, and displays somewhat more appreciation
for the subject. In a letter to Litchfield, dated 4 July 1856, Maxwell
writes, "I find I get fonder of metaphysics and less of calculation
continually and my metaphysics are fast settling into the high style." He
considers that his grasp of metaphysics has already exceeded that of many
traditional philosophers. And just over ten years later, in 1867, we find
him, in a letter to Tait, writing, "I have read some metaphysics of various
kinds and find it more or less ignorant discussion of mathematical and
physical principles, jumbled with a little physiology of the senses. The
value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical knowledge
of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from the names of
things."
The next year, in a letter dated April 1868, Maxwell writes, "The practical
relation of metaphysics to physics is most intimate." Here he echoes W. R.
Hamilton's views and the views of many other metaphysicians. But, he also
goes on to clarify his opinion once again, that "Metaphysicians differ from
age to age according to the physical doctrines of the age and their personal
knowledge of them ... The Edinburgh & the Dublin Hamilton differ in their
metaphysical power in the direct ratio of their physical knowledge (not the
inverse as most people suppose)."
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed to consist of
nothing but a vacuous play on words. He was looking for substance in the
metaphysics that directly related to things that could be measured. There
were two famous intellectuals both with the same name Sir William Hamilton
in his day. One was Sir W. R. Hamilton of Dublin, who was a mathematician,
physicist, astronomer, metaphysician, and the inventor of quaternions. And
the other Sir William Hamilton of Edinburgh was a rather famous Philospher
who taught Logic and Metaphysics at Edinburgh. Maxwell obviously had the
opportunity to hear the views of both these gentlemen, and in his mind there
was definitely a clear distinction between the type of metaphysics that came
from the mathematical sicentist verses that of the pure philosopher. The
scientist resonated with Maxwell's own position, but the philosopher was
often peddling hot air.
As Maxwell concludes this letter, "I happen to be interested in speculations
standing on experimental & mathematical data and reaching beyond the sphere
of the senses without passing into that of words and nothing more."
Although declaring more respect for the metaphysics of the Dublin's
Hamilton, Maxwell nevertheless was not as ardent a metaphysical advocate as
W. R. Hamilton himself. In the review article "On Quaternions," published in
the December 1873 issue of Nature, Maxwell describes Hamilton's method of
presenting the subject of Quaternions, and lodges a minor complaint, "Sir W.
R. Hamilton, when treating of the elements of the subject, was apt to become
so fascinated by the metaphysical aspects of the method, that the mind of
his disciple became impressed with the profundity, rather than the
simplicity of his doctrines." He then goes on to praise the new text just
published by Kelland and Tait, Introduction to Quaternions (London, 1873),
for bypassing all metaphysics, that was so discouraging to many new
students, and getting directly to the mechanics of the subject. Metaphysics
was fine, but just not in introductory material, and when metaphysical
arguments were used, they were better when backed by concepts that had
obvious physical meaning.
[end of excerpt]
Peter Guthrie Tait, an advocate of the principle of least reflection in some
ways, though a capable scientist as he proved himself to be in many
respects, appears to be one of Petzold's trustworthy 'experts', based on his
second and last email to me. It's always twisted with you fools. Man, these
things were happening, the Law of Light being revealed in a scientific or
temporal way at the same time as the Gospel of Christ was being preached
through Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Another point I am making with the
above quote, of course, is that when I write word salad, it's based on
facts, but with you, it's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Speaking of true metaphysics or reflection or meditation, this is how
William Rowan Hamilton was revealed the mathematics of quaternions, so
crucial to Maxwell's mathematical development of electrodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rowan_Hamilton
Quaternions
... According to the story Hamilton told, on October 16 Hamilton was out
walking along the Royal Canal in Dublin with his wife when the solution in
the form of the equation
i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = ijk = - 1
suddenly occurred to him; Hamilton then promptly carved this equation into
the side of the nearby Broom Bridge (which Hamilton called Brougham Bridge.)
http://www.hypercomplex.com
"Is there not an analogy between the fundamental pair of equations ij=k
ji=-k, and the facts of opposite currents of electricity corresponding to
opposite rotations?" -- W. R. Hamilton, June 1845, BAAS.
http://www.hypercomplex.com/research/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html
PHYSICAL SPACE AS A QUATERNION STRUCTURE - I:
MAXWELL-EQUATIONS: A Brief Note.
