Creationist theory is the future of science

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG. This ordering consists of efficient progression of mathematical structures starting from zero.

2. In this DNA universe, a representation of the adult organism exists, which representation guides the development of the organism to adulthood. As well as representations of things in the environment exist in the DNA universe, and representations of the opposite sex of the organisms.

3. The human mind is also a sort of universal system, and is extended from the DNA universal system.

Which leaves the suggestion that organisms are intelligently designed, or redesigned, in the DNA universe of organisms.

And we will find that the individual cell goes into a specific state in order to intelligently design the DNA, choosing the CATG bases, which is probably the cyste state.

Instantaneous creation de novo from nothing, is still a possiblity. Instantaneous creation just seems more simple to do, because the main logic is inherent in the ordering of the universe.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:01:22 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, man, I see it too.

Who is your supplier?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.

4 parameters mass, time, space and charge, 4 bases CATG
64 elements of dirac algebra, 64 triplet codons
Fermion+vacuum Spin ½ x 2:Double helix One handednessVan der Waals force, Double stranded DNA:Double helix One handedness Van der Waals force
20 Algebraic Elements of Fermionic+vacuum structure, 20 basic amino Acids
5 - Fold Symmetry Broken, 5 - Fold Symmetry Fibonacci, golden section

Particularly something as curious as why there would be just 20 basic amino acids, when loads more amino acids are possible, shows that the number 20 has significance in the ordering of the DNA system.

And this number is explained in regards to efficient steps of mathematical structures, away from zero.

So there is ordering in the DNA system, and it is not a mess of evolved Darwinian arbitrariness.



Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 00:45:34 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.

Yabbut that has nothing to do with anything you mention here.

>4 parameters mass, time, space and charge, 4 bases CATG
>64 elements of dirac algebra, 64 triplet codons
>Fermion+vacuum Spin ½ x 2:Double helix One handednessVan der Waals force, Double stranded DNA:Double helix One handedness Van der Waals force
>20 Algebraic Elements of Fermionic+vacuum structure, 20 basic amino Acids

Actually, there are 24 Fermions:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion>

>5 - Fold Symmetry Broken, 5 - Fold Symmetry Fibonacci, golden section
>
>Particularly something as curious as why there would be just 20 basic amino acids, when loads more amino acids are possible, shows that the number 20 has significance in the ordering of the DNA system.

Actually, some organisms also use Selenocysteine and Pyrrolysine:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid>

Also:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_genetic_code>

>And this number is explained in regards to efficient steps of mathematical structures, away from zero.
>
>So there is ordering in the DNA system, and it is not a mess of evolved Darwinian arbitrariness.

Your problem here is, knowledge keeps changing. I acknowledge you
don't let objective facts get in the way of your rants. But since
Casanova doesn't, why should you.

>Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 00:45:34 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:01:22 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>> <mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>> >1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG. This ordering consists of efficient progression of mathematical structures starting from zero.
>> >
>> >2. In this DNA universe, a representation of the adult organism exists, which representation guides the development of the organism to adulthood. As well as representations of things in the environment exist in the DNA universe, and representations of the opposite sex of the organisms.
>> >
>> >3. The human mind is also a sort of universal system, and is extended from the DNA universal system.
>> >
>> >Which leaves the suggestion that organisms are intelligently designed, or redesigned, in the DNA universe of organisms.
>> >
>> >And we will find that the individual cell goes into a specific state in order to intelligently design the DNA, choosing the CATG bases, which is probably the cyste state.
>> >
>> >Instantaneous creation de novo from nothing, is still a possiblity. Instantaneous creation just seems more simple to do, because the main logic is inherent in the ordering of the universe.
>> >
>> Yeah, man, I see it too.
>>
>> Who is your supplier?
>> >
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Yes there exists more fermions, and more amino acids also, but in the fermionic + vacuum structure, and in the DNA system, there are just 20 basic elements each.

You demonstrate the problem with evolutionists, they cannot see ordering. Neither can they see species, as they cannot see order in the dna system, because it is all supposed to be a mess generated by random mutation.

And to record the arbitrary random mess of history, is not really scientific theory. Only the order, patterns, are scientific theory.


Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 12:40:34 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/18/22 3:01 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG.

Space alone requires three parameters to specify. And don't forget spin.

[...]

> Instantaneous creation de novo from nothing, is still a possiblity. Instantaneous creation just seems more simple to do, because the main logic is inherent in the ordering of the universe.

Have you tried doing instantaneous creation? It's a lot harder than it
looks.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Spin is not a fundamental parameter matter, obviously.

Theory about instantaneous creation, it is in principle just searching the possiblities using the universal system of the universe proper, and the universal system of the DNA universe.

So far you have the competing theory, that everything in the universe is a random mess. That's not science, that's history.

And then it was decided this, and then it was decided that, and then, and then.... ad infinite, is evolution theory.


Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 16:30:35 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com>:

>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.
>

Blew away my "Special Childrens' File" to see if there'd
been any positive change in the denizens thereof. Thanks for
getting back to me so soon, with such emphatic confirmation
of your continued qualifications to be there.

Back y'go, Sparky.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are ideologically opposed to creationist theory, because it requires the subjective spirit.

You reject the concept of subjectivity with evolution theory, which makes you a social darwinist.

Social darwinist as in, asserting what is good and bad as a matter of scientific fact, based on evolution theory, instead of asserting what is good and bad as subjective opinion, in regards to the subjective spirit making decisions.


Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 17:35:34 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:32:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
><mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>
>>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.
>>
>Blew away my "Special Childrens' File" to see if there'd
>been any positive change in the denizens thereof. Thanks for
>getting back to me so soon, with such emphatic confirmation
>of your continued qualifications to be there.
>
>Back y'go, Sparky.

For most people, the point of using things like a "Special Children's
File" is to ignore such posts. Apparently your mileage varies.

>>Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 00:45:34 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:01:22 -0800 (PST), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>> <mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>>> >1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG. This ordering consists of efficient progression of mathematical structures starting from zero.
>>> >
>>> >2. In this DNA universe, a representation of the adult organism exists, which representation guides the development of the organism to adulthood. As well as representations of things in the environment exist in the DNA universe, and representations of the opposite sex of the organisms.
>>> >
>>> >3. The human mind is also a sort of universal system, and is extended from the DNA universal system.
>>> >
>>> >Which leaves the suggestion that organisms are intelligently designed, or redesigned, in the DNA universe of organisms.
>>> >
>>> >And we will find that the individual cell goes into a specific state in order to intelligently design the DNA, choosing the CATG bases, which is probably the cyste state.
>>> >
>>> >Instantaneous creation de novo from nothing, is still a possiblity. Instantaneous creation just seems more simple to do, because the main logic is inherent in the ordering of the universe.
>>> >
>>> Yeah, man, I see it too.
>>>
>>> Who is your supplier?

--

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-19 09:22, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Spin is not a fundamental parameter matter, obviously.

In what sense is spin not a fundamental property of matter?

