Philosophy Is the universe conscious?

Potential is not the same as bearing. I have the potential to become a master linguist; I am not however a master linguist because of this.

Furthermore, you don't always start off with a property. Look at how a sundial is stylized. A slab of stone will not have that stylization. Some properties are created (or lost) after the combination of prerequisite sets.

Honestly this like asking if I ate a colony of ants would I be able to pick up the pheremones ant queens give off.

 

If you have potential to become a master linguist, it is because you are the combination of many sets or the difference of many sets to allow it.

The combined prerequisite sets would still be equivalent to the prerequisite set of the sundial; I never said the prerequisite set of the sundial was simply the giant slab of granite alone.

If you eat something, the input could be converted along the way through the system.

You do get the idea right? Equal input = equal output where the new set is derived from the combined input of its prerequisite set.

 

Will you stop with the "two sets" obsession? There's more to many things than just "two sets" unless you go for extreme simplification, and a lot of things make a lot less sense when simplified. Complexity is in some cases required.

Actually, you pretty much did. "Humans are made of the universe and concious, so is the universe concious too?" Water, the moon and my desk are also made of stuff from the universe; they are not concious. Humans are entities tempered by evolution; the universe has no such function at work at it.

Your question is just the same as "A sundial can tell time, so can a giant slab of stone tell time too?"

Under the scientific method, your theory failed at post one (ZERO evidence). It doesn't seem to be doing too well in philosophys court either.

See why simply going on about two sets is a bad idea?

I could always be a real jackass and mention entropy right here, which shows that the output is only equal if you include degredation (heat). Or even eating food so low calorie you actually lose energy from eating it.

 

ok...

All of those objects are derived objects, of which the prerequisite set that those objects divulged from would have property x, considering property x as any element of those derived sets.

I'll just ignore this.

The input can come from many sources and every source could be combined to form a prerequisite set.

Elaborate.

If A = {a,b}, B = {a,e}, and C = {e,f}. An intersection occurs between A and B creating AB = {a} and then a union occurs between AB and C creating ABC = {a,e,f}, the prerequisite set would be ABC = {a,b,e,f}. The prerequisite set would have all the characteristics of its derived set.

This is actually true, The partial piece of the set would not have all the properties, but the combination of inputs would have all properties of the derived set. The combination of inputs would form the prerequisite set.
If A is the subset of B and B the subset of C. If x is any element of C, then x belongs to B as well. If A is the subset of B, then every element of B is also within A. What this shows is that the prerequisite set always had property x and that its derivation would have it as well.

.

 

There you are again with the 'set' things. Something so complicated, or better said, so subjective cannot be explained by simple logic.

You are in a philosophy forum, you know? You just can't take what you like and what you don't like.

 

It is possibly factual, but it seems to be laced with opinion as well.

 

And your point? If I'm understanding you correctly, you just said "Oh all those originally came from the same stuff".

...

And? That's rather the point! They had the same origin, but they aren't the same!

In math class you have to show your work. That is, you can't just answer "x=3"; you need each step showing how you got there.

-_-

Entropy is essentially... well look at it this way. Any time energy is spent, depending on the efficiency of the action a portion of that energy is wasted as heat. Let's say you had a 1000 joule action and it was 80% efficient. 200 joules would end up being converted into heat. That 200 joules are never coming back. Eventually, all energy will be dissapated as heat, at which point the universe suffers heat death.

Readers note, I may be off with the units used since my physics are a bit rusty, but this is essentially the principle.

Hypothetically but lets take real world examples. Now lets pour some hyrdrochloric acid into a strong base. HClaq has the property of being acidic, and the base (whatever it may be) is obviously a base. But when you combine them (presuming they are equal) they cease to have the characteristic of acidic or basic and become ph neutral. In this way we see the lose (and gain) of characteristics.

Furthermore in genetics, your traits are figured by the pairing of dominant and recessive genes. You can be a carrier for a chromosome based disease but not actually have the disease yourself.

Please refer to the hydrochloric acid example; HClaq was never ph neutral to begin with yet after combination with a base, it sure was.

You can't just say "this sword can cut, hence a dull immobile iron sphere can cut too because it has that property as a sword", because it doesn't work like that in real life.