by Peter Michael Jack
ABSTRACT: We show how to write Maxwell's Equations in Hamilton's
Quaternions. The fact that the quaternion product is non-commuting leads to
distinct left and right derivatives which must both be included in the
theory. Then, a new field component is discovered, which reduces part of the
degree of freedom found in the guage, but which can then be used to explain
thermoelectricity, suggesting that the theory of heat has just as
fundamental a connection to electromagnetism as the magnetic field has to
the electric field, for the new theory now links thermal, electric, and
magnetic phenomena alltogether in one set of elementary equations. This
result is based on an initial hypothesis, named "The Quaternion Axiom," that
postulates physical space is a quaternion structure.
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
An "unknown" number of Maxwell's private notebooks, letters, and unpublished
papers, went missing after his death, and the collection is conjectured to
have been destroyed by a fire that completely burnt down the Maxwell house
at Glenlair after his wife's death in 1886.
This would normally not be such a terrible loss, given that the many ideas
scientists develop during their lifetime are usually published in the
journals and textbooks they produce anyway, and these documents maintain a
permanent record of their achievements. However, Maxwell was discouraged
from presenting his ideas in quaternions. And whatever he may have
developed, thought about, discovered, or gleened through his reflections on
the matter, would more likely be found only in his letters and private
notebooks.
In discussing Maxwell's writings, Harman tell us that, "In November 1870 he
wrote to Tait, signalling a keen interest in quaternion ideas, methods and
notation...These letters give the first indication of his resumption of work
on the Treatise and of an intention to remould its mathematical argument.
His correspondence with Tait at this time also provides evidence of his
first serious interest in quaternions. He aimed to demonstrate the
application of vectors to the mathematics of electromagnetism."
The "vectors" here, of course, are Hamilton's vectors, the quaternions with
no scalar part. Maxwell was becoming serious about quaternions, and thinking
about how the theory of electricity and magnetism could be cast using
Hamilton's invention. But, there was a problem. The publisher Bartholomew
Price, Secretary of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, Oxford, writes to
Maxwell in a letter dated 4 January 1871, "Quaternion Methods and Quaternion
Notation are only just beginning to be used in this place: and the exclusive
use of them in your book would therefore much curtail its usefulness, so I
think you had better always express the analysis in the ordinary Cartesian
form, and repeat it when desirable to do so in the Quaternion form."
Price tells Maxwell "you had better" express things in coordinate notation.
There was no negotiation here. Maxwell does exactly what Price tells him in
this directive. In the Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, he writes
everthing in coordinate notation, and only then are some of the main final
results repeated again in quaternions. Price's position may be
understandable. No publisher wants to produce books that are difficult to
sell. And even if a profit is not expected, the publisher wants books that
are "useful" to as large a reader audience as possible, because there is
still that goodwill and advertizing value that comes from books you've
published that are used more frequently. The publisher has to balance the
books that are produced at a loss, but keep their name in the public eye,
with the fewer more successful books that sell well and bring in the real
revenue. Unable to precisely predict which book will be a bestseller, the
next best thing is to set the criterion of "usefulness" of the book.
Whatever the motivation, it was shaping the language of physics.
Maxwell was being discouraged from publishing his ideas in the way he might
have wanted. He was not free to express himself. And so, for certain,
whatever ideas he might have had, resulting from his exploration into the
applications of quaternions to electric theory, would remain in his private
notebooks, unpublished writings, and letters.
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Sir William Rowan Hamilton (1805-1865), Irish Mathematician and Physicist,
discovered Quaternions, q = w + ix + jy + kz in 1843, and in 1846 he
introduced the differential operator, ..., to facilitate the special vector
differentiation of quaternions. His original symbol, the "horizontal wedge,"
... was later turned over after his death by mathematicians and written as a
"vertical wedge," ... instead. ... beginning in 1881 the definition of the
vector basis (i,j,k) was also changed, this time by physicists who objected
to Hamilton's mathematical definition of vectors and sought what they
thought was a more physically meaningful definition, so that today, the [del
operator] we know, and are so familiar with, bears little resemblence to
Hamilton's original differential operator.
While Hamilton's Operator may be somewhat unfamiliar to us, we can easily
grasp the essential difference between this original operator and its modern
incarnation as found in our modern vector calculus.