Also, what about colour (in the quantum chromodynamic sense)?

You seem to have picked some arbitrary set based solely on the desire to
get to 4.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:59:06 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:32:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>><mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.
>>>
>>Blew away my "Special Childrens' File" to see if there'd
>>been any positive change in the denizens thereof. Thanks for
>>getting back to me so soon, with such emphatic confirmation
>>of your continued qualifications to be there.
>>
>>Back y'go, Sparky.
>
>
>For most people, the point of using things like a "Special Children's
>File" is to ignore such posts. Apparently your mileage varies.
>

For most people, the comment that I blew away the file to
re-evaluate its denizens would have meaning. Apparently your

mileage varies.
>
>>>Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 00:45:34 UTC+1 schreef Bob Casanova:
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:01:22 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>>> <mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>>>> >1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG. This ordering consists of efficient progression of mathematical structures starting from zero.
>>>> >
>>>> >2. In this DNA universe, a representation of the adult organism exists, which representation guides the development of the organism to adulthood. As well as representations of things in the environment exist in the DNA universe, and representations of the opposite sex of the organisms.
>>>> >
>>>> >3. The human mind is also a sort of universal system, and is extended from the DNA universal system.
>>>> >
>>>> >Which leaves the suggestion that organisms are intelligently designed, or redesigned, in the DNA universe of organisms.
>>>> >
>>>> >And we will find that the individual cell goes into a specific state in order to intelligently design the DNA, choosing the CATG bases, which is probably the cyste state.
>>>> >
>>>> >Instantaneous creation de novo from nothing, is still a possiblity. Instantaneous creation just seems more simple to do, because the main logic is inherent in the ordering of the universe.
>>>> >
>>>> Yeah, man, I see it too.
>>>>
>>>> Who is your supplier?
--

[israel socratus]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:10:34 PM UTC+2, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes there exists more fermions, and more amino acids also, but in the fermionic + vacuum structure, and in the DNA system, there are just 20 basic elements each.
>
>

The vacuum structure = fermions + bosons,
their unite create everything (including the DNA systems)
====

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

No, I support the view that splits the universe into quantum system and vacuum, and not quantum system and observer / measurement device.

Why don't you think? Does the ordering in the DNA system have any meaning, or is it just an arbitrary random mess?

Obviously it must have meaning. And the logic that it has ordering in terms of efficient steps of mathematical structures away from zero, is what obviously would be true. The obvious default theory, which probably is also actually the true theory.


Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 21:15:34 UTC+1 schreef socrat...@gmail.com:

> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:10:34 PM UTC+2,
> mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:

> '' . . . . the fermionic + vacuum structure . . . ''
> ======

> The vacuum structure = fermions + bosons,
> their unite create everything (including the DNA systems)

> ===========

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

In the sense that the other parameters are fundamental, and spin is just derivative.

And if your theory is that the universe is a random mess, then you have no competing theory.

Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 19:05:34 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:57:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:59:06 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:32:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>><mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.
>>>>
>>>Blew away my "Special Childrens' File" to see if there'd
>>>been any positive change in the denizens thereof. Thanks for
>>>getting back to me so soon, with such emphatic confirmation
>>>of your continued qualifications to be there.
>>>
>>>Back y'go, Sparky.
>>
>>
>>For most people, the point of using things like a "Special Children's
>>File" is to ignore such posts. Apparently your mileage varies.
>>
>For most people, the comment that I blew away the file to
>re-evaluate its denizens would have meaning. Apparently your
>mileage varies.

To quote someone you regard so highly, "blow it out your ass. And
please have a really crappy day; I'm through with your garbage."

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:38:01 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>No, I support the view that splits the universe into quantum system and vacuum, and not quantum system and observer / measurement device.
>
>Why don't you think? Does the ordering in the DNA system have any meaning, or is it just an arbitrary random mess?
>
>Obviously it must have meaning. And the logic that it has ordering in terms of efficient steps of mathematical structures away from zero, is what obviously would be true. The obvious default theory, which probably is also actually the true theory.

22 amino acids does not a DNA system order make.

>Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 21:15:34 UTC+1 schreef socrat...@gmail.com:
>> On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 2:10:34 PM UTC+2,
>> mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> '' . . . . the fermionic + vacuum structure . . . ''
>> ======
>> The vacuum structure = fermions + bosons,
>> their unite create everything (including the DNA systems)
>> ===========

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:59:48 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:57:25 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 12:59:06 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 09:32:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 23:09:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>>>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by "mohammad...@gmail.com"
>>>><mohammad...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>You are just a moronic social darwinist ideologist.
>>>>>
>>>>Blew away my "Special Childrens' File" to see if there'd
>>>>been any positive change in the denizens thereof. Thanks for
>>>>getting back to me so soon, with such emphatic confirmation
>>>>of your continued qualifications to be there.
>>>>
>>>>Back y'go, Sparky.
>>>
>>>
>>>For most people, the point of using things like a "Special Children's
>>>File" is to ignore such posts. Apparently your mileage varies.
>>>
>>For most people, the comment that I blew away the file to
>>re-evaluate its denizens would have meaning. Apparently your
>>mileage varies.
>
>
>To quote someone you regard so highly, "blow it out your ass. And
>please have a really crappy day; I'm through with your garbage."
>

Bye.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

But 20 does, and 20 are the main basic amino acids, in the system, and the 22 is just an exception to the rule.

Op woensdag 19 januari 2022 om 22:05:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Ernest Major]

On 19/01/2022 15:30, Mark Isaak wrote:
>> 1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same
>> fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example
>> the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge, and
>> the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG.
>
> Space alone requires three parameters to specify.  And don't forget spin.

Energy and momentum have been omitted, but since mass is a form of
energy, and energy and momentum are related by Special Relativity,
energy-momentum can be substituted for mass. But on that treatment
space-time is just a single entity. (Parameter is the wrong choice of
word on his part since it carries a connotation of being describable by
a single number.)

There are a number of other conserved quantities in physics - lepton,
muon and baryon numbers, and angular momentum and spin, as well as charge.

And modern physics treats quantum fields as the fundamental elements.

--
alias Ernest Major

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-19 13:51, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> In the sense that the other parameters are fundamental, and spin is just derivative.

Please explain then, how you derive the fact that an electron has a spin
of ½ whereas a photon has a spin of 1 from your four 'fundamental
parameters".

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But 20 does, and 20 are the main basic amino acids, in the system, and the 22 is just an exception to the rule.

It could be 20, 22, 24, Lucky 7, or The Number 23. How does that
identify any "DNA system order"?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's stupid that you want to assert spin is a fundamental parameter on a par with mass.

Or on a par with space, or time.

Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 00:30:43 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Because, there are many more possible amino acids than 20. So that it is constricted to 20, must mean something. And 20 fits with, the universal ordering based on efficient steps away from zero.

And the theory that 20 is just random, and everything is just the result of a random mess of historical events, that is not having any theory.


Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 01:30:34 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-19 17:33, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's stupid that you want to assert spin is a fundamental parameter on a par with mass.
>
> Or on a par with space, or time.

And yet you fail to show how one is supposed to derive spin from these
other 'parameters'.

You'll note that Wikipedia, in its description of elementary particles,
specifies the mass, charge and spin for each type of particle. They
certainly seem to consider it a fundamental property. As does every
physics text I happen to have on hand.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles>

André

> Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 00:30:43 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:
>> On 2022-01-19 13:51, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> In the sense that the other parameters are fundamental, and spin is just derivative.
>> Please explain then, how you derive the fact that an electron has a spin
>> of ½ whereas a photon has a spin of 1 from your four 'fundamental
>> parameters".

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Is too complicated for me, I only do the simple fundamentals.

Still obviously stupid to put spin on a par with mass etc. But ofcourse you are not arguing that, you are arguing that it is all just a random mess, and not arguing that there are 5 fundamental parameters, or 3, or some other ordering. You argue that there are no fundamental parameters, that there is no ordering in it generally. Your argument is in service of the idea that things in the universe are a mess.

Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 02:20:34 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:34:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>Bye.


Thank you.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/19/22 8:22 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Spin is not a fundamental parameter matter, obviously.

Spin most certainly is a fundamental parameter of matter. It does not
derive from any of the others you mentioned, and chemistry, and
therefore life, would be completely different (probably impossible)
without it.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:40:00 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Because, there are many more possible amino acids than 20. So that it is constricted to 20, must mean something. And 20 fits with, the universal ordering based on efficient steps away from zero.
>
>And the theory that 20 is just random, and everything is just the result of a random mess of historical events, that is not having any theory.

You keep saying that. It sounds like it's from the same people who
claim a theory that humans came from rocks.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/19/22 3:22 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 19/01/2022 15:30, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> 1. The DNA system is a universal system, meaning it has the same
>>> fundamental mathematical ordering as the universe proper. For example
>>> the universe proper has 4 paramaters mass, time, space and charge,
>>> and the DNA system has the 4 bases CATG.
>>
>> Space alone requires three parameters to specify.  And don't forget spin.
>
> Energy and momentum have been omitted, but since mass is a form of
> energy, and energy and momentum are related by Special Relativity,
> energy-momentum can be substituted for mass. But on that treatment
> space-time is just a single entity. (Parameter is the wrong choice of
> word on his part since it carries a connotation of being describable by
> a single number.)

Still, "parameter" was his choice of word. It's hard to say whether his
word choice is wrong, or his entire argument choice is wrong. Probably
both.

> There are a number of other conserved quantities in physics - lepton,
> muon and baryon numbers, and angular momentum and spin, as well as charge.
>
> And modern physics treats quantum fields as the fundamental elements.

Color, charm, lepton number, etc. could be added to the list, along with
other parameters we probably don't know about yet. I mentioned only
spin because it was so obviously fundamental.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 18:46:32 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 1/19/22 8:22 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Spin is not a fundamental parameter matter, obviously.
>
>Spin most certainly is a fundamental parameter of matter. It does not
>derive from any of the others you mentioned, and chemistry, and
>therefore life, would be completely different (probably impossible)
>without it.

For those who are interested in a quick introduction to quantum spin:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWlk1gLkF2Y>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK_6OzZAh5k>
***************************************
@0:48
That particular weirdness is not just another cute case of quantum
mechanics being a bit silly. The fact that some particles have this
property is the entire reason that stuff in our universe has
structure, and that matter doesn’t immediately collapse. It’s the
source of the Pauli exclusion principle, and today I’m going to show
you exactly why this simple property makes it possible for us to have
nice things in our universe.
****************************************

IOW very, very fundamental.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Is obviously utterly ridiculous to put spin on a par as fundamental as mass, time, space.

You are just a liar. Like you lie about the holocaust, you lie about this as well, just because it suits your cause.

And for what do you lie, because nobody here is listening to you. There are no lurkers. You just lie, because you are a liar.

Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 03:50:34 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-19 18:42, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is too complicated for me, I only do the simple fundamentals.

If its too complicated for you, then perhaps it would be best that you
not make claims about it.

> Still obviously stupid to put spin on a par with mass etc.

If it is so obvious, then perhaps you can explain why every single
physicist on earth would disagree with this. How is it that this
"obvious" fact has escaped them?

You do realise that we're not talking about the rotation of dreidels or
ferris wheels here, right? We're talking about quantum spin which is a
very different animal.

> But ofcourse you are not arguing that, you are arguing that it is all just a random mess, and not arguing that there are 5 fundamental parameters, or 3, or some other ordering. You argue that there are no fundamental parameters, that there is no ordering in it generally. Your argument is in service of the idea that things in the universe are a mess.

That's a rather strange thing to say given that I have never at any
point claimed, let alone argued that, 'it's all just a random mess'.
It's certainly not a belief that I ascribe to.

André

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/20/22 7:25 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is obviously utterly ridiculous to put spin on a par as fundamental as mass, time, space.
>
> You are just a liar. Like you lie about the holocaust, you lie about this as well, just because it suits your cause.
>
> And for what do you lie, because nobody here is listening to you. There are no lurkers. You just lie, because you are a liar.
>
> Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 03:50:34 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:
>> On 1/19/22 8:22 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Spin is not a fundamental parameter matter, obviously.
>> Spin most certainly is a fundamental parameter of matter. It does not
>> derive from any of the others you mentioned, and chemistry, and
>> therefore life, would be completely different (probably impossible)
>> without it.

You hate reality. Reality goes on regardless.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

And yet with very little work just looking at the simple basics, I can do physics better than you, I find the better physics, and what you say, it is just rubbish.

As far as I know the ordinary word spin, has very much to do with spin as it is in quantum physics, very literally.

And there is no physcist who puts spin on a par with space, time, and mass, as being fundamental, just you do that. You're just lying about every physicist.

You don't present a competing theory of ordering, is how I know you are just supporting the theory of an arbitary random mess. You're obviously just another evolutionist goon, incapable of real science.



Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 17:10:34 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Asswipe, you deny the reality of choice, and the entire subjective part of reality.

I am perfectly fine with reality. And certainly with accepting creationism, I have a lot more respect for the way things are, because I know things are chosen. Even I don't like some things, it was chosen, and there was the right to choose it.

You choose to throw out all understanding of subjectivity, make science a total mess of randomness, and make society without emotion, that is your choice.


Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 17:30:34 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-20 11:28, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> And yet with very little work just looking at the simple basics, I can do physics better than you, I find the better physics, and what you say, it is just rubbish.

I haven't seen any physics from you at all. All you've done is claimed
that there are four 'parameters' (space, time, charge, mass) - a view
which might (barely) have been deemed adequate in the 17th century and
then drew attention to the fact that there are also four base-pairs
(which is only true if you ignore uracil). That's not physics. That's
numerology.

> As far as I know the ordinary word spin, has very much to do with spin as it is in quantum physics, very literally.

