A proton is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck lengths in diameter. Nothing is smaller than a plank length. What Wux posted makes absolutely no sense.

MsHarmony, you are almost understanding the point.

It seems to me that wux is making (in the text quoted above) a valid geometric argument for why a 'minimal travel distance' does not render a 2d (or higher d) region discrete, as long as there is no restriction on the angle of travel. Within the framework he is using, I think his argument is valid. I'm just not certain that all claims of that "the planck length renders space discrete" rely on the idea that 'you can't travel to that location due to the minimal travel distance'.

I mean (and maybe this is related to your point in comparing the planck length to the size of a proton) but some would argue that matter doesn't even exist at such clearly defined locations, but can be seen as localized peaks in a probability curve... so its less about travelling to a location in space, or more, it seems, about allowable energy levels.

The bold statement above is impossible.

What does being "perfect" have to do with being a creator??? Perfection and imperfection seems to me is a matter of opinion.

What does a person know about judging what is perfect or imperfect?

It seems to me that this universe and its laws is perfect enough to evolve into intelligent life.

You claim that perfection cannot create imperfection, right?

Then how would something unconscious become conscious?

How could something non-intelligent evolve into many different intelligent life forms?

Why does everyone insist that a creator has to be perfect? That's ridiculous.

And what is "perfect" anyway? We evolved didn't we? We became self aware didn't we? We live don't we? The laws of cause and effect work pretty damn good don't they?

Who in the world do we think we are to criticize this universe? Could we create such a thing that evolves and grows life and becomes self aware and intelligent?

There has to be some intelligence somewhere from whence we came if we claim to be intelligent at all.

Well it depends on if your talking about a snap shot of time with points of actual size, or an infinity of real points as space expands or a pool table with balls as points.

I think this side track is silly in the extreme. Its like arguing over tangential points which ultimately have no bearing on the main topic, and which just serve to illustrate how smart we all are.

If you consider infinitely expanding space, you have an infinity of points, each time you measure the distance it is larger allowing an infinitly expanding set of points with real size.

What is the old thought experiment, go half way to the wall then half way again. Walk half way across the universe then half again. Well if space continues to expand infinitely then you will have an infinity of points which you can occupy in your half step journeys across the universe.

If you take a snap shot and your points have size, then you cannot have an infinity of points. (ie the pool table cannot have an infinity of pool balls, we all agree on that.)
Shesh was that so hard? . . . and what did we gain in this convo?

The thing is the pool table is not the universe, and the Cartesian space is not the universe. Both do not represent the core topic. A snap shot of the universe at a single moment of time is also not the universe. All of these basis are not accurate to describe the kind of infinity which is at the heart of these cosmological models, which have nothing to do with creationism, nor evolution.

This is just so common to see people argue between the platonic space of math, and the real space of the universe, but then sometimes mix and match and still no cogent argument forth coming.

On the science forums I also regularly hang out on these kinds of arguments are so common. Person A uses an idealized space, person B uses a real space, person C mixes real spaces and idealized space to make his arguments, and none of them are correct because they are all talking about snap shots.

doesn't the bible say he's perfect?

yes, he is Godly perfect, a different standard then human perfect


we are to be perfect even as God is perfect, is a comparative statement saying we are to be like God,, not that He is supposed to be like us....

So because the Bible says God is perfect you believe it?

If Godly perfect is different than what we humans think perfect should be then how can we judge what is perfect or imperfect?

in my opinion, we cant, without accepting help from Jesus to do so,,,,listening to the inner voice that I believe to be his guidance,,,,

Well thank you!



Honestly, I don't see how there can ever be "truth" in this debate. We humans are never going to know everything! And in that space of what we don't know, our human nature is always going to have us arguing the possibilities. Even intelligent people with an interest in learning are brought up differently, in different circumstances, and do not easily agree. To me, the value of learning is that it encourages you to be tolerant of other points of view and humble about your own. One of the greatest sentences a person can say in any language is, "You may be right."

I don't disagree; that seems to be the consequence of our best theories about reality.

I'm just interested in identifying exactly where the geometric argument breaks down.


------





I'm fascinated by the possibility that there are finite number of discrete allowable locations within a 3d region; it's silly in the context of the original points being made, but really interesting to me in its own right.

I suppose it depends on the domain of the debate.

We don't need to know everything that there is to know - we just need to recognize when we have a sufficiently mature understanding of some particular domain. For example, our ignorance of human psychology doesn't stop us from being exceptionally (and justifiably) confident of our predictions of orbital mechanics. "You may be right" is sometimes dishonest and ignorant thing to say, when you know enough to know that (barring solipsism) there is no chance they may be right.

Consider the domain of evolution: There are intellectually honest anti-evolutionists out there who have been gradually acknowledging the truth of evolution for decades. They draw a line in the sand and say: "You can't justifiably assert anything beyond that line!" and they are right. But a decade later our understanding is more complete, more mature, and better evidenced, so they draw a new line and repeat the claim. Eventually, essentially all intelligent, honest, investigation-inclined people will recognize that humans are descended from other primates, and that the basic ideas of current evolutionary theories play a central role in that process that brought that about.

I think it is an assumption that evidence will be found to 'prove' men descended from primates

and even then, that would not disprove or negate the possibility of there having been an Adam and Eve who were created by God, it would only open a new possibility that IF there were Adam and Eve, they may have had the form of a primate
, still created by God and able to communicate with Him

We send people to the electric chair based on 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', rather than an actual, true logical 'proof'.

If you require absolute definite proof, you can't accept anything as true. Those who wish to deny reality, yet be 'logical', can always hide behind an insane standard of 'definite proof'.

It has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans descended from other primates, for everyone who has taken the time to learn and honestly investigate the question.




Um.... I thought that some bible literalists who believed that humans pre-existed the creation of adam and eve, given that there (apparently) were other humans outside of the garden for cain to go kick it with and have kids with. Am I totally confused about genesis? I haven't read it in a long time.

reasonable doubt is subjective, that is why jurors are CHOSEN and dont all serve,,,,,because those who pick jurys can profile what type of 'doubts' some are more likely to have than others,,,

and I oppose the electric chair for just that reason,,,,

the bible doesnt cover every moment of the life of every person in existence since time began,,,

there is no clear wording in the bible that 'humans' (a human scientific label) existed before adam and eve,, particularly in the details that science goes into

there is also no clear wording on WHOM cain had kids with, except that adam and eve were told to be fruitful and incest was not yet against the law (old testament)

There is no evidence to suggest that my inner voice or voices are Jesus.

I have heard my inner voice and it sounds like me. I have also experienced mental telepathy with specific individuals and I could identify them.

You forgot to add he speaks aramaic and i don't understand that so it isn't his voice in my head...lol

That's true.