91 For true science and true religion, are they not the same things, O man?
92 For I the Lord God am the author of all truth, which cometh from me.
Revelations of Jesus Christ 3:91-92
> >> I have given you the chance to demonstrate the strength
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Pg.184, Brigham Young, February 18, 1855:
"There is a spirit in man; and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them
understanding," and many who do not hold the Priesthood have ideas which are
really true, yet they are not always certain whether they are true or not.
> But, if you say that he's your choice and someone whose opinion
> you will consider definitive, I will prepare a synopsis of our
> contention. You may then criticize the phrasing of the synopsis
> until we both agree on it. After that, we will both append our
> arguments, and send it to him or anyone else you choose.
>
> I am willing to send it to ANYONE whose opinion you will
> consider definitive in settling the question, but you must
> commit yourself to this, or else the exercise is pointless.
The question has already been settled. And, you don't dictate to me. In any
case, feel free to send it to anyone you choose. I know that I have
presented the truth. (If you do, don't be
selective. Be sure to send everything I wrote and copy-pasted in any
particular post.) I've already posted my response in your abiogenesis thread
to sci.physics. I'll be posting other things including this thread to that
newsgroup and others.
> Unless you are claiming to be the only person on earth who
> fully understands probability theory and the physical sciences,
> you will by definition have sufficient respect for the superiority
> of at least one expert's opinion.
I have respect for the superiority of the mathematical and scientific skills
of Maurice Allais (as well as of others like him), but as to his conclusions
about aether, I am more certain of them than he is himself, for the Holy
Ghost has confirmed to me the gist of his ideas, which are also consistent
with The Revelations of Jesus Christ received by Art Bulla.
(Feynman being dead, the aged Allais is in my opinion the closest thing we
have to a Hamilton or a Maxwell. We have many like unto Tait running around
now, so you have plenty of 'expert' candidates to choose from.)
"I am all in favor of a dialogue between science and religion, but not a
constructive dialogue. One of the great achievements of science has been,
if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious,
then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious.
We should not retreat from this accomplishment." Steven Weinberg.
In the case of the physics Nobel laureate Weinberg, a type of Tait and
worse, I was simply ignored (assuming he read my emails). Your dark sarcasms
and obfuscations have been
fully dealt with, so now I've got to be moving on (but continue to publish
and praise on the Usenet -- I will be posting these things henceforth in
sci.physics and any other newsgroup I am still allowed, being banned from
posting to talk.origins -- Wayne Roberts and Prof. Cherkaev already
understand the principle of least action to one extent or another -- I
assume Jack does also, so I personally see no need to send them any message,
but if you do, you have my permission to send my posts to them, but they
must be unedited).
I don't know who Peter Michael Jack is, but he doesn't appear to be a Tait,
and upon initial inspection of his words, if he's not entirely correct (or
he may be), he's definitely headed in the right direction.
http://www.hypercomplex.com/research/emgrav/hypcx-p20001015.html
When James Clerk Maxwell wrote the second edition of his Treatise on
Electricity and Magnetism he included a quaternion representation of his
electromagnetic equations, but he did not include both left-hand and
right-hand derivatives, and so his work is fundamentally different from that
presented here. Indeed, the calculus of quaternions was constructed by
adopting the ideas from the already familiar calculus derived from commuting
algebra, and thus the differential operator always appears on the left
acting towards the variable on the right. And even though, Charles Jasper
Joly notes the distinction in his book A Manual of Quaternions, the
importance of the idea goes unnoticed, unexplored, and unused. As a
consequence of this, an important field component went missing in Maxwell's
Equations, and all of modern physics has developed from there perpetuating
one of the consequences of this oversight, namely, that the electromagnetic
field posesses six components, whereas, as we have shown, there should be
seven.
Steve Miller:
Somebody's tryin' to make me stay
You know I've got to be movin' on
Oh, Oh big ol' jet airliner
Don't carry me too far away
Oh, Oh big ol' jet airliner
'Cause it's here that I've got to stay
Charles Petzold:
If you have a quotation from William Thomson, James Maxwell, James Joule, or
Peter Guthrie Tait asserting that evolution is in violation of the second
law of thermodynamics, I'd very much love to hear it.
[end of quote]
Who cares what a Peter Guthrie Tait thinks?