You should perhaps watch the first of the two videos which Jillery
linked to. The only relation between ordinary spin and quantum spin is
that both seem to involve angular momentum.

> And there is no physcist who puts spin on a par with space, time, and mass, as being fundamental, just you do that. You're just lying about every physicist.

from the wikipedia disambiguation page for 'spin':

• Spinning, a rotation or circular motion of an object around an
internal axis

• Spin (physics) or particle spin, a fundamental property of elementary
particles

(those link to entirely different articles).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin>

> You don't present a competing theory of ordering, is how I know you are just supporting the theory of an arbitary random mess. You're obviously just another evolutionist goon, incapable of real science.

I don't need to provide a competing theory, as there is already an
accepted theory called the 'Standard Model' which provides a much better
account and which involves far more than four 'parameters'. And it
treats spin as a fundamental property of particles.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model>

You might want to try bringing your physics knowledge into the 21st
century. Or even the late 19th century.

[Glenn]

On Thursday, January 20, 2022 at 1:55:34 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-01-20 11:28, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > And yet with very little work just looking at the simple basics, I can do physics better than you, I find the better physics, and what you say, it is just rubbish.
> I haven't seen any physics from you at all. All you've done is claimed
> that there are four 'parameters' (space, time, charge, mass) - a view
> which might (barely) have been deemed adequate in the 17th century and
> then drew attention to the fact that there are also four base-pairs
> (which is only true if you ignore uracil). That's not physics. That's
> numerology.

Explain your reasons for this criticism, assuming that uracil is not found in DNA and is demethylated thymine.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You keep on talking total nonsense. The word spin was used for the property, because the particle appeared to look the same if you looked at half time round, or something etc. It is just very literal.

There is no physicist that considers spin as fundamental on a par with mass, space, time. You use the word fundamental in a different sense, not in that sense.

Which is because you are an evolutionist, and evolutionists are liars. Utterly ridiculous.

You assert that finding ordering in the universe is "numerology". Which means, you once again assert it is all a random mess.

There is a pattern in the way the universe is organized, which pattern is based on efficient steps of mathematical structures away from zero, and this pattern is repeated in the DNA system. That is a scientific theory.

While what you do is really saying, I find some numbers here and there, they all have nothing to do with each other, it is just a random mess. Which is to give up and do history, not hypotesize a scientific theory.


Op donderdag 20 januari 2022 om 21:55:34 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[mig själv]

onsdag 19 januari 2022 kl. 00:05:34 UTC+1 skrev mohammad...@gmail.com:

> 1. The DNA system is a universal system, ...

Our DNA has a diffrent encoding system than bacterial DNA. our mtDNA has the same encoding system as bacteria.
So on our planet we have 2 DNA systems.

It is only in your virtual reality that creationist is the future of science.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The meaning of "universal system", is that the system is ordered in logically efficient steps away from zero.

Only the fundamentals of universal systems are the same, because later in the ordering there are different steps which are equally efficient.

I predict your idea that the DNA / RNA system is fundamentally differently ordered, is wrong.

The archaic theory in terms of cause and effect, things being forced, has been exhausted, and the future of science is in terms of anticipatory theory, possibility and decision.

And everything evolutionists say betrays they have no clue about possibility and decisions.


Op vrijdag 21 januari 2022 om 09:50:34 UTC+1 schreef nor...@granlunden.se:

[jillery]

Since you mention it, the DNA code, aka translation between DNA
triplets and 22 amino acids, is even more diverse that you say:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_codes>

According to the above, life on Earth uses 29 different DNA codes,
each of which have anywhere from 1 to 6 differences from the standard
DNA code.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 03:11:11 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The meaning of "universal system", is that the system is ordered in logically efficient steps away from zero.

You make Humpty Dumpty proud.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 06:26:34 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 00:49:56 -0800 (PST), mig sj?

><nor...@granlunden.se> wrote:
>
>>onsdag 19 januari 2022 kl. 00:05:34 UTC+1 skrev mohammad...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> 1. The DNA system is a universal system, ...
>>
>>Our DNA has a diffrent encoding system than bacterial DNA. our mtDNA has the same encoding system as bacteria.
>>So on our planet we have 2 DNA systems.
>>
>>It is only in your virtual reality that creationist is the future of science.
>
>
>Since you mention it, the DNA code, aka translation between DNA
>triplets and 22 amino acids, is even more diverse that you say:
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_codes>
>
>According to the above, life on Earth uses 29 different DNA codes,
>each of which have anywhere from 1 to 6 differences from the standard
>DNA code.

Make that 30 different DNA codes.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Moron, your wiki reference begins to assert commonality, and small differences.

This is why evolutionists denied Mendel's laws of inheritance for 72 years, because the fucking evolutionists suppose it is all just a random mess. So because there were no perfect Mendellian proportions in experiments on inheritance, therefore, the evolutionists argued, it is all just a random mess, and Mendel's laws aren't true.

Here same, while clearly the DNA system is a universal system, you appeal to exceptions, and differences of derivatives to deny the obvious truth.

Why you even deny the definition of a universal system, meaning you are a total fucking moron.


Op vrijdag 21 januari 2022 om 12:30:34 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Even on the wiki it lists 20 amino acids, and then a further 2 amino acids separately.

But you make of this 22, because you are a fucking liar. Basically for evolutionists science is about lying.


vrijdag 21 januari 2022 om 12:40:34 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 04:05:44 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Even on the wiki it lists 20 amino acids, and then a further 2 amino acids separately.

Not the Wiki article I cited. And here's another Wiki article that
identifies 22 amino acids life on Earth uses:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_and_RNA_codon_tables>

>But you make of this 22, because you are a fucking liar. Basically for evolutionists science is about lying.

I suppose you're right, if you define 20 and 22 to mean the same
thing. That's what Humpty Dumpty would do.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The wiki you cite mentions 64 codons, which lines up with the universal systems theory again, and it doesn't mention the number of amino acids. Eventhough it describes many amino acids, it does not actually add them up and state the number of them.

And it separates out the number in 20 and 2, on the main amino acid page.

Which is to say, you've got nothing. You are just pretending you have an argument, but the evidence supports zero based "universal systems" theory.




Op vrijdag 21 januari 2022 om 14:20:34 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 07:20:04 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The wiki you cite mentions 64 codons, which lines up with the universal systems theory again, and it doesn't mention the number of amino acids. Eventhough it describes many amino acids, it does not actually add them up and state the number of them.
>
>And it separates out the number in 20 and 2, on the main amino acid page.

Not my cites. Where's your cite?

>Which is to say, you've got nothing.

I show 30 different DNA codes. There may be more. Fit that into your
numerology. You show nothing.

>You are just pretending you have an argument, but the evidence supports zero based "universal systems" theory.

Back atcha, bozo. Cite your "universal systems" theory.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are just a liar. What you mention are exceptions to the rule. The rule is in line with universal systems ordering. You mention 30 dna systems, and 22 amino acids, there is only 1 main system.