Because you can't combat it?

The biggest reason you aren't doing well scientifically is because you have no evidence and your hypothesis is poorly thought out. Furthermore you seem to keep repeating the same argument over and over again ("This set has this property thus its preceding set HAS to have it").

Philosophically, as that guy pointed out, your argument seems invalid and unsound. That Guys key assault was the furry thing formula, which is false because some furry things are not animals (for example, a coat made of fake fur). Your big toe response was true, but the subversive one was silly. All a subversive does is attempt to undermine the current government system. However there is no restriction as to what government/economic system they may want to get rid of. Hence "all subversives are critics of capitalism" is false, because if it's a subversive in a communist nation that wants capitalism.. well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

 

The subversive one is a fallacy(so are the others probably). What I was demonstrating was how the content of one can be true and the content of another can be false, meaning you can't necessarily judge by content alone.

What I have been trying to argue is that for every derived set with property x, there is an ancestor set that would have property x. The universe can be explained as a set within a set where everything is merely a subset of another set. In this world of sets, properties are exchanged(gained or lost) between sets. The predecessor set must have property x in order for property x to be exchanged. How else would an exchange occur?

 

Genetic mutations.

 

What are you saying? Can properties be gained from nothingness?

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Specifically

-Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it.
- Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);


You know what a mutation is right? Essentially it's a screwup on the genetic level. And yes, properties can go absolutely crazy if there's enough mutation. Consider that girl whose legs became incredibly long due to chernobyl. Her parents sure didn't have the genetics for that; it was because the radiation interfered with normal genetic operating procedure. So lets review. Her parents didn't have the code for legs like that. She didn't start out with code for that. Radiation doesn't even have a genetic code. What happened? Her code got screwed up and, as chance would have it, she ended up with enourmous legs.

 

Everyone, I normally wouldn't double post, and I normally wouldn't post a private message, but this is a special case.

Well people, looks like he's refusing to accept real world evidence of things with entirely new traits. But fine.

Parent A [Normal] + Parent B [Normal ] = Chernobyl Kid [Normal]

Chernobyl Kid [Normal] + Sufficient Amount of Radiation = Chernobyl Kid [Deformed]



However since real-world examples aren't enough, Ternaryman probably won't accept this as proof and will move the goalposts again. Lets face it - if he can't accept scientificly validated evidence, he won't accept my simplified explanations. A mutation, whether brought about by Chernobyl (and no, traits gained in Chernobyl wouldn't be passed on) or naturally occuring (as per observed microevolution let alone macro), can add or remove information.

Let's look at it this way.

Mom [X] + Dad [X] = Kid [2X].
Kid[2X] + Wife[X] = Grandkid [3X]
Grandkid[3X] + OH SNAP RADIATION[Unpredictable] = Mutated Grandkid [2X+1Y]


Edit: I find it interesting he didn't even bother trying to refute my arguments and then demanded that I post something in mathematics or he wouldn't believe my arguments that have real world proof to back them up.

 

If the equation is equivalent, then the preceding peice of the equation must have property x for it to be equal.

If equal acid + equal base = neutralized acid + base

the equation says that the two pieces negated each other. The equation is equivalent and so the preceding piece must have equal properties to get equal results.

 

Except you're ignoring that TWO PROPERTIES WERE LOST IN THE PROCESS (since at that point in time we were arguing about whether or not properties are constant). In addition, you completely ignored the radiation example and where that Y came from and where an X went.

 

What I have been arguing is that if the derived set has x, then its preceding set has x as well.

If the two sides are equivalent, then the preceding side must be equal to its future side, hence the preceding side must have the properties of the derived side.

 

Then your argument is factually wrong, as I've pointed out with the mutation aspect.

Edit: Nice how you keep ignoring it.

 

I totally agree...

 

Concession accepted. You never bothered to tackle the mutation aspect, and apparently refuse to, so... thanks for the argument.

 

*shock* Is Neph actually being challenged intellectually for once? My, if I wasn't so lazy, I'd check it out...^^:

 

Pffft no. Just aggravated this guy won't actually... y'know. Respond to the mutation argument.