Well, Petzold and Relaxwell do. Keynesian charisma is more important to them
and their ilk, in observance of the principle of least reflection as did
Tait, than the diamond truth, which changes not.
John Maynard Keynes:
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
[end of quote]
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong.
What do you do, sir?
29 For where is the disputer that there is a God in that day which shall
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You didn't answer the question
Jong Kim
The question has been settled.
Jong Kim
> On May 26, 1:02 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1180103855.6...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > Okay, so you can past stuff that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> > > Can we get back to evolution?
> >
> > John Maynard Keynes:
> >
> > When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do,
> > sir?
> > ===
> >
> > When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
> > wrong. What do you do, sir?
>
> An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
> fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
Your lie is unacceptable.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
> > > wrong. What do you do, sir?
>
> > An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
> > fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
>
> Your lie is unacceptable.
No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
<snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180451902....@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 26, 1:09 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1180110044.7...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > But what's that got to do with god? It's a natural situation that
> > > > results in order -- all without the need for god.
>
> > > 29 For where is the disputer that there is a God in that day which shall
> > > burn, even as an oven, saith the Lord?
>
> > > Revelations of Jesus Christ 8:29
>
> > You didn't answer the question
>
> The question has been settled.
How, when?
RetroProphet
Can you not read? You need a list of all possible
EVENT HISTORIES -- not all possible end results.
You're really not getting it.
>> Feynman's path integral work does not provide a way around
>> Mises' dictum, it uses it as a basis for its own limitations.
>
>Correct.
Thank you for acknowledging at least this, but how can you
know this is true and yet not see that Mises' dictum that
probability analysis can only be validly applied to
fully-descibed games of chance where each "turn" operates
exactly the same way on exactly identical system-states,
and not to the far more complex, and fundamentally different,
system of molecular interactions throughout the universe?
Feynman built into his method precisely the same limitation,
making it MANDATORY to take into account each and every potential
history INCLUDING each and every change to the state of the system.
>> Path integral analysis may be applied to your "game" model,
>> trivially so, but your game model is not an accurate model
>> of the process you are pretending it is.
>
>Molecular Evolution is founded upon randomness. Evolution thus implies
>that there is no underlying reason for any outcome produced in Nature.
>Path integral analysis, on the other hand, implies that light and atomic
>particles behave in a systematic way, that it's not by pure chance that
>matter behaves in the way it does.
There is no such thing as randomness,
that is just a name for events that you have no
precise information about -- Molecular Evolution
and subsequent Biological Evolution occured and occurs
through a series of such events.
You are misdescribing the assumptions underlying the science
in order to make it seem impossible.
>> Apply Mises's dictum to the actual problem at hand,
>> the actual question.
>>
>> Heck, apply Feyman's method to the actual problem at hand,
>> the actual process under consideration. You didn't do that.
>>
>> Art did not "calculate the probability of one particular process"
>> because he does not accurately model the process he is supposedly
>> analyzing, and you are being disingenuous to suggest that he
>> "integrated" his results over time in the same sense that Feynman
>> uses the term.
>>
>> If this were the case, you would be showing me pages of
>> mathematical calculations that constitute a real path integral
>> analysis, instead of the arguments you are offering instead.
>>
>> As I said, you are only offering pure sophistry, couched in
>> scientific-sounding double-talk.
>
>You falsely accuse once again.
>
>As you already know, I brought up the path integral analysis (which is
>based upon probability and the principle of least action) as an analogy,
>partly because you wrote:
>
>"Whenever we DO have information about an specific interaction we
>can see exactly why it resulted as it did. Unless you do, you cannot
>meaningfully make a probability analysis."
Oh, now it's just an "analogy" -- is it not a method that
is applicable to the problem at hand? Of course, it is.
That's more than an "analogy" -- you just won't admit that
you thought it rebutted my statement above, and provided you
a means of getting around Mises' dictum -- but it doesn't,
does it? Because you didn't think it through and realize that
Art's model doesn't satisfy either Mises or Feynman's requirements.
Now, you declare Feynman irrelevant? No way.
>> Feynman's application requires that ALL POSSIBLE HISTORIES
>> of the system in between the initial and final states be represented.