It is true that you are not honest enough. That you are just another goon, like all the others, fighting dirty for "the cause".

I on the other hand am a great intellectual, with:

1. The creationist conceptual scheme, which defines what subjectivity and objectivity is.
2. The reformulation of natural selection as reproductive selection, which it turns out by Alan Kleinman, provides better mathematics for calculating resistance to antibiotics.
3. The universal systems theory, which is, or is almost, the theory of everything. Which is basically Peter Rowlands nilpotent rewrite theory, but I aim to improve on that with the creationist conceptual scheme.

That is all supergreat enlightenment.

I accept choice is real.
I accept subjectivity is valid.
That there is a subjective spiritual domain, from which all decisions are made.
Ì also believe in God, and pray to God.

That is also totally great.

Oh my God, how can anyone stand it, not to have basic understanding of subjectivity? The absolute certainty as by logic, that subjectivity is valid. How can anybody stand it to be a facebook moron atheist stereotype, obsessed with facts, and completely clueless about subjectivity?

Abner Mintz said, literally, subjectivity is about "things in the head". How can anybody stand to be so stupid about subjectivity?

And all the wellknown atheist intellectuals, total fucking morons, denying free will, denying that making a choice, is real, or redefining it from how it is in common discourse. Who can live like that?

I am totally great, in my intellectual life. And, honest.



Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 00:05:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[André G. Isaak]

On 2022-01-21 17:01, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are just a liar. What you mention are exceptions to the rule. The rule is in line with universal systems ordering. You mention 30 dna systems, and 22 amino acids, there is only 1 main system.

If something has exceptions then it isn't really a rule.

"The exception proves the rule" is a doctrine of Roman Common Law, not
valid reasoning in science.

[Glenn]

On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 6:05:35 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2022-01-21 17:01, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You are just a liar. What you mention are exceptions to the rule. The rule is in line with universal systems ordering. You mention 30 dna systems, and 22 amino acids, there is only 1 main system.
> If something has exceptions then it isn't really a rule.

Do you share Mo's meaning of "rule"?

>
> "The exception proves the rule" is a doctrine of Roman Common Law, not
> valid reasoning in science.

"In any case, the phrase can be interpreted as a jocular expression of the correct insight that a single counterexample, while sufficient to disprove a strictly logical statement, does not disprove statistical statements which may correctly express a general trend notwithstanding the also commonly encountered existence of a few outliers to this trend. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

"Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (subatomic) level. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are "linked" on the same chromosome.""

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Exceptions proving a rule, is logically valid, and science is logical.

You generally don't get perfect representations of Mendel's laws either, in experimentation. They are still laws, which means science acknowledges exceptions, in some sense.

But all the exceptions have to be explainable in respect to the rule, and not violate the rule, that's true.

I think with deviations like 2 extra amino acids etc, it is just a living oranism doing some special thing to exploit some particular oppurtunity, as usual.

The rule still holds. When you would teach basic biology, you would teach 20 amino acids, etc, the basic model, which is in line with zero based universal systems.

Your argument sounds a lot like gender ideology. There are 2 sexes. No there are 43.



Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 02:05:35 UTC+1 schreef André G. Isaak:

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 17:41:18 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, January 21, 2022 at 6:05:35 PM UTC-7, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2022-01-21 17:01, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > You are just a liar. What you mention are exceptions to the rule. The rule is in line with universal systems ordering. You mention 30 dna systems, and 22 amino acids, there is only 1 main system.
>> If something has exceptions then it isn't really a rule.
>
>Do you share Mo's meaning of "rule"?

Mohammad has not posted in T.O. his meaning of "rule". More to the
point, his posts show his word meanings to be charitably distinctive
and possibly unique to himself.

>> "The exception proves the rule" is a doctrine of Roman Common Law, not
>> valid reasoning in science.
>
>"In any case, the phrase can be interpreted as a jocular expression of the correct insight that a single counterexample, while sufficient to disprove a strictly logical statement, does not disprove statistical statements which may correctly express a general trend notwithstanding the also commonly encountered existence of a few outliers to this trend. "
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule
>
>"Exceptions have been found. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity breaks down when looking at the quantum (subatomic) level. Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment breaks down when traits are "linked" on the same chromosome.""
>
>https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

The fact that rules and laws have exceptions is independent of whether
those exceptions prove or disprove their veracity. In this specific
case, Mohammad's "rule" as expressed is an incoherent collection of
random facts and vague allusions, and arbitrarily excludes other
facts.

OTOH scientific laws are summary statements of observed and verified
phenomena. Exceptions to those laws are constrained to specific
instances that don't alter the veracity of the laws within the laws'
scope.

There are no meaningful comparisons between scientific laws and
Mohammad's rules.

[jillery]

In the category of aping Trump:

"I on the other hand am a great intellectual"

[broger...@gmail.com]

I've always thought that the expression "the exception proves the rule" applied to general rules of thumb more than to logical or scientific "laws," in the sense that the fact that you notice and remark upon an exception as unusual means that, in general, things work the other way, thus "proving the rule."

[Burkhard]

It's a maxim of legal interpretation, going back to Roman law. Cicero
quotes it as "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" and in
that full version it makes more sense: an exception establishes the
existence of a rule in those cases where the exception does not apply"

The case where Cicero uses it, the defense of Lucius Cornelius Balbus,
is fascinating, also in modern contexts (think Afghanistan and the
treatment of Afghan translators etc who supported the Nato alliance, and
now fear for their lives - do they have a right to asylum in the US) At
the heart of the case was the issue of dual nationality, change of
citizenship, duties towards allies and the relation between national law
and international treatises signed by the executive.

More specifically, the question was whether a citizen of a city allied
to Rome (modern day Cadiz)who had fought under great personal risks for
Rome against the rebellion of Sertorius, had lawfully acquired Roman
citizenship by decree from Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. The charge against
Balbus was that he fraudulently claimed to be Roman citizen, because the
grant of citizenship had exceeded the powers of Pompeius because there
was no corresponding law in Cadiz that recognized the validity of Roman
citizenship bestowed on their citizens.

The "exception" that Cicero uses in the argument are treatises between
Rome and allied German tribes that have as a specific and explicit
clause that Rome must not offer citizenship to any subject of one of the
Germanic kings - so in essence, the Germans were worried Rome might use
the incentive of citizenship to lure key people to their side.

If, so Cicero, it was necessary to have such an explicit exception
stated in the treatises with some allies only, that must mean that there
is a general rule that Rome is permitted to unilaterally confer
citizenship to any allied city not subject to such an explicitly stated
exception. There was no explicit authority for this proposition (though
Cicero also develops some direct arguments) but without assuming such a
general rule, the laws established by the Germanic treaties would not
make sense.