>> How is this requirement met in Art's analysis? The basic assumption
>> of his model only allows for ONE possible history -- each bit of
>> initial-state matter engaging in its first interaction. From there
>> his model assumes a precise repetition of the same thing -- ignoring
>> that beyond the first interaction, the system is NOT identical to
>> its initial state, that ALL of the matter in it is now altered
>> in some way, and that there is now in fact a completely new set
>> of possible histories in play.
>>
>> And this goes on indefinitely, so that the requirement for all
>> possible histories MUST include all of the possibilities that might
>> arise.
>>
>> Art's model is far too simplistic to satisfy this requirement.
>
>Art's model has much in common with the Feynman approach
>to quantum mechanics. I've already shown that this is the case.
No, actually, you're about to try to do this below
and get sliced to ribbons.
>Art's model
>deliberately
>favors Evolution as much as it can be assumed, and yet it was found that
>random generation of molecules is improbable. I see how Art's model tries
>to favor the success of Molecular Evolution in two ways: 1. It is assumed
>that amino acids combine to form proteins, not every once in a while, but
>every second.
WRONG ASSUMPTION -- Art's model is only valid if the process
by which amino acids combine into proteins is an all-or-nothing
event like a lottery game -- it is not valid because this is
NOT the actual process at all.
2. While it is simplistic to assume that this happens regularly
>without incorporating a mathematical model for this molecular mechanism,
>it keeps the math simple for the layman and more importantly the fact that
>this model just assumes that it happens (and so often) means as much
>"a sporting chance" (to quote from RJC 14) is given to favor Molecular
>Evolution as conceivably possible.
WRONG ASSUMPTION -- substituting an assumed "simpler" model
for "a mathematical model for this molecular mechanism" is
EXACTLY why his approach is invalid -- why do you think
Mises' dictum says what it says? Why do you think that
Feynman's method is ONLY applicable IF you describe EVERY
POSSIBLE EVENT HISTORY? NOT just every possible end result.
>Based on the arbitrary assumption
>of successful molecular combination every second, in the first second
>the probability of formation of any particular sequence of 100 amino acids
>is 1/(20^100); in the second second this probability is [1/(20^100)]^2;
>in the third second this probability is [1/(20^100)]^3, and so on to result
>in a power series for the arbitrary period of time specified by Art Bulla in
>his epistle, resulting in a total probability orders of magnitude lower than
>his extremely low result, which was for a combined probability of random
>sequences to form every second.
WRONG ASSUMPTION -- the process you are supposedly modeling is
NOT time-based, it is event-based. After every bit of matter
in the universe has participated in its first event, the state
of the system is completely different than it was -- but your
model does not take this into account. This is crucial.
After the first events have occured, there might be quite a
number of chains of 2 or more amino acids that have formed.
After the second events have occured, there might be quite a
number of chains of 4 or more amino acids that have formed.
Your model IGNORES COMPLETELY every one of these potential
histories and merely continues to calculate the same thing:
the probability of a particular chain of 100 forming from
the initial state -- how can it possibly determine
probabilities if it completely ignores incremental changes
in the state of the system which DEFINITELY affect what
can happen in the next event-set?
Deal with the basic flaw in the model -- what you have
written beyond here does not address the problem with
it at all and I have snipped it.
>> Wayne Roberts is primarily an artist, which is not to say that
>> he is not well-versed in physics and math, but I would consider
>> Andrej Cherkaev to be an excellent choice to put the question to.
>>
>> Do you consider that his opinion would be definitive?
>> Frankly, I don't think you would accept ANY expert's opinion
>> to be definitive. That was the point of me giving you absolute
>> freedom to choose someone whose opinion you would accept as
>> definitive.
>>
>> But, if you say that he's your choice and someone whose opinion
>> you will consider definitive, I will prepare a synopsis of our
>> contention. You may then criticize the phrasing of the synopsis
>> until we both agree on it. After that, we will both append our
>> arguments, and send it to him or anyone else you choose.
>>
>> I am willing to send it to ANYONE whose opinion you will
>> consider definitive in settling the question, but you must
>> commit yourself to this, or else the exercise is pointless.
>
>The question has already been settled.
What stunning arrogance. How has it been settled?
By your proclamation? Amazing...
>And, you don't dictate to me.
Suggesting peer-review is not "dictating"
-- it's how real science is conducted.