As a maybe more straightforward modern example, if you see a traffic
sign that says "no parking between 9-12" you can infer that as a general
rule, parking is permitted there,

From Roman law, the maxim made its way into English law by the 17th
century - the earliest citation I could find is the

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You're obviously a liar. You assert 22 amino acids, while your reference, wiki, separates them into 20 and 2. The evidence supports a mathematical ordering of the DNA system, consistent with zero based universal systems.

And what is actually taught is 20 amino acids, 64 codons, and 4 bases, and not your bullshit numbers.

It's ridiculous the way evolution scientists always lie. About everything.






Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 09:00:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/21/22 4:01 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> You are just a liar. What you mention are exceptions to the rule. The rule is in line with universal systems ordering. You mention 30 dna systems, and 22 amino acids, there is only 1 main system.

If you kick, punch, and generally mutilate reality enough, you can fit
it into your understanding of it. You might even feel like you've won
something.

Go ahead and take your win. I don't want it. The trophy sucks.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Thank you, that makes lots of sense.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Fucking liar. All over the internet, there are references to 20 amino acids, 4 bases, and 64 codons, on very many sites. In basically every explanation of it, those are the numbers used.

Goddamned baldfaced fucking liar, lying for no reason, other than that he is a liar.

It's incredible, it's like CNN lying. They know if they lie, then that's not good for trusting the "news" they bring. Yet they do it anyway. Not giving a fuck.


Op zaterdag 22 januari 2022 om 19:10:35 UTC+1 schreef Mark Isaak:

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 05:44:34 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You're obviously a liar. You assert 22 amino acids, while your reference, wiki, separates them into 20 and 2.

Last time I checked, 20 and 2 is the same amount as 22. Perhaps it's
just me.

>The evidence supports a mathematical ordering of the DNA system, consistent with zero based universal systems.

You don't say what "zero-based universal systems" means, so your
so-called "evidence" don't mean diddly.

>And what is actually taught is 20 amino acids, 64 codons, and 4 bases, and not your bullshit numbers.

My Wikipedia cites say 22 amino acids. Still waiting for your cite.

>It's ridiculous the way evolution scientists always lie. About everything.

You're no scientist, but you are a compulsive liar.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 13:18:02 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Point of pedantry: Your specific rule is "no parking between 9-12",
which makes parking outside those times the exception to it.

Also while your inference might be legally valid, logically (not A)=B
when A and B are the only options; ex. if I say the sky is (not blue),
you might infer the sky is red, but logically you could equally infer
the sky is orange or violet or black or white or any other color skies
take on that is (not blue).

> From Roman law, the maxim made its way into English law by the 17th
>century - the earliest citation I could find is the

Sometimes I run out of keystrokes too. One time, in band class,

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

More of your idiot lying. The main wiki on amino acids says 20, while you assert it says 22. So that is lie number 1.

Also on the other wiki pages, it never mentions the number 22.

I did explain what I mean by zero based universal systems theory, while you say I didn't explain, so that is lie number 2

And this is how evolution scientists ALWAYS reason, by lying.

It is not a personal Jillery thing, it is a cultural thing, the science culture in which emotions are disregarded. Because the idea of emotions is a creationist idea, and creationism is thrown out.

When emotions are supressed, disregarded, or otherwise treated badly, then those people who do that, are not going to be trustworthy.

So there is a general immorality in science, and especially in evolution science, a culture of deceit.

A totally ridiculous culture of deceit which why about 4 evolutionists now here have expressed that 4, 20, 64 are not the right numbers, while everyone uses those numbers.

It is all psychology with evolutionists and no intelligent argumentation.

I have absolutely never seen any intelligent argumentation of any evolutionist. Because you have to be honest for intelligent argumentation.

And for some time I thought, that on the internet are just the evolutionist goons, which goons protect the real scientists, which scientists do actually reason. Turns out the real evolution scientists are the same and worse as the evolutionists on the internet.


Op zondag 23 januari 2022 om 01:50:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 17:12:45 -0800 (PST), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>More of your idiot lying. The main wiki on amino acids says 20, while you assert it says 22. So that is lie number 1.

Cite your source, liar.

[Burkhard]

mhh, no, not the way I read this. The general inferred rule is
"parking is permitted unless otherwise stated". The 9-12 is one of these
"otherwise stated", an instantiation of the exception.

And the fact that the council found it necessary to put up the sign
shows that there is this general rule, otherwise parking would always be
prohibited and there would not have been a need for a sign.

Note I do not make inferences about other things that could also be
prohibited- that would be the analogy to your example - but about the
scope of that specific prohibition

>
> Also while your inference might be legally valid, logically (not A)=B
> when A and B are the only options; ex. if I say the sky is (not blue),
> you might infer the sky is red, but logically you could equally infer
> the sky is orange or violet or black or white or any other color skies
> take on that is (not blue).

That has a different structure though, in several regards.

You read this similar to a privative definition, with a wide negation.
From these you can't infer positive properties of the object as you
say, which is why they are discouraged.

But in the example the negation is narrow, and inside the scope of the
deontic operator: "You must not park between 9-12", not "it is not the
case "you must park between 9-12" (deontic operators also have a
slightly different logic from the descriptive statement you use, which
makes the comparison a bit more complicated)

A closer analogy from science would be Newton's 1. law of motion, if
formulated slightly differently from the normal form. If you read as an
explanation in a physics book why a given object suddenly moved:

"An object at rest that is acted on by an unbalanced force does not stay
at rest"

you could infer that this explanation presupposes that as a rule, an
object at rest remains at rest.

you could argue that this is closer to a Gricean conversational
implicature than a logical inference - put you can always extend an
implicature to a deductive inference if make the implicit preconditions
explicit.

With other words, part of the inference is about the behaviour of a
rational speaker. If parking were always prohibited, there would be no
point in putting up a sign that says: "Parking prohibited from 9-12" as
a rational speaker always makes the most informative statement , which
in this case would be "no parking allowed here"

>
>
>> From Roman law, the maxim made its way into English law by the 17th
>> century - the earliest citation I could find is the
>
>
> Sometimes I run out of keystrokes too. One time, in band class,

Ah yes, I had initially continued the discussion with early examples
from English law, to discuss further André's claim that the rule comes
from canon law. But a) that got really long and convoluted and b) the
eventual answer is an inconclusive "maybe yes, maybe no" (the earliest
cases, especially a libel action by the Bishop of Ely, arose in a church
context, but it is unclear from the sources if the lawyers cited a canon
law source which had evolved from Roman law, or used Roman law directly)

Decided it got too long and distracting, so deleted it, but one half
sentence escaped the purges.
>
>
>
>

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 16:55:08 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

What you say above might be how it's written in law, but you didn't
post the law. Instead, you posted a rule, and made an inference from
it, and I posted a pedantic response to that.

This applies to Mohammad's "rule" wrt DNA codes. Mohammad infers from
the general DNA code, some metaphysical connection to the Cosmos,
while ignoring the 29 other DNA codes.

>And the fact that the council found it necessary to put up the sign
>shows that there is this general rule, otherwise parking would always be
>prohibited and there would not have been a need for a sign.

Logically, it could be the general rule is no parking between some
other time interval, and the sign notes an exception to that. My
pedantic point remains, a general rule logically can't be known from
the exceptions to it.

I acknowledge it would be nonsensical to infer parking is illegal all
the time unless otherwise posted. But there are jurisdictions where
the general rule is "unposted streets have a speed limit of" X, which
makes speed limit signs exceptions to that general rule. Nevertheless,
the existence of a posted speed limit logically does not infer X, or
even that a general rule exists. Unlike with parking, it would be
both logical and sensible to infer speeds on unposted streets are
unrestricted, or at least unregulated.

>>> From Roman law, the maxim made its way into English law by the 17th
>>> century - the earliest citation I could find is the
>>
>>
>> Sometimes I run out of keystrokes too. One time, in band class,
>
>Ah yes, I had initially continued the discussion with early examples
>from English law, to discuss further André's claim that the rule comes
>from canon law. But a) that got really long and convoluted and b) the
>eventual answer is an inconclusive "maybe yes, maybe no" (the earliest
>cases, especially a libel action by the Bishop of Ely, arose in a church
>context, but it is unclear from the sources if the lawyers cited a canon
>law source which had evolved from Roman law, or used Roman law directly)
>
>Decided it got too long and distracting, so deleted it, but one half
>sentence escaped the purges.

[André G. Isaak]

Actually, I think you may be missing the point here. Generally speaking,
'the exception proves the rule' is invoked in cases where the law in
question does not actually exist in statutory form.

It basically asserts that it is reasonable for a citizen to infer the
existence of the general law 'parking is permitted' based on the fact
that an exception has been stated even in cases where no such law has
been expressed anywhere.

In fact, if it turned out that there was an actual statute that
prohibited parking at *all* times in the area where the above sign was
posted, you could likely successfully defend against a parking ticket on
the grounds of the posted exception since it allowed you to reasonably
infer that parking was permitted (even though it actually was not
according to statute).

> This applies to Mohammad's "rule" wrt DNA codes. Mohammad infers from
> the general DNA code, some metaphysical connection to the Cosmos,
> while ignoring the 29 other DNA codes.
>
>
>> And the fact that the council found it necessary to put up the sign
>> shows that there is this general rule, otherwise parking would always be
>> prohibited and there would not have been a need for a sign.
>
>
> Logically, it could be the general rule is no parking between some
> other time interval, and the sign notes an exception to that. My
> pedantic point remains, a general rule logically can't be known from
> the exceptions to it.

I don't think that's in dispute. The claim is one about legal
interpretation, not logic.

[jillery]

I'm not missing "the" point. I am raising a separate, pedantic point
specific to Burkhard's expressed analogy, in the spirit of his
pedantic shift in topic. It is you who is missing my point.

My experience is people apply "the exception proves the rule" in the
spirit broger describes above, applied to general rules of thumb, most
having nothing at all to do with laws, legal or scientific.

>It basically asserts that it is reasonable for a citizen to infer the
>existence of the general law 'parking is permitted' based on the fact
>that an exception has been stated even in cases where no such law has
>been expressed anywhere.
>
>In fact, if it turned out that there was an actual statute that
>prohibited parking at *all* times in the area where the above sign was
>posted, you could likely successfully defend against a parking ticket on
>the grounds of the posted exception since it allowed you to reasonably
>infer that parking was permitted (even though it actually was not
>according to statute).

My impression is the success of such an argument would depend on the
defendant's financial status.

>> This applies to Mohammad's "rule" wrt DNA codes. Mohammad infers from
>> the general DNA code, some metaphysical connection to the Cosmos,
>> while ignoring the 29 other DNA codes.
>>
>>
>>> And the fact that the council found it necessary to put up the sign
>>> shows that there is this general rule, otherwise parking would always be
>>> prohibited and there would not have been a need for a sign.
>>
>>
>> Logically, it could be the general rule is no parking between some
>> other time interval, and the sign notes an exception to that. My
>> pedantic point remains, a general rule logically can't be known from
>> the exceptions to it.
>
>I don't think that's in dispute. The claim is one about legal
>interpretation, not logic.
>
>André

--

[Glenn]

Except where parking is permitted is outlined in various statutes. And it isn't reasonable to assume that in a no parking area that there would be a sign saying no parking between 9-12.
The only nitpick in Burkhard's argument is whether 9-12 is an exception to a general rule, since he didn't specify AM or PM.

[Glenn]

He posted an exception to a rule, which is also a rule. Tripping over your own shoelaces again.
Jillery, you often read like scripts from old bad science fiction movies.

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 15:25:35 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

If exceptions to rules are also rules, then there is no expressed
distinction between them, and the entire discussion is incoherent. But
since you use the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary, I wouldn't expect you to
understand that.

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 15:21:28 -0800 (PST), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

AM or PM has nothing to do with Burkhard's argument. But don't worry,
village idiots aren't expected to know that.

[broger...@gmail.com]

In exceptional cases, pedantry can be interesting.

[Burkhard]

Why would that follow? Most laws have exactly that function, a general,
rule, then a more local rule that carves out an exception to the general
rule, and then possibly an even more local rule that again limits the
exception.

Typical example is the law of murder:

General rule: you must not kill
Exception in the form of a rule: unless you act in self-defense which
is permitted
Exception to the exception, in the form of a rule: unless the
self-defense is excessive, which is not permitted
Exception to the exception to the exception: unless you rationally
believed that your act was proportionate, given what you knew at the time
Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: unless you
intentionally caused your lack of knowledge to avoid responsibility.

Vert typical which is why we use non-monotonic logic (those of us who
still do GOFAI) to represent them.

And the same in science - the example of Newton's first law I gave you
has a general rule (things at rest stay at rest) and then an exception
in the form of a rule (all things that are acted on etc...)

The distinction is in the scope of the quantifier, the exceptions
restrict the scope fo the rule it is an exception to

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:51:14 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

What you call "exceptions" above are parts of rules, and so within the
rule, and so not the same thing as exceptions that prove the rule,
which are outside the rule. Something that's within a rule could
"prove the rule" as a tautology but not as an exception to the rule,
because it's part of the rule.

>Typical example is the law of murder:
>
>General rule: you must not kill
>Exception in the form of a rule: unless you act in self-defense which
>is permitted
>Exception to the exception, in the form of a rule: unless the
>self-defense is excessive, which is not permitted
>Exception to the exception to the exception: unless you rationally
>believed that your act was proportionate, given what you knew at the time
>Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: unless you
>intentionally caused your lack of knowledge to avoid responsibility.
>
>Vert typical which is why we use non-monotonic logic (those of us who
>still do GOFAI) to represent them.
>
>And the same in science - the example of Newton's first law I gave you
>has a general rule (things at rest stay at rest) and then an exception
>in the form of a rule (all things that are acted on etc...)
>
>The distinction is in the scope of the quantifier, the exceptions
>restrict the scope fo the rule it is an exception to

Your examples above use a different meaning of "exception" than the
meaning you used before, to argue "the exception proves the rule".
Your latest examples are part of a general rule, while your previous
examples were exceptions outside the general rule, ex. Balbus. You
use the same word to mean two different things, and then argue those
two different things are the same thing. That's a word game worthy of
Humpty Dumpty.