Suggesting that "the question is settled" IS "dictating"
-- it's how theology is conducted.
It is clear you have no interest in science beyond
dressing up your theology to seem scientific.
>In any case, feel free to send it to anyone you choose.
>I know that I have presented the truth.
Scientific truth has no fear of peer-review.
Why does your "truth" shy from it completely?
>> Unless you are claiming to be the only person on earth who
>> fully understands probability theory and the physical sciences,
>> you will by definition have sufficient respect for the superiority
>> of at least one expert's opinion.
>
>I have respect for the superiority of the mathematical and scientific skills
>of Maurice Allais (as well as of others like him), but as to his conclusions
>about aether, I am more certain of them than he is himself, for the Holy
>Ghost has confirmed to me the gist of his ideas, which are also consistent
>with The Revelations of Jesus Christ received by Art Bulla.
What would you say if Maurice Allais says you're wrong
and I'm right? Would you just chalk it up to "human fallibility"
despite your respect for him?
It seems to me that there is no potential at all for
any counter-argument, no matter the source, to convince you.
Do you admit this?
Jong Kim
> On May 29, 8:37 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > > When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
> > > > wrong. What do you do, sir?
> >
> > > An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
> > > fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
> >
> > Your lie is unacceptable.
>
> No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
> evolution:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
> you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all. If a
speciation occurs for an isolated variety, only then can you justifiably say
one instance of biological change (if not evolution, which word implies
improvement or enhancement of some kind, judging by certain criteria for
what are better characteristics) has been observed. Hybridization induced by
man's meddling or by wind or by bees, etc. due to proximities of two
different species breeding obviously ought to be left out when discussing
speciation, which has never been observed to occur naturally in genetic
isolation (all occurrences of speciation are due to direct interferences of
the Lord God of heaven and earth, such as what happened to the serpent in
the garden of Eden and the coming forth of weeds, etc. due to the Almighty's
curses upon the earth, as explained by Brigham Young). Take for instance,
the animal kingdom, in which there's no possibility of anything like wind
pollination for Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences
of speciation.
James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie Tait,
also an expert in themodynamics):
"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge
of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from the names of
things."
http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed to consist of
nothing but a vacuous play on words.
[end of excerpt]
I understand that field biology has little to do with metaphysics, at least
upon immediate consideration, but you see my point, if you are honest. (You
have not been honest thus far in this thread but mostly wasting my time.)
Speaking of field biology, has a female tiger ever been observed to produce,
after having mated within her species, a liger or a lion or any other type
of cat? Does it scientifically make any sense that this could be a
possibility at all? I ask you this question, especially because in the
animal kingdom, there's no possibility of anything like wind pollination for
Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences of speciation.
Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, these aren't genuine
scientists. Just advocates of a false ideology, anti-Christs all. There were
and are (esp. in the past) true biologists, true natural philosophers all,
but these three are confirmed charlatans. (Having just learned a little bit
about Tait, that he was not a really spiritual minded scientist, I wouldn't
be surprised if he sustained Evolution in spite of his knowledge of
thermodynamics. But, I have shown in correspondences with Redtrollnames that
Maxwell did not. The point though, is that it's not who says it but what is
said, whether facts and objective reasoning are given by a presenter of any
view, scientific or otherwise. Of course, true religion encompasses all
branches of science, in fact all of life itself. Even if Maxwell did support
Evolution, that doesn't make it true. It so happens that Maxwell himself
rejected Evolution (though not very vocal about it), and I have totally
demonstrated this, so if you want to judge by subjective credibility
suggested by any 'brand name', I offer you the name of the ultra competent
James Clerk Maxwell, if somehow the sanctified names of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young and Art Bulla aren't enough for your appetite.)
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_Clerk_Maxwell
... Clerk Maxwell ... yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that
pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to
reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused
events.
The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia is based on what many consider to be
the best encyclopedia ever written: the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in 1911.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:About
In your talk.origins web link, there's a section titled "5.2 Speciations in
Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy". That's only two
examples, and neither is in any way valid, again bogus. The first example is
one where there already existed two different but closely related species in
a given area. In the second example, some degree of hybridization occurred
anyway. Again, nonsense.
Btw genetic changes caused by exposure to x-rays and by any other such
artificial or unnatural means, or mutation as it is called, are generally
for the worse for the affected organism and besides, such changes are not
isolated biological changes. Where there's an effect, there was a cause for
it. There's no such thing as genetically isolated biological change, neither
to any individual organism (other than the process of aging) nor to the
offspring thereof. If you don't believe the Biblical account, at least no
human being has ever detected any such biological change, or phylogeny or
evolution. There are plenty of false or apostate religious sects, too many
to count, but the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts and Art
Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong prophesied therein, and these things and
other appropriate things (i.e., not to tempt God) you may inquire for
yourself through independent, objective reflections and unfeigned humility
and sincere prayers of faith to the Father in the name of Messiah.
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong. What do you
do, sir?
What talk.origins did, they just banned us for life from posting to their
beloved religious newsgroup, in observance of the Principle of Fascist
Reaction.
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)
19 ... Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed: ...
(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:19)
Duwaynea Anderson
> > evolution:
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> > So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
> > you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
>
> So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all.
Of course it is, and your argument is beside the point because the
examples aren't limited to that.
By the way, gravity is still gravity in space, as much as on the
surface of the earth, too.
Bottom line: Evolution is an observed fact. Arguing that it can't
happen is like trying to argue that the sky can't really be blue, or
that water can't really be wet.
Jong Kim
> On May 30, 8:22 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
> > > evolution:
> >
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
> >
> > > So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
> > > you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
> >
> > So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all.
>
> Of course it is, and your argument is beside the point because the
> examples aren't limited to that.
>
> By the way, gravity is still gravity in space, as much as on the
> surface of the earth, too.
>
> Bottom line: Evolution is an observed fact. Arguing that it can't
> happen is like trying to argue that the sky can't really be blue, or
> that water can't really be wet.
Tom Petty:
Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down
Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down
Well I know what's right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all.
>
> > Of course it is, and your argument is beside the point because the
> > examples aren't limited to that.
>
> > By the way, gravity is still gravity in space, as much as on the
> > surface of the earth, too.
>
> > Bottom line: Evolution is an observed fact. Arguing that it can't
> > happen is like trying to argue that the sky can't really be blue, or
> > that water can't really be wet.
>
> Tom Petty:
>
> Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
Are you suggesting this is a personal debate for you, and that your
position is more important to you than actually learning what is true,
and what's not?
> You can stand me up at the gates of hell
> But I won't back down
Okay ... it's starting to sound like you're saying your mind's made up
and you don't want to be confused by the facts.
> Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
I see. That would certainly explain why scientific evidence seems
irrelevant to you.
> And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
> Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down
Your ground seems awfully important to you.
> Well I know what's right, I got just one life
> In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
> But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down
Sadly, I don't think anyone ever expected you to. Sadder still is I
think you'll consider that a compliment.
Duwaynea Anderson
> "Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all.
>
> > Of course it is, and your argument is beside the point because the
> > examples aren't limited to that.
>
> > By the way, gravity is still gravity in space, as much as on the
> > surface of the earth, too.
>
> > Bottom line: Evolution is an observed fact. Arguing that it can't
> > happen is like trying to argue that the sky can't really be blue, or
> > that water can't really be wet.
>
> Tom Petty:
>
> Well I won't back down, no I won't back down
Are you suggesting this is a personal debate for you, and that your
position is more important to you than actually learning what is true,
and what's not?
> You can stand me up at the gates of hell
> But I won't back down
Okay ... it's starting to sound like you're saying your mind's made up
and you don't want to be confused by the facts.
> Gonna stand my ground, won't be turned around
I see. That would certainly explain why scientific evidence seems
irrelevant to you.
> And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down
> Gonna stand my ground and I won't back down
Your ground seems awfully important to you.
> Well I know what's right, I got just one life
> In a world that keeps on pushin' me around
> But I'll stand my ground and I won't back down
Sadly, I don't think anyone ever expected you to. Sadder still is I
think you'll consider that a compliment.
Duwayne Anderson
Jong Kim
, saith Tooinsane Banterson.
Richard Feynman:
Jong Kim
Surely you're joking, Mr. Banterson?
Jong Kim
When Maxwell modeled the anisotropic aether with fluid mechanics, he applied
the Lagrangian least action principle without knowing all about the
constitution of the aether, though he was certain that aether is not
molecular. It's the same thing with Feynman path integral, being based on
the same principle. With Art Bulla's simplified model, he favored Molecular
Evolution by giving as many concessions as he can, and the information he
had in his case was based on the fact that there are 20 different amino
acids. I understand what principle you're applying -- sophist distraction.