>> But
>> since you use the Humpty Dumpty Dictionary, I wouldn't expect you to
>> understand that.
>>

[Lawyer Daggett]

Indeed. I'll continue to look forward to one.

[Glenn]

That must be why you don't.

[Glenn]

You are within a nut, and so are a nut.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

All the websites talk about the numbers 4, 20, 64, bases, amino acids, codons, as part of the genetic system.

Evolutionists are just fucking liar, obviously.


Op maandag 24 januari 2022 om 16:15:35 UTC+1 schreef jillery:

[Burkhard]

Well, my argument was all along that the inference from the exception
to the existence of the general rule is logically valid. As all
logically valid inferences are indeed tautologies, saying that my
inference would be tautologous is essentially saying that I'm right, no?

In particular you can always rewrite in classical logic a valid
inference as a single sentence, that's because it is sound and complete.
So of course having inferred the existence of a general rule from that
of an exception then allows you to restate the rule as a single sentence.

So the process of reasoning that leads us from the known "no parking
between "9-12" to the unknown "Parking is generally allowed" can then
afterwards rewritten as " Parking is generally allowed unless the
council prohibits it for a limited period of time and announces this
limitation to the public" The "unless" part states the exception, now
simply incorporated into a more complex rule, but that is exactly what
we expect in logically valid inferences.

Furthermore, I gave above the full quote of the principle, not the
truncated version that is often cited:

"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" and in
that full version it makes more sense: an exception establishes the
existence of a rule in those cases where the exception does not apply"

Note the plural of "cases". The exceptional cases are governed by the
rule that creates the exception, and from this limiting rule we can
infer the general rule

>
>
>> Typical example is the law of murder:
>>
>> General rule: you must not kill
>> Exception in the form of a rule: unless you act in self-defense which
>> is permitted
>> Exception to the exception, in the form of a rule: unless the
>> self-defense is excessive, which is not permitted
>> Exception to the exception to the exception: unless you rationally
>> believed that your act was proportionate, given what you knew at the time
>> Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: unless you
>> intentionally caused your lack of knowledge to avoid responsibility.
>>

>> Very typical which is why we use non-monotonic logic (those of us who

>> still do GOFAI) to represent them.
>>
>> And the same in science - the example of Newton's first law I gave you
>> has a general rule (things at rest stay at rest) and then an exception
>> in the form of a rule (all things that are acted on etc...)
>>
>> The distinction is in the scope of the quantifier, the exceptions
>> restrict the scope fo the rule it is an exception to
>
>
> Your examples above use a different meaning of "exception" than the
> meaning you used before, to argue "the exception proves the rule".
> Your latest examples are part of a general rule, while your previous
> examples were exceptions outside the general rule, ex. Balbus.

Don't think so, my usage is the same in all scenarios.

First, just to be clear, Balbus wasn't the exception, it was his case
that established the principle that the exception proves the rule.

The exception in the Balbus case was the practice of the Senate to
accept as a clause in various treatises with the German tribes a
"non-interference condition". This demonstrated a legal rule: If so
agreed through a treatise between Rome and a vassal state, the Roman
senate can not confer citizenship unilaterally to any of the subjects of
that state without explicit permission of the King of that state." In
modern parlance, an international treaty can limit the sovereignty of
the Senate to act unilaterally

Cicero argues that the only way to make sense of this rule is to see it
as an exception to a general rule: The Senate has the power to confer
unilaterally citizenship to the citizens of vassal states.

If, hypothetically, the senate didn't have the power to confer
citizenship to subjects of a vassal state to begin with (e.g. because
only "naturally born" Romans can be citizens), it would not make sense
to agree not to use this (non existing) power in an international treatise.

The exception, which both sides agrees exists (the evidence are the
treatise) thus proves the existence of the rule that is contested
between the parties - the general power of the senate to confer
citizenship.

Of course, as above, once this argument has been successfully made, you
can then restate the law:

The Senate has the power to confer citizenship on subjects of a vassal
unless there is a treatise between vassal and Rome where Rome agrees not
to use this power.

Cadiz did not have such a treatise with Rome, hence the case of Balbus,
the exception did not apply, hence he had validly acquired citizenship
by a unilateral act of the Senate.

[Glenn]

This particular inference includes assumptions not evident in the "no parking 9-12 " rule.
Such a "no parking 9-12" rule may apply to specific "parkers". For instance, a section of road could be all restricted to
"delivery trucks only" with a small area restricted to "no parking 9-12". Without knowledge of a "more general" rule, a more general
rule could not be reliably inferred.

As well, "9-12" could be the "more general" rule itself, if it meant 9AM to 12AM midnight, making it "more" general in terms of time
restricted than for allowed parking, and the time allowed to park being the "exception".

Logic can be a dangerous animal in the hands of scientists, politicians and lawyers.

>
> Furthermore, I gave above the full quote of the principle, not the
> truncated version that is often cited:
> "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" and in
> that full version it makes more sense: an exception establishes the
> existence of a rule in those cases where the exception does not apply"
> Note the plural of "cases". The exceptional cases are governed by the
> rule that creates the exception, and from this limiting rule we can
> infer the general rule

Sorry, "rules" do not have to be precise, concise, or even rational. Neither does use of words such as 'exception", "general" or "complex".

[jillery]

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 18:33:31 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

My understanding is your arguments, as expressed, are of two different
types. Your first type is summarized as "the exception proves the
rule". You provided two examples in law, one historical and one
contemporary. The historical general rule is that Rome was allowed to
grant Roman citizenship to citizens of non-Roman cities, and the
exception to it was that specific German tribes were excluded by
treaty. The contemporary general rule you later identified as
"parking is permitted on city streets, and the exception is signage
which excludes parking between specified times.

I understand the logic you and Cicero use here, but make the pedantic
point that the exceptions, by themselves, don't precisely identify the
general rule, that logically there are many general rules which can be
inferred from their exceptions, some more exclusive than others. My
point doesn't mean the inference is necessarily wrong, but only that
it isn't necessarily correct.

Your second type I summarize as "the rule specifies exceptions". The
example you gave is "you must not kill", and the exception to it is
"self-defense", with an exception to that is "excessive defense".

I understand the logic you imply. These are summary rules and
exceptions all codified in law. But I make the pedantic point these
exceptions are explicitly part of the rule, and so don't prove the
rule the same way as your exceptions from your first type.

When I say any such assertion of proof is tautololgical, I mean there
is no ambiguity in your second type, as the exceptions explicitly are
part of the general rule. That's different from your first type,
where 1, your exceptions explicitly are separate from your general
rule, and 2, your exceptions logically map to multiple general rules,
which means the inference is logically ambiguous.