> >> Feynman's path integral work does not provide a way around
> >> Mises' dictum, it uses it as a basis for its own limitations.
> >
> >Correct.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging at least this, but how can you
> know this is true and yet not see that Mises' dictum that
> probability analysis can only be validly applied to
> fully-descibed games of chance where each "turn" operates
> exactly the same way on exactly identical system-states,
> and not to the far more complex, and fundamentally different,
> system of molecular interactions throughout the universe?
If what you're saying is true, then there's no validity to Maxwell-Boltzmann
statistics nor to Bose-Einstein statistics nor to Fermi-Dirac statistics.
"Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order."
~~Maurice Allais, noted physicist and 1988 Nobel Laureate for Economics
Science (About the Aether Concept, 2003).
There are unifying principles that underlie the operations of things. Why
deny the truth?
> Feynman built into his method precisely the same limitation,
> making it MANDATORY to take into account each and every potential
> history INCLUDING each and every change to the state of the system.
The 'action' is the time integral of the Lagrangian, which is the difference
between kinetic energy and potential energy of the system. That's a lot of
information, but does not give all information about everything in the
system. Still, it's enough information to calculate quantum probabilities of
all paths possible, and that's all that matters. Why do you lie? Why do you
waste my time with your bold lies? Do you get pleasure from wasting my time?
Btw, another way to see this is Lagrangian L = B - R, where B is berserk
mode and R is relaxwell mode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
Action principles can seem puzzling to the student of physics because of
their seemingly teleological quality: instead of predicting the future from
initial conditions, one starts with a combination of initial conditions and
final conditions and then finds the path in between, as if the system
somehow knows where it's going to go.
To actually do a Lagragian, you need kinetic energy and potential energy,
integrate the difference over time and you've got 'action'. In Art Bulla's
example, it's vastly simplified for the layman. It arbitrarily assumes that
there's a amino acid combination achieved every second. That's pretty fast,
and not likely to happen in Nature under pretty much any condition, so the
model makes concessions to favor Evolution and the odds still come out
against it, showing just how ridiculous is the notion of self-organization.
So, no need for fancy math. It's all simple arithmetic.
This is a little more serious question. One path is that, the first half a
second, 60 amino acids chain up then in the next quarter second, 10 more
amino acid connect to this chain, and so forth. But there's no need to worry
about what intermediate states are like, because of the simplifying
assumption that 100 amino acids combine every second (probability being
1/(20^100) ), thereby greatly *favoring* Evolution in the assumption. The
implication of the final result under this assumption is that in order for
there to be any statistically significant probability, there must be
successful combinations of 100 acids every such and such fraction of a
second!
You insist on being stuck on the force diagram view or the nuts and bolts,
near sighted view. I'd like to believe that you don't sincerely believe what
you're saying.
Contact Edwin F. Taylor of MIT, if you like (just as an example of an
'expert'). You know where to find him on the Net.
> >> Unless you are claiming to be the only person on earth who
> >> fully understands probability theory and the physical sciences,
> >> you will by definition have sufficient respect for the superiority
> >> of at least one expert's opinion.
> >
> >I have respect for the superiority of the mathematical and scientific
skills
> >of Maurice Allais (as well as of others like him), but as to his
conclusions
> >about aether, I am more certain of them than he is himself, for the Holy
> >Ghost has confirmed to me the gist of his ideas, which are also
consistent
> >with The Revelations of Jesus Christ received by Art Bulla.
>
> What would you say if Maurice Allais says you're wrong
> and I'm right? Would you just chalk it up to "human fallibility"
> despite your respect for him?
Maurice Allais already said you're wrong.
"Nature doesn't leave any room to chance and all is determined by cause and
effect relationships. What's called hazard is nothing but a representation
of our ignorance. But the permanent nature of the statistical laws shows the
existence of a hidden order."
~~Maurice Allais, noted physicist and 1988 Nobel Laureate for Economics
Science (About the Aether Concept, 2003).
> It seems to me that there is no potential at all for
> any counter-argument, no matter the source, to convince you.
>
> Do you admit this?
I admit that you're deliberately retarding your